Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, 29815-30191 [2013-08500]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29815-30191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08500]



[[Page 29815]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 98

May 21, 2013

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85 et al.





 Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle 
Emission and Fuel Standards; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 29816]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1065, and 1066

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135; FRL-9785-8]
RIN 2060-AQ86


Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor 
Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action would establish more stringent vehicle emissions 
standards and reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017, 
as part of a systems approach to addressing the impacts of motor 
vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The proposed 
gasoline sulfur standard would make emission control systems more 
effective for both existing and new vehicles, and would enable more 
stringent vehicle emissions standards. The proposed vehicle standards 
would reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger 
cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some 
heavy-duty vehicles. This would result in significant reductions in 
pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics across the 
country and help state and local agencies in their efforts to attain 
and maintain health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Motor 
vehicles are an important source of exposure to air pollution both 
regionally and near roads. These proposed vehicle standards are 
intended to harmonize with California's Low Emission Vehicle program, 
thus creating a federal vehicle emissions program that would allow 
automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states. The proposed 
vehicle standards would be implemented over the same timeframe as the 
greenhouse gas/fuel efficiency standards for light-duty vehicles, as 
part of a comprehensive approach toward regulating emissions from motor 
vehicles.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2013.
    Public Hearing: The public hearings were held on April 24, 2013 in 
Philadelphia, PA and April 29, 2013 in Chicago, IL.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0135, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: A-and-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 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 West Building, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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-
2011-0135. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The 
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 email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
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.B of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JoNell Iffland, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division 
(ASD), Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 
Arbor, MI 48105; Telephone number: (734) 214-4454; Fax number: (734) 
214-4816; Email address: iffland.jonell@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule include 
gasoline refiners and importers, ethanol producers, gasoline additive 
manufacturers, transmix processors, terminals and fuel distributors, 
light-duty vehicle manufacturers, independent commercial importers, 
alternative fuel converters, and manufacturers and converters of 
vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR).
    Potentially regulated categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Examples of potentially affected
                 Category                   NAICS \a\ Code     SIC \b\ Code                 entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................            324110              2911  Petroleum refineries (including
                                                                                importers).
Industry.................................            325110              2869  Butane manufacturers.

[[Page 29817]]

 
Industry.................................            325193              2869  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry.................................            211112              1321  Natural gas liquids extraction
                                                                                and fractionation.
Industry.................................            325199              2869  Other basic organic chemical
                                                                                manufacturing.
Industry.................................            486910              4613  Natural gas liquids pipelines,
                                                                                refined petroleum products
                                                                                pipelines.
Industry.................................            424690              5169  Chemical and allied products
                                                                                merchant wholesalers.
Industry.................................            325199              2869  Manufacturers of gasoline
                                                                                additives.
Industry.................................            424710              5171  Petroleum bulk stations and
                                                                                terminals. E51-83 manufacturers.
Industry.................................            493190              4226  Other warehousing and storage-
                                                                                bulk petroleum storage.
Industry.................................           336111,              3711  Light-duty vehicle and light-duty
                                                     336112                     truck manufacturers.
Industry.................................           811111,             7538,  Independent commercial importers.
                                                    811112,             7533,
                                                     811198              7534
Industry.................................           335312,             3621,  Alternative fuel converters.
                                                    336312,             3714,
                                                    336322,             3519,
                                                    336399,             3599,
                                                     811198              7534
Industry.................................           333618,             3699,  On-highway heavy-duty engine &
                                                    336120,             3711,   vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR)
                                                    336211,             3713,   manufacturers.
                                                     336312              3714
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
proposed action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this proposed action. Other 
types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To 
determine whether your activities would be regulated by this proposed 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 
CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 1065, and 1066 and the referenced 
regulations. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this proposed action to a particular entity, consult the person listed 
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov 
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail 
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

C. Did EPA conduct a peer review before issuing this notice?

    This regulatory action was supported by influential scientific 
information. Therefore, EPA conducted peer reviews in accordance with 
OMB's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Specifically, 
EPA conducted six peer reviews in connection with data supporting the 
proposed Tier 3 program, including new research on the effects of fuel 
properties changes (including sulfur effects) on exhaust and 
evaporative emissions of Tier 2 vehicles. The refinery-by-refinery cost 
model was also peer reviewed. The peer review reports are located in 
the docket for today's action, as well as the agency's response to the 
peer review comments.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary and Overview of Proposed Program
    A. Introduction
    B. What are the basic components of the proposed program?
    1. Proposed Standards for Light-Duty Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, 
and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions
    2. Proposed Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards
    3. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
    4. Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD)
    5. Emissions Test Fuel
    6. Fuel Standards
    7. Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Amendments
    C. What would the impacts of the proposed standards be?
II. Why is EPA making this proposal?
    A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act
    1. Clean Air Act Section 202
    2. Clean Air Act Section 211
    B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
    1. Ozone
    2. Particulate Matter
    3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides
    4. Carbon Monoxide

[[Page 29818]]

    5. Mobile Source Air Toxics
    6. Near-Roadway Pollution
    7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
III. How would this proposal reduce emissions and air pollution?
    A. Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and Fuel Changes on Mobile 
Source Emissions
    1. How do vehicles produce the emissions addressed in this 
proposal?
    2. How would the proposed changes to gasoline sulfur content 
affect vehicle emissions?
    B. How would emissions be reduced?
    1. NOX
    2. VOC
    3. CO
    4. Direct PM2.5
    5. Air Toxics
    6. SO2
    7. Greenhouse Gases
    C. How would air pollution be reduced?
    1. Ozone
    2. Particulate Matter
    3. Nitrogen Dioxide
    4. Air Toxics
    5. Visibility
    6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
    7. Environmental Justice
IV. Proposed Vehicle Emissions Program
    A. Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-
Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
    1. Overview
    2. Summary of Proposed FTP and SFTP Tailpipe Standards
    3. Proposed FTP Standards
    4. Proposed SFTP Standards
    5. Feasibility of the Proposed NMOG+NOX and PM 
Standards
    6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Feasibility of the 
Proposed Vehicle Emission Standards
    7. Other Provisions
    B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    1. Overview
    2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards
    3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs
    4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading
    5. Feasibility of HDV Standards
    6. Other HDV Provisions
    C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and Onboard Diagnostic System 
Requirements
    1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
    2. Evaporative Emissions Program Structure and Implementation 
Flexibilities
    3. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements
    4. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel
    5. Improvements to In-Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control 
Systems
    6. Other Initiatives
    D. Emissions Test Fuel
    1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel
    2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle Test Fuel
    3. Proposed Implementation Schedule
    4. Potential Implications on CAFE Standards, GHG Standards, and 
Fuel Economy Labels
    5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Heavy-Duty Engine 
Emissions Test Fuel
    6. Consideration of CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel
    E. Small-Business Provisions
    1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards
    2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
    3. Reduced Testing Burden
    4. Hardship
    5. Applicability of Flexibilities
    F. Compliance Provisions
    1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures
    2. Reduced Test Burden
    3. Miscellaneous Provisions
    4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification Testing (IUVP) Requirements
V. Proposed Fuel Program
    A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards
    1. Overview
    2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur Standard
    3. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
    B. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions
    1. Background on New Source Review Programs
    2. Background on NSR Experience Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program
    3. Changes in the NSR Permitting Program since Tier 2 Final Rule
    4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting 
Implications
    5. New Source Performance Standards and National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries
    6. Steps for Streamlining the Permitting Process
    C. Standards for Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates
    D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles
    1. Standards for E51-83
    2. Standards for Mid-Level Ethanol Blends (E16-50)
    E. Proposed Program Flexibilities
    1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
    2. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
    3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations
    F. Compliance Provisions
    1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
    2. Sampling and Testing Requirements
    3. Small Refiner Compliance
    4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance
    5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties
    6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions
    G. Statutory Authority for Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Controls
    1. Section 211(c)(1)(A)
    2. Section 211(c)(1)(B)
VI. Technical Amendments and Regulatory Streamlining
    A. Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 79 and 80
    1. Regulatory Streamlining
    2. Subpart I Technical Amendments
    3. Performance-Based Measurement Systems (PBMS)
    4. Downstream Pentane Blending
    B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs
    1. Fuel Economy Labeling
    2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text
    3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules
    4. Updating Reference Procedures
VII. What are the cost impacts of the proposed rule?
    A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle Standards
    B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program
    1. Overview
    2. Methodology
    3. Summary of Costs Without ABT Program
    4. Summary of Costs With ABT Program
    5. Other Cost Estimates
    C. Summary of Proposed Program Costs
    D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced
VIII. What are the estimated benefits of the proposed rule?
    A. Overview
    B. Quantified Human Health Impacts
    C. Monetized Benefits
    D. What are the limitations of the benefits analysis?
    E. Illustrative Analysis of Monetized Impacts Associated With 
the Proposal in 2017
IX. Alternatives Analysis
    A. Vehicle Emission Standards
    1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phase-in
    2. Longer NMOG+NOX Standards Phase-in Due to Early 
Credits
    3. Shorter PM Standards Phase-in
    4. NMOG+NOX Standards
    5. PM Standards
    B. Fuel Sulfur Standards
X. Economic Impact Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Vehicle Sales Impacts
    C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production
    D. Employment Impacts
    1. Employment Impacts in the Auto Sector
    2. Refinery Employment Impacts
XI. Public Participation
    A. How do I submit comments?
    B. How should I submit CBI to the Agency?
    C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    D. Will there be a public hearing?
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Overview
    2. Background
    3. Reason for Today's Proposed Rule
    4. Legal Basis for Agency Action
    5. Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
    6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance
    7. Related Federal Rules
    8. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach
    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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

[[Page 29819]]

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
XIII. Statutory Provisions And Legal Authority

I. Executive Summary and Overview of Proposed Program

A. Introduction

    In this action, EPA is proposing a major program designed to reduce 
air pollution from passenger cars and trucks. This program includes new 
standards for both vehicle emissions and the sulfur content of 
gasoline, considering the vehicle and its fuel as an integrated system. 
We refer to this proposed program as the ``Tier 3'' vehicle and fuel 
standards.
    This proposed rule is part of a comprehensive approach to address 
the impacts of motor vehicles on air quality and public health. Over 
158 million Americans are currently experiencing unhealthy levels of 
air pollution, which are linked with respiratory and cardiovascular 
problems and other adverse health impacts that lead to increased 
medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and 
premature mortality.\1\ Motor vehicles are a particularly important 
source of exposure to air pollution, especially in urban areas. By 2014 
we project that in many nonattainment areas, cars and light trucks will 
contribute 30-45 percent of total nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
emissions, 20-25 percent of total volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions, and 5-10 percent of total direct particulate matter 
(PM2.5) emissions.\2\ These compounds form ozone, PM, and 
other air pollutants, whose health and environmental effects are 
described in more detail in Section II. Cars and light trucks also 
continue to be a significant contributor to air pollution directly near 
roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting for more than 50 percent of 
near-road concentrations of some criteria and toxic pollutants.\3\ More 
than 50 million people live, work, or go to school in close proximity 
to high-traffic roadways, and the average American spends more than one 
hour traveling along roads each day.4 5 Almost 90 percent of 
daily trips use personal vehicles.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population 
Exposure Report, current as of December 14, 2012 at: https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
    \2\ Mobile source contributions derived from inventories 
developed for the Final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (76 FR 48208, 
August 8, 2011). For more information on these inventories see the 
``Technical Support Document (TSD) for the final Transport Rule, 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491, Emissions Inventory Final Rule 
TSD,'' available on the web at ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_28jun2011.pdf.
    \3\ For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, B.; 
Arnott, W.P.; Chow, J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in 
Motor Vehicle-Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute 
Research Report 156. Available at https://www.healtheffects.org
    \4\ U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Current Housing Reports, Series 
H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html. (Note that 
this survey includes estimates of homes within 300 feet of highways 
with four or more lanes, railroads, and airports.)
    \5\ Drago, R. (2011). Secondary activities in the 2006 American 
Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. 
Available at https://www.bls.gov.
    \6\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (2003). National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights 
Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at 
https://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards set forth in this proposed rule would significantly 
reduce levels of multiple air pollutants (such as ambient levels of 
ozone, PM, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and mobile source air 
toxics (MSATs)) across the country, with immediate impacts expected due 
to the proposed sulfur control standards starting in 2017. These 
reductions would help state and local agencies in their effort to 
attain and maintain health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS). Few other national strategies exist that would deliver the 
same magnitude of multi-pollutant reductions projected to result from 
the proposed Tier 3 standards. In the absence of additional controls, 
many areas will continue to have ambient ozone concentrations exceeding 
the NAAQS in the future. See Section III.C for more details.
    The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards 
for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (section 202). EPA 
also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air 
pollution (section 211). These statutory authorities are described in 
Section II.A.
    The vehicle and gasoline sulfur standards we are proposing 
represent a ``systems approach'' to reducing vehicle-related exhaust 
and evaporative emissions by addressing the vehicle and fuel as a 
system. The systems approach enables emission reductions that are both 
technologically feasible and cost-effective beyond what would be 
possible looking at vehicle and fuel standards in isolation. We first 
applied such an approach with our Tier 2 vehicle/gasoline sulfur 
standards (finalized in 2000).\7\ We believe that a similar approach 
for the proposed Tier 3 standards would be a cost-effective way to 
achieve substantial additional emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Tier 3 standards include new light- and heavy-duty 
vehicle emission standards for exhaust emissions of VOC (specifically, 
non-methane organic gases, or NMOG), NOX, and PM, as well as 
evaporative emissions standards. The proposed standards for light-duty 
vehicle, light-duty truck, and medium-duty passenger vehicle tailpipe 
emissions are an 80 percent reduction in fleet average 
NMOG+NOX compared to current standards, and a 70 percent 
reduction in per-vehicle PM standards. The proposed Tier 3 heavy-duty 
vehicle tailpipe emissions standards provide reductions in both 
NMOG+NOX and PM that are on the order of 60 percent, 
compared to current standards. The proposed evaporative emissions 
standards represent a 50 percent reduction from current standards.
    The vehicle emission standards, combined with the proposed 
reduction of gasoline sulfur content from the current 30 parts per 
million (ppm) average down to a 10-ppm average, would result in 
dramatic emissions reductions for NOX, VOC, direct 
PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO) and air toxics. For example, in 
2030, when Tier 3 vehicles would make up the majority of the fleet as 
well as vehicle miles travelled, NOX and VOC emissions from 
on-highway vehicles would be reduced by about one quarter, and CO 
emissions would be reduced by about 30 percent. Emissions of many air 
toxics would also be reduced by 10 to nearly 40 percent of national 
emissions from on-highway vehicles. Reductions would continue beyond 
2030 as more of the fleet is composed of Tier 3 vehicles. For example, 
the Tier 3 program would reduce on-highway emissions of NOX 
and VOC nearly 40 percent by 2050, when Tier 3 vehicles would comprise 
almost the entire fleet.
    Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on catalytic converters 
to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and 
NOX, as well as PM (specifically, the volatile hydrocarbon 
fraction), CO, and most air toxics. The catalytic converters become 
significantly less efficient when sulfur

[[Page 29820]]

from the gasoline is deposited (adsorbed) onto the precious metals that 
catalyze the reactions to reduce the emissions. The Tier 2 rulemaking 
required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline by 
approximately 90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. As discussed in 
Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a compelling case that 
even this level of sulfur not only degrades the emission performance of 
vehicles on the road today, but also inhibits necessary further 
reductions in vehicle emissions performance to reach the proposed Tier 
3 standards. Thus, the proposed Tier 3 10-ppm average sulfur standard 
is significant in two ways: it enables vehicles designed to the 
proposed Tier 3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards in-
use for the duration of their useful life, and it facilitates immediate 
emission reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the 
sulfur controls are implemented. Lower sulfur gasoline also facilitates 
the development of lower-cost technologies to improve fuel economy. 
Sulfur in the fuel quickly causes the fuel economy benefits of lean-
burn technologies to disappear due to its effect on NOx adsorber 
operation requiring more fuel to be burned. We are not the first 
regulatory agency to recognize the need for lower-sulfur gasoline. 
Agencies in Europe and Japan have already imposed gasoline sulfur caps 
of 10 ppm, and the State of California is already averaging 10 ppm 
sulfur with a per gallon cap of 20 ppm. Other states are preempted by 
the Clean Air Act from adopting new fuel programs to meet air quality 
objectives. Consequently, they could not receive the air quality 
benefits of lower sulfur gasoline without federal action.
    This proposal is one aspect of a comprehensive national program 
regulating emissions from motor vehicles. EPA's recent final rule for 
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty (LD) vehicles 
starting with model year (MY) 2017 (referred to here as the ``2017 LD 
GHG'' standards) is another aspect of this comprehensive program.\8\ 
The Tier 3 proposal addresses interactions with the 2017 LD GHG rule in 
a manner that aligns implementation of the two actions, to achieve 
significant criteria pollutant and GHG emissions reductions while 
providing regulatory certainty and compliance efficiency. As vehicle 
manufacturers introduce new vehicle platforms for compliance with the 
GHG standards, they will be able to design them for compliance with the 
Tier 3 standards at the same time. The proposed Tier 3 standards are 
also closely coordinated with California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV 
III) program to create a vehicle emissions program that would allow 
automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states. (In December 
2012 EPA approved a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption for the 
California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) LEV III program with 
compliance beginning in 2015. Ten states have adopted the LEV III 
program under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act.\9\) We have worked 
closely with individual vehicle manufacturers and their trade 
associations, who have emphasized the importance of a harmonized 
national program. Together, the Tier 3, 2017 LD GHG, and LEV III 
standards would maximize reductions in GHGs, criteria pollutants and 
air toxics from motor vehicles while streamlining programs and enabling 
manufacturers to design a single vehicle for nationwide sales, thus 
reducing their costs of compliance. In this way, the Tier 3 proposal 
responds to the May 21, 2010 Presidential Memorandum that requested 
that EPA develop a comprehensive approach toward regulating motor 
vehicles, including consideration of non-GHG emissions standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
    \9\ These states include Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Washington, and Vermont.
    \10\ The Presidential Memorandum is found at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the systems approach to this program, we are considering 
the future fuels on which vehicles will be operating. In particular, 
the renewable fuels mandate that was revised by the Energy Independence 
and Security Act (EISA) and is being implemented through the Renewable 
Fuel Standards program (RFS2)\11\ will result in significant amounts of 
ethanol-blended gasoline in the implementation timeframe of the 
proposed Tier 3 program. We are proposing to update the specifications 
of the certification test fuel with which vehicles demonstrate 
compliance with emissions standards, in order to better reflect the 
ethanol content and other properties of gasoline that will be in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section provides an overview of the vehicle- and fuel-related 
standards we are proposing as well as the impacts of the proposed 
standards. The public health issues and statutory requirements that 
have prompted this proposal are described in Section II, and our 
discussion of how the proposal would reduce emissions and air pollution 
is presented in Section III. Details of proposed standards and how they 
would be implemented can be found in Sections IV through VI. Sections 
VII through X contain our discussion of the proposed standards' 
technological feasibility and cost, benefits, alternatives and economic 
impacts.

B. What are the basic components of the proposed program?

    In the more than 10 years since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle 
Program, manufacturers of light-duty vehicles have continued to develop 
a wide range of improved technologies capable of reducing key exhaust 
emissions, especially VOC, NOX, and PM. The California LEV 
II program has been instrumental in the continuous technology 
improvements by requiring year after year reductions in the fleet 
average hydrocarbon levels, in addition to requiring the introduction 
of advanced exhaust and evaporative emission controls in partial zero 
emission vehicles (PZEVs). This progress in vehicle technology has made 
it possible for manufacturers to achieve emission reductions well 
beyond the requirements of the Tier 2 program if gasoline sulfur levels 
are lowered further.
    As a result, we are proposing new standards for exhaust emissions 
of NMOG, NOX, and PM, as well as evaporative emissions 
standards. These standards would phase in beginning with MY 2017. The 
proposed Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to those in the 
existing Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the proposed 
standards would apply to all light-duty vehicles (LDVs, or passenger 
cars), light-duty trucks (LDT1s, LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and Medium-
Duty Passenger Vehicles (or MDPVs). We are also proposing separate but 
closely related standards for heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 lbs 
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). These vehicles were not included in 
Tier 2 but were made subject to new standards in a final rule that 
covered the broad heavy-duty sector (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001). We 
have concluded that the proposed vehicle emissions standards, in 
conjunction with the reductions in fuel sulfur also proposed in this 
action, are feasible across the fleet in the proposed time frame.
    In the discussions of the various elements of our proposed program 
for light- and heavy-duty vehicles throughout this preamble, we 
describe how the provisions would be consistent with the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program. Auto

[[Page 29821]]

manufacturers have stressed to us the importance of their being able to 
design and produce a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that 
would comply with requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III 
program, as well as greenhouse gas/Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
(CAFE) requirements in the same timeframe. Consistency among the 
federal and California programs means that special versions of vehicles 
with different emission control hardware and calibrations would not be 
necessary for different geographic areas. This would allow 
manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design, 
development, calibration, and manufacturing. Consistency among programs 
would also eliminate the need to supply aftermarket parts for repair of 
multiple versions of a vehicle. To that end, we worked closely with 
CARB and with the vehicle manufacturers, both with individual companies 
and with their trade associations, to align the two programs in most 
respects.
    We have also designed the proposed Tier 3 program to be implemented 
in the same timeframe as the federal and California GHG emissions and 
fuel economy standards for model years 2017-2025. We expect that in 
response to these programs, manufacturers will be developing entirely 
new powertrains for most of their vehicles. Because the Tier 3 
standards would phase in over the same timeframe, manufacturers would 
be in a position to simultaneously respond to all of these 
requirements.
1. Proposed Standards for Light-Duty Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, and 
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions
    We are proposing a comprehensive program that would include new 
fleet-average standards for the sum of NMOG and NOX tailpipe 
emissions (presented as NMOG+NOX) and for PM.\12\ These 
proposed standards, when applied in conjunction with reduced gasoline 
sulfur content, would result in very significant improvements in 
vehicle emissions from the levels of the Tier 2 program. For these 
pollutants, we are proposing standards as measured on test procedures 
that represent a range of vehicle operation, including the Federal Test 
Procedure (or FTP, simulating typical driving) and the Supplemental 
Federal Test Procedure (or SFTP, a composite test simulating higher 
temperatures, higher speeds, and quicker accelerations). In addition to 
the standards, we are also proposing to extend the regulatory useful 
life period during which the standards apply and to make test fuel more 
representative of expected real-world fuel (see Section I.B.5 below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A discussion of the reasons for combining the two 
pollutants for this purpose is in Section IV.A.3.a below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section IV.A.6., the impact of gasoline sulfur 
poisoning on exhaust catalyst performance provides a compelling 
argument, particularly for larger vehicles and trucks, that these 
vehicle standards would be achievable only with a reduction of gasoline 
sulfur content from the current 30-ppm average down to a 10-ppm 
average. Sulfur is a well-known catalyst poison. The nature of sulfur's 
interactions with active catalytic materials is complex and varies with 
catalyst composition, exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. 
Thus, even if a manufacturer were able to certify a new vehicle to the 
proposed new stringent standards, the manufacturer's ability to 
maintain the emission performance of that vehicle in-use is greatly 
jeopardized if the vehicle is being operated on gasoline sulfur levels 
greater than 10 ppm. Vehicle manufacturers, both individually and 
through their trade associations, have emphasized that reduced gasoline 
sulfur would be required to meet the proposed 
standards.13 14 Due to the variation in actual vehicle 
operation, any amount of gasoline sulfur will deteriorate catalyst 
efficiency. However, we believe that a 10-ppm average sulfur level is 
sufficiently low to enable compliance with these proposed Tier 3 
vehicle standards, and as described below and in Section V, reducing 
sulfur levels further would cause sulfur control costs to quickly 
escalate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Letter to EPA Administrator Jackson, with white paper, from 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, October 6, 2011.
    \14\ Global Automakers letter to EPA Administrator Jackson, 
October 21, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards would be 
fleet-average standards, meaning that a manufacturer would calculate 
the average emissions of the vehicles it sells in each model year and 
compare that average to the applicable standard for that model year. 
The manufacturer would certify each of its vehicles to a per-vehicle 
``bin'' standard (see Section IV.A.2) and sales-weight these values to 
calculate its fleet-average NMOG+NOX emissions for each 
model year. The proposed fleet average standards for 
NMOG+NOX evaluated over the FTP are summarized in Table I-1. 
The standards for light-duty vehicles would begin in MY 2017 at a level 
representing a 46 percent reduction from the current Tier 2 
requirements. (For vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR, the standards would 
apply beginning in MY 2018). As shown, these proposed fleet-average 
standards would decline during the first several years of the program, 
becoming increasingly stringent until ultimately reaching an 81 percent 
reduction when the transition is complete. The proposed FTP 
NMOG+NOX program includes two separate sets of declining 
fleet-average standards, with LDVs and small light trucks (LDT1s) in 
one grouping and heavier light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s) and MDPVs 
in a second grouping, that would converge at 30 milligram per mile (mg/
mi) in MY 2025 and later.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to certify its 
entire fleet of passenger cars and light trucks to the 30 mg/mi 
level beginning in MY 2017 and continuing for all subsequent model 
years. A percent phase-in would apply. This would not be a fleet-
average standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers could also earn credits for fleet average 
NMOG+NOX levels below the applicable standard in any model 
year. Credits that were previously banked or obtained from other 
manufacturers could be used, or credits could be transferred to other 
manufacturers (see Section IV.A.7.a). Unused credits would expire after 
5 model years. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry deficits in 
their credit balance for up to 3 model years.

[[Page 29822]]



                                       Table I-1--Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX FTP Standards
                                                                         [mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Model year
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                2025 and
                                                        2017 \a\     2018       2019       2020       2021       2022       2023       2024      later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV/LDT1 \b\.........................................         86         79         72         65         58         51         44         37         30
LDT2,3,4 and MDPV....................................        101         92         83         74         65         56         47         38         30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ These proposed standards would apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify all of their LDVs and LDT1s to a useful
  life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet-average standard
  would apply, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg. See Section IV.A.7.b.

    Similarly, the proposed NMOG+NOX standards measured over 
the SFTP would be fleet-average standards, declining from MY 2017 until 
MY 2025, as shown in Table I-2. In this case, the same standards would 
apply to both lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 2025, the SFTP 
NMOG+NOX standard would reach its final fleet average level 
of 50 mg/mi.

                                      Table I-2--Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX SFTP Standards
                                                                         [mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Model year
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                2025 and
                                                        2017 \a\     2018       2019       2020       2021       2022       2023       2024      later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG + NOX...........................................        103         97         90         83         77         70         63         57         50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.

    We are also proposing PM standards as part of this Tier 3 program, 
both on the FTP and US06 cycles (US06 is a component of the SFTP test). 
Research has demonstrated that the level of PM from gasoline light-duty 
vehicles is more significant than previously thought.\16\ Although many 
vehicles today are performing at or near the levels of the proposed 
standards, the data indicate that improvements, especially in high-load 
fuel control and in the durability of engine components, are possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Nam, E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michaels, H.; 
Baldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarbro, C. (2008). Analysis of 
Particulate Matter Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles in 
Kansas City, EPA420-R-08-010. Assessment and Standards Division 
Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under typical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of 
most current-technology gasoline vehicles are fairly low at 
certification and in use, well below the Tier 2 p.m. standards. At the 
same time we see considerable variation in PM emissions among vehicles 
of various makes, models, and designs. As a result, we are proposing a 
new FTP PM standard that is set to ensure that all new vehicles perform 
at the level already being achieved by well-designed Tier 2 emission 
control technologies. The proposed PM standards would apply to each 
vehicle separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in contrast to 
the declining NMOG+NOX standards, the proposed PM standard 
on the FTP for certification testing is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and 
for all model years. As for the NMOG+NOX standards, for 
vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR, the FTP PM standard would apply beginning 
in MY 2018. Manufacturers could phase in their vehicle models as a 
percent of U.S. sales through MY 2022. Most vehicles are already 
performing at this stringent PM level, and the primary intent of the 
proposed standard is to bring all light-duty vehicles to the typical 
level of PM performance being demonstrated by the current light-duty 
fleet.
    The proposed program also includes a separate in-use FTP PM 
standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in-use vehicles that would apply 
during the percent phase-in period only. This in-use standard would 
address the uncertainties that accompany the introduction of new 
technologies, and then expire. Table I-3 presents the FTP certification 
and in-use PM standards and the phase-in percentages. The proposed 
standards represent a significant numerical reduction from the Tier 2 
p.m. emission standards of 10 mg/mi for light-duty vehicles.

                                Table I-3--Phase-In for Proposed FTP PM Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        2022 and
                                                 2017 \a\     2018       2019       2020       2021      later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-In (percent of U.S. sales)..............         20         20         40         70        100        100
Certification Standard (mg/mi)................          3          3          3          3          3          3

[[Page 29823]]

 
In-Use Standard (mg/mi).......................          6          6          6          6          6          3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.

    Finally, the proposed Tier 3 program includes certification PM 
standards evaluated over the SFTP (specifically the US06 component of 
the SFTP procedure) at a level of 10 mg/mi for lighter vehicles and 20 
mg/mi for heavier vehicles. PM levels over the SFTP are typically 
higher than the PM emitted over the FTP due to the increased load on 
the vehicle. Test data show that most current light-duty vehicles are 
already performing in the range of the proposed standard. As in the 
case of the FTP PM standards, the intent of the proposed standard is to 
bring the emission performance of all vehicles to that already being 
demonstrated by many vehicles in the current light-duty fleet.
    As with the FTP PM standard, we propose separate in-use US06 p.m. 
standards during the percent phase-in only, of 15 and 25 mg/mi for 
vehicles up to and above 6,000 lbs (lbs) GVWR, respectively. The US06 
p.m. standards would also phase in on the same schedule as the FTP PM 
standards, reaching 100 percent of each company's U.S. sales by MY 
2022.
2. Proposed Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards
    As discussed in detail in Section IV.B, we are proposing Tier 3 
exhaust emissions standards for complete heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) 
between 8,501 and 14,000 lb GVWR. Vehicles in this GVWR range are often 
referred to as Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lb) and Class 3 (10,001-14,000 
lb) vehicles, and are typically full-size pickup trucks and work vans. 
Most are built by companies with even larger light-duty truck markets, 
and as such they frequently share major design characteristics and 
potential emissions control technologies with their LDT counterparts. 
However, in contrast to the largely gasoline-fueled LDT fleet, roughly 
half of the HD pickup and van fleet in the U.S. is diesel-fueled, which 
is a consideration in setting emissions standards, as diesel engine 
emissions and control strategies differ from those of gasoline engines.
    The key elements of the proposed Tier 3 program for HDVs would 
parallel those proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments 
in standards levels, emissions test requirements, and implementation 
schedules, appropriate to this sector. These key elements include a 
combined NMOG+NOX declining fleet average standard, new 
stringent PM standards phasing in on a separate schedule, adoption of a 
15 percent ethanol by volume (E15) certification test fuel for 
gasoline-fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to 
150,000 miles or 15 years (whichever occurs first), and a new 
requirement to meet standards over an SFTP that would address real-
world driving modes not well-represented by the FTP cycle alone.
    We are proposing the separate Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average 
NMOG+NOX standards shown in Table I-4. The proposed 
standards would become more stringent in successive model years from 
2018 to 2022, with voluntary standards made available in 2016 and 2017, 
all of which would be set at levels that match those of California's 
LEV III program for these classes of vehicles. Each covered HDV sold by 
a manufacturer in each model year would contribute to this fleet 
average based on the mg/mi NMOG+NOX level of the emission 
level (``bin'') declared for it by the manufacturer. Manufacturers 
could also earn credits for fleet average NMOG+NOX levels 
below the standard in any model year. Tier 3 credits that were 
previously banked, obtained from other manufacturers, or transferred 
across the Class 2b/Class 3 categories could be used to help 
demonstrate compliance. Unused credits would expire after 5 model 
years. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry deficits in their 
credit balance for up to 3 model years.

                                                Table I-4--Proposed HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
                                                                         [mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Voluntary
                                                                 Required program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year...................................       2016       2017       2018       2019       2020       2021  2022 and later.
Class 2b.....................................        333        310        278        253        228        203  178.
Class 3......................................        548        508        451        400        349        298  247.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing PM standards of 8 mg/mi and 10 mg/mi for Class 2b 
and Class 3 HDVs, respectively, phasing in as an increasing percentage 
of a manufacturer's sales per year. We are proposing the same phase-in 
schedule as proposed for the light-duty sector during model years 2018-
2019-2020-2021: 20-40-70-100 percent, respectively, and a more flexible 
but equivalent alternative PM phase-in is also being proposed. Tier 3 
HDVs would also be subject to more stringent CO and formaldehyde 
exhaust emissions standards.
    Finally, we are proposing first-ever SFTP standards for HDVs to 
ensure a robust overall control program that precludes high off-FTP 
cycle emissions by having vehicle designers consider them in their 
choice of compliance strategies. As for light-duty vehicles, we are 
proposing that SFTP compliance be based on a weighted composite of 
measured emissions from testing over the FTP cycle, the SC03 cycle, and 
an aggressive driving cycle, with the latter tailored to various HDV 
sub-categories: the US06 cycle for most HDVs, the highway portion of 
the US06 cycle for low power-to-weight Class 2b HDVs, and the LA-92 (or 
``Unified'') cycle for Class 3 HDVs. The proposed SFTP standards are 
the same as those adopted for California LEV III vehicles, and would 
apply to NMOG+NOX, PM, and CO emissions.
    Overall, we expect the Tier 3 program we are proposing for HDVs to 
result in

[[Page 29824]]

substantial reductions in harmful emissions from this large fleet of 
work trucks and vans. The final Tier 3 standards levels for 
NMOG+NOX and PM are on the order of 60 percent lower than 
the current stringent standards that took full effect in the 2009 model 
year.
3. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
    Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel systems occur when a 
vehicle is in operation, when it is parked, and when it is being 
refueled. These evaporative emissions, which occur on a daily basis 
from gasoline-powered vehicles, are primarily functions of temperature, 
fuel vapor pressure, and activity. EPA first instituted evaporative 
emission standards in the early 1970s to address emissions when 
vehicles are parked after being driven. These are commonly referred to 
as hot soak plus diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test 
procedures have been modified and improved and the standards have 
become more numerically stringent. We have addressed emissions which 
arose from new fuel system designs by putting in place new requirements 
such as running loss emission standards and test procedure provisions 
to address permeation emissions. Subsequently standards were put in 
place to control refueling emissions from all classes of gasoline-
powered motor vehicles up to 10,000 lbs GVWR. Even though evaporative 
and refueling emission control systems have been in place for most of 
these vehicles for many years, they still contribute about 30-40 
percent of the summer on-highway mobile source hydrocarbon inventory. 
These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and also 
contain air toxics such as benzene.
    To control evaporative emissions, EPA is proposing more stringent 
standards that would require covered vehicles to have essentially zero 
fuel vapor emissions in use. These include more stringent evaporative 
emissions standards, new test procedures, and a new fuel/evaporative 
system leak emission standard. The program also includes refueling 
emission standards for a portion of heavy-duty gasoline vehicles 
(HDGVs) over 10,000 lbs GVWR. EPA is proposing phase-in flexibilities 
as well as credit and allowance programs. The proposed standards, 
harmonized with California's ``zero evap'' standards, are designed to 
essentially allow for a use of common technology in vehicle models sold 
throughout the U.S. The level of the standard remains above zero to 
account for nonfuel background emissions from the vehicle hardware 
itself.
    Requirements to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations 
would phase-in over a six model year period. We are proposing two 
options for the 2017 model year, but after that the sales percentage 
requirements are 60 percent for MYs 2018 and 2019, 80 percent for model 
years 2020 and 2021, and 100 percent for model years 2022 and later. In 
Table I-5 we present the proposed evaporative diurnal plus hot soak 
emission standards by vehicle class. The standards are approximately a 
50 percent reduction from the existing standards. To enhance 
flexibility and reduce costs, EPA is proposing a program that would 
allow manufacturers to generate allowances through early certifications 
(basically before the 2017 model year) and to demonstrate compliance 
using averaging concepts. Manufacturers may comply on average within 
each of the four vehicle categories, but not across these categories. 
EPA is not proposing any changes to the existing light-duty running 
loss or refueling emission standards, with the exception of the 
certification test fuel requirement discussed in Section I.B.5 below.

           Table I-5--Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards
                                [g/test]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Highest diurnal + hot
                                                  soak level  (over both
                 Vehicle class                   2-day and 3-day diurnal
                                                          tests)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1......................................                    0.300
LDT2...........................................                    0.400
LDT3, LDT4, MDPV...............................                    0.500
HDGVs..........................................                    0.600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing a new testing requirement referred to as the bleed 
emission test procedure to help ensure fuel vapor emissions are 
eliminated. Under this proposal, manufacturers would be required to 
measure diurnal emissions over the 2-day diurnal test procedure from 
just the fuel tank and the evaporative emission canister and comply 
with a 0.020 gram per test (g/test) standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and 
MDPVs, without averaging. The corresponding canister bleed test 
standard for HDGVs would be 0.030 g/test. The proposed Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards would be phased in over a period of six 
model years between MY 2017 and MY 2022, with the leak test phasing in 
beginning in 2018.
    Data from in-use evaporative emissions testing indicates that vapor 
leaks from vehicle fuel/evaporative systems are found in the fleet and 
that even very small leaks have the potential to make relatively 
significant contributions to the mobile source VOC inventory. To help 
address this issue, we are also proposing to add a new emission 
standard and test procedure to control vapor leaks from vehicle fuel 
and vapor control systems. The standard would prohibit leaks with a 
cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.02 inches or greater. We are 
proposing to add this simple and inexpensive test and emission standard 
to help ensure vehicles maintain zero fuel vapor emissions over their 
full useful life. New LDV, LDT, MDPV, and HDGV equal to or less than 
14.000 lbs GVWR meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 
regulations would also be required to meet the leak emission standard 
beginning in the 2018 model year. The requirement to meet the leak 
emission standard would phase-in on the same percentage of sales 
schedule as the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standard. 
Manufacturers would comply with the leak emission standard during 
certification and in use. EPA is not proposing that the leak emission 
standard apply to HDGVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR.
    EPA is also proposing new refueling emission control requirements 
for all HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs GVWR (i.e., Class 2b/3 
HDGVs), starting in the 2018 model year. EPA is proposing to include 
these vehicles as part of the same basic implementation scheme used for 
LDVs and LDTs. The current refueling emission control requirements 
apply to complete Class 2b HDGVs, and EPA is proposing to extend those 
requirements to Class 3 HDGVs as well, since the fuel and evaporative 
control systems on these vehicles are very similar to those on their 
slightly lighter-weight Class 2b counterparts.
4. Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD)
    EPA and CARB both have OBD regulations applicable to the vehicle 
classes covered by the proposed Tier 3 emission standards. In the past 
the requirements have been very similar, so most manufacturers have met 
CARB OBD requirements and, as permitted in our regulations, EPA has 
generally accepted compliance with CARB's OBD requirements as 
satisfying EPA's OBD requirements. Over the past several years CARB has 
upgraded its requirements to help improve the effectiveness of OBD in 
ensuring good in-use exhaust and evaporative system emissions 
performance. We have reviewed these provisions and agree with CARB that 
these revisions will

[[Page 29825]]

help to improve in-use emissions performance, while at the same time 
harmonizing with the CARB program. Toward that end, we are proposing to 
adopt and incorporate by reference the current CARB OBD regulations 
effective for the 2017 MY. We are also proposing two specific additions 
to enhance the implementation of the leak emission standard. EPA would 
retain the provision that certifying with CARB's program would permit 
manufacturers to seek a separate EPA certificate on that basis.
5. Emissions Test Fuel
    In-use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA's test fuel 
specifications were first set and last revised. Gasoline sulfur and 
benzene have been reduced and, perhaps most importantly, gasoline 
containing 10 percent ethanol by volume (E10) has replaced clear 
gasoline (E0) across the country. This has had second-order effects on 
other gasoline properties. In-use fuel is projected to continue to 
change with the implementation of the RFS2 program (e.g., the potential 
expansion of the number of retailers that offer gasoline containing 15 
percent ethanol by volume (E15)) as well as today's proposed Tier 3 
gasoline sulfur program.
    As a result, we are proposing to update our federal emissions test 
fuel to better match today's in-use gasoline and also to be forward-
looking with respect to future ethanol and sulfur content. The new test 
fuel specifications would apply to new vehicle certification, assembly 
line, and in-use testing. EPA is also proposing changes consistent with 
CARB's LEV III emissions test fuel specifications. Key changes include:
     Moving away from ``Indolene'' (E0) to an E15 test fuel;
     Lowering octane to match regular-grade gasoline (except 
for premium-required vehicles);
     Adjusting distillation temperatures, aromatics, and 
olefins to better match today's in-use fuel and to be consistent with 
anticipated E15 composition; and
     Lowering the existing sulfur specification and setting a 
benzene specification to be consistent with proposed Tier 3 gasoline 
sulfur requirements and recent MSAT2 gasoline benzene requirements.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed E15 emissions test fuel specifications are detailed in 
Section IV.D.1 as well as Sec.  1065.710 of the proposed regulations. 
For more information on how we arrived at the proposed fuel parameters 
and ASTM test methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA).
    In addition to proposing a new E15 emissions test fuel, we are also 
proposing for the first time detailed specifications for the E85 
emissions test fuel used for flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) certification, 
as discussed in Section IV.D.2.\18\ This is intended to avoid 
uncertainty and confusion in the certification of FFVs designed to 
operate on ethanol levels up to 83 percent. Furthermore, we are 
proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to request approval for an 
alternative certification fuel such as a high-octane 30 percent ethanol 
by volume (E30) blend for vehicles they might design or optimize for 
use on such a fuel. This could help manufacturers that wish to raise 
compression ratios to improve vehicle efficiency, as a step toward 
complying with the 2017 and later light-duty greenhouse gas and CAFE 
standards (2017 LD GHG). This in turn could help provide a market 
incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 by overcoming the 
disincentive of lower fuel economy associated with increasing ethanol 
concentrations in fuel, and enhance the environmental performance of 
ethanol as a transportation fuel by using it to enable more fuel 
efficient engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Flexible fuel vehicles are currently required to meet 
emissions certification requirements using both E0 and E85 test 
fuels. However, there are currently no detailed regulatory 
specifications regarding the composition of E85 test fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed new 
emission test fuel requirements, we also seek comment on whether there 
are other aspects of today's proposed standards that, if modified, 
might provide an incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the development 
of highly efficient vehicles optimized for use on higher level ethanol 
blends.
6. Fuel Standards
    Under the Tier 3 fuel program, we are proposing that gasoline and 
any ethanol-gasoline blend contain no more than 10 ppm sulfur on an 
annual average basis by January 1, 2017. Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline 
program, the proposed Tier 3 program would apply to gasoline in the 
U.S. and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, 
excluding California. The proposed program would result in gasoline 
that contains, on average, two-thirds less sulfur than it does today. 
In addition, following discussions with numerous refiners and other 
segments of the fuel market (e.g., pipelines, terminals, marketers, 
ethanol industry representatives, transmix processors, additive 
manufacturers), we are proposing a Tier 3 fuel program that contains 
considerable flexibility to ease both initial and long-term 
implementation of the program. We are proposing an averaging, banking, 
and trading (ABT) program that would allow refiners and importers to 
spread out their investments through an early credit program and rely 
on ongoing nationwide averaging to meet the 10-ppm sulfur standard. We 
are also proposing a three-year delay for small refiners and ``small 
volume refineries'' processing less than or equal to 75,000 barrels of 
crude oil per day. As a result of the early credit program, even 
considering the proposed ABT program and flexibilities offered to small 
refiners and small volume refineries, we anticipate considerable 
reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with final refinery 
control to the 10-ppm average occurring by January 1, 2020. For more on 
the proposed gasoline sulfur program flexibilities, refer to Section 
V.D.
    Under today's Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we are proposing to 
either maintain the current 80-ppm refinery gate and 95-ppm downstream 
per-gallon caps or lower them to 50 and 65 ppm, respectively. We also 
evaluated and are seeking comment on the potential of lowering the per-
gallon caps to as low as 20 and 25 ppm. There are advantages and 
disadvantages with each of the various sulfur cap options (explained in 
more detail in Section V.A.3), but under all scenarios, the stringency 
of the 10-ppm annual average standard would result in reduced gasoline 
sulfur levels nationwide. A summary of the proposed Tier 3 sulfur 
standards is provided in Table I-6.

[[Page 29826]]



                                                  Table I-6--Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Cap Option 1                                                Cap Option 2
Proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           standards                         Limit                        Effective                       Limit                       Effective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refinery annual average          10 ppm.......................  January 1, 2017 \a\.........  10 ppm......................  January 1, 2017.\a\
 standard.
Refinery gate per-gallon cap...  80 ppm.......................  Already.....................  50 ppm......................  January 1, 2020.
Downstream per-gallon cap......  95 ppm.......................  Already.....................  65 ppm......................  March 1, 2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Effective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries.

    We are proposing that manufacturers of gasoline additives that are 
used downstream of the refinery at less than 1 volume percent must 
limit the sulfur contribution to the finished gasoline from the use of 
their additive to less than 3 ppm when the additive is used at the 
maximum recommended treatment rate.
    The proposed vehicle emissions standards are fuel neutral (i.e. 
they are applicable regardless of the type of fuel that the vehicle is 
designed to use). The sulfur content of highway diesel fuel is already 
required to meet a 15ppm sulfur cap. Thus, no further action is needed 
to enable diesel fuel vehicles to meet the proposed emissions 
standards. There currently are no sulfur standards for the fuel used in 
compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane gas (LPG) vehicles. We 
request comment on whether it is necessary for EPA to establish sulfur 
standards for CNG and LPG, and whether a 15 ppm sulfur cap similar to 
that established for highway diesel fuel would be appropriate. Comment 
is also requested on whether and how to address the sulfur contribution 
from odorants and other additives used in CNG and LPG.
    As the number of flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) in the in-use fleet 
increases, it is now becoming increasingly important that all fuels 
used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A lack of 
clarity regarding the standards that apply to fuels used in FFVs could 
act to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended fuels with 
concentrations greater than 15 volume percent, which is important to 
satisfying the requirements of the RFS2 program. For these reasons, we 
believe it is important that our gasoline quality standards for not 
only sulfur, but also benzene, RVP, detergency, and chemical 
composition (i.e., contains only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, 
and sulfur) apply to any fuel used in an FFV. At the same time, it is 
not necessarily clear how we should implement such standards within the 
context of our existing regulations as these fuels tend to be produced 
downstream of the petroleum refinery. For this reason we are seeking 
comment on both the need to extend our gasoline standards to all 
gasoline-ethanol blends, as well as the appropriate regulatory 
mechanisms for doing so.
7. Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Amendments
    We are proposing and requesting comment in this action on a number 
of items to help streamline the in-use fuels regulations at 40 CFR part 
80. The majority of items involve clarifying vague or inconsistent 
language, removal or updating of outdated provisions, and decrease in 
frequency and/or volume of reporting burden where data are no longer 
needed or are redundant with other EPA fuels programs. In general, we 
believe that these changes would reduce burden on industry and allow us 
to achieve the standards and resulting environmental benefits as early 
as possible with no expected loss in environmental control. In some 
cases, these regulatory streamlining items are non-substantive 
amendments that correct minor errors or inconsistencies in the 
regulations.
    The regulatory streamlining items that we are proposing for the in-
use fuels regulations are changes that we believe are straightforward 
and should be made quickly. In addition, there are a number of items 
that we believe need further consideration and discussion on which we 
are seeking comment.
    The proposal also includes a variety of technical amendments to 
certification-related requirements for engine and vehicle emission 
standards. We are proposing to revise the fuel economy labeling 
requirements to correspond to the new Tier 3 standards. We are also 
proposing to remove obsolete regulatory text and make several minor 
corrections and clarifications.
    Please refer to Section VI for a complete discussion of technical 
amendments and regulatory streamlining provisions and issues.

C. What would the impacts of the proposed standards be?

    The proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards together would 
reduce dramatically emissions of NOX, VOC, PM2.5, 
and air toxics. The gasoline sulfur standards, which would take effect 
in 2017, would provide large immediate reductions in emissions from 
existing gasoline vehicles and engines. NOX emissions would 
be reduced by about 284,000 tons, or about 8 percent of emissions from 
on-highway vehicles, in 2017 alone. The emission reductions would 
increase over time as newer vehicles become a larger percentage of the 
fleet. In 2030, when 80 percent of the light-duty fleet (and 90 percent 
of the vehicle miles travelled) consists of Tier 3 vehicles, we expect 
the NOX and VOC emissions to be reduced by about 525,000 
tons and 226,000 tons, respectively, or one quarter of emissions from 
on-highway vehicles compared to their 2030 levels without the Tier 3 
program. Emissions of CO would decrease by almost 6 million tons, or 30 
percent of emissions from on-highway vehicles. Emissions of many air 
toxics would also be reduced, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrolein and ethanol, with reductions 
ranging from 10 to nearly 40 percent of national emissions from on-
highway vehicles. We expect these reductions to continue beyond 2030 as 
more of the fleet continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicles; for 
example, by 2050, when nearly all of the fleet would have turned over 
to Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 program would reduce on-
highway emissions of NOX and VOC nearly 40 percent from the 
level of emissions projected without Tier 3 controls.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ To estimate the benefits of the proposed Tier 3 rule, we 
perfomed air quality modeling for the year 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These reductions in emissions of NOX, VOC, 
PM2.5 and air toxics from the proposed Tier 3 standards are 
projected to lead to significant decreases in ambient concentrations of 
ozone, PM2.5 and air toxics (including notable nationwide 
reductions in benzene concentrations) by 2030, and would immediately 
reduce ozone in 2017 when the proposed sulfur controls take effect. 
Additional information on the emission and air quality impacts of the 
proposed Tier 3 program is presented in Sections III.B and C.

[[Page 29827]]

    Exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone, PM2.5, and 
air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as premature 
deaths as well as other important public health and environmental 
effects (see Section II.B). The proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce 
these adverse impacts and yield significant benefits, including those 
we can monetize and those we are unable to quantify. We estimate that 
by 2030, the annual emission reductions of the Tier 3 standards would 
annually prevent between 670 and 1,700 PM-related premature deaths, 
between 160 and 710 ozone-related premature deaths, 81,000 work days 
lost, and approximately 1.4 million minor restricted-activity days. The 
estimated annual monetized health benefits of the proposed Tier 3 
standards in 2030 (2010$) would be between $8.0 and $23 billion, 
assuming a 3-percent discount rate (or between $7.4 billion and $21 
billion assuming a 7-percent discount rate). \20\ The proposed fuel 
standards are projected to cost on average less than one cent per 
gallon of gasoline, and the proposed light-duty vehicle standards would 
have an average cost that increases in proportion to the increase in 
stringency from $50 per vehicle in 2017 to $134 per vehicle when the 
standards are fully phased in 2025. The annual cost of the overall 
program in 2030 would be approximately $3.4 billion.\21\ The 2030 
benefits are 2 to 7 times the costs of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ These benefits estimates have been adjusted to remove 
benefits of the Tier 3 program in California. The Tier 3 proposal's 
analysis assumed emissions reductions and resulting benefits would 
occur nationwide. California was recently granted a Clean Air Act 
waiver of preemption for the LEV III vehicle program, and some other 
states have adopted it. The Tier 3 final rule analysis will account 
for those emission reductions that will occur even in the absence of 
Tier 3 vehicle standards, for all states that have adopted LEV III. 
See Section VIII of the preamble for more information on the 
benefits associated with the Tier 3 program.
    \21\ Costs include estimates for the proposed Tier 3 standards 
in all states except California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits in Table I-7 include all of the human health impacts 
we are able to quantify and monetize at this time. However, the full 
complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM, 
ozone and air toxics remain unquantified because of current limitations 
in methods and/or available data. As a result, the health benefits 
quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the total 
benefits attributable to the proposed standards. See Sections VII and 
VIII for detailed descriptions of the costs and benefits of this 
proposal.

   Table I-7--Summary of Annual Benefits and Costs Associated With the
                         Proposed Tier 3 Program
                          [Billions, 2010$] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Description                             2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Program Costs...................................            $2.1
Fuels Program Costs.....................................             1.3
Total Estimated Costs \b\...............................             3.4
Total Estimated Health Benefits c d e f g...............  ..............
    3 percent discount rate.............................        $8.0-$23
    7 percent discount rate.............................          7.4-21
Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits--Total Costs):......  ..............
    3 percent discount rate.............................          4.6-20
    7 percent discount rate.............................          4.0-18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates represent annual benefits and costs anticipated for
  the year 2030. Totals are rounded to two significant digits and may
  not sum due to rounding.
\b\ The calculation of annual costs does not require amortization of
  costs over time. Therefore, the estimates of annual cost do not
  include a discount rate or rate of return assumption (see Section VII
  of the preamble for more information on vehicle and fuel costs). The
  program costs include the costs associated with the Tier 3 vehicle and
  fuel standards in all states except California.
\c\ The benefits presented in this table have been adjusted to remove
  benefits of the Tier 3 program in California.
\d\ Total includes ozone and PM2.5 benefits. Range was developed by
  adding the estimate from the Bell et al., 2004 ozone premature
  mortality function to PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from
  the American Cancer Society cohort study (Pope et al., 2002) for the
  low estimate and ozone premature mortality derived from the Levy et
  al., 2005 study to PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from the
  Six-Cities (Laden et al., 2006) study for the high estimate.
\e\ 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.
\f\ 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 2006 PM
  National Ambient Air Quality Standards (September, 2006).
\g\ Not all possible benefits are quantified and monetized in this
  analysis; the total monetized benefits presented here may therefore be
  underestimated. Potential benefit categories that have not been
  quantified and monetized, due to current limitations in methods and/or
  data availability, are listed in Table VIII-2. For example, we have
  not quantified a number of known or suspected health and welfare
  effects linked with reductions in ozone and PM (e.g., reductions in
  heart rate variability, reduced material damage to structures and
  cultural monuments, and reduced eutrophication in coastal areas). We
  are also unable to quantify health and welfare benefits associated
  with reductions in air toxics.

II. Why is EPA making this proposal?

    The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards 
for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA also has 
authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution. 
These statutory requirements are described in Section II.A.
    Emissions from motor vehicles and their fuels contribute to ambient 
levels of ozone, PM, NO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
and CO, which are all pollutants for which EPA has established health-
based NAAQS. These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or 
cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to 
increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department 
visits, and premature mortality. Over 158 million people currently live 
in areas designated nonattainment for one or more of the current 
NAAQS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population 
Exposure Report, current as of December 14, 2012 at: https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Motor vehicles also emit air toxics, and the majority of Americans 
continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at 
levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects, 
including cancer, immune system damage, and neurological, reproductive, 
developmental, respiratory, and other

[[Page 29828]]

health problems.\23\ A more detailed discussion of the health and 
environmental effects of these pollutants is included in Section II.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cars and light trucks also continue to be a significant contributor 
to air pollution directly near roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting 
for more than 50 percent of near-road concentrations of some criteria 
and toxic pollutants.\24\ More than 50 million people live, work, or go 
to school in close proximity to high-traffic roadways, and the average 
American spends more than one hour traveling each day, with nearly 90 
percent of daily trips occurring by personal 
vehicle.25 26 27 Exposure to traffic-related pollutants has 
been linked with adverse health impacts such as respiratory problems 
(particularly in asthmatic children) and cardiovascular problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, 
B.; Arnott, W.P.; Chow, J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in 
Motor Vehicle-Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute 
Research Report 156. Available at https://www.healtheffects.org.
    \25\ U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Current Housing Reports, Series 
H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html.
    \26\ Drago, R.(2011). Secondary activities in the 2006 American 
Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. 
Available at https://www.bls.gov.
    \27\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics. (2003) National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights 
Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at 
https://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, 
many areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM2.5 
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. States and local 
areas are required to adopt control measures to attain the NAAQS and, 
once attained, to demonstrate that control measures are in place 
sufficient to maintain the NAAQS for ten years (and eight years later, 
a similar demonstration is required for another ten-year period). The 
proposed Tier 3 standards would be a critical part of areas' strategies 
to attain and maintain the standards. Maintaining the standards has 
been challenging in the past, particularly for areas where high 
population growth rates lead to significant annual increases in vehicle 
trips and vehicle miles traveled. Our air quality modeling for this 
proposal, which is described in more detail in Section III.C, projects 
that in 2017 a significant number of counties outside CA will be within 
10 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of additional 
controls. These counties in particular would benefit from the proposed 
Tier 3 standards as they work to ensure long-term maintenance of the 
NAAQS.
    Section III provides more detail on how this proposal would reduce 
motor vehicle emissions and ambient levels of pollution. The proposed 
rule would meaningfully reduce ozone concentrations as early as 2017 
(the first year of the program), and even more significantly in 2030. 
The reductions are of significant enough magnitude to bring ozone 
levels in some counties from above the standard to below the standard, 
even without any additional controls. We also project that the Tier 3 
standards would reduce ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
    Without this proposal to reduce nationwide motor vehicle emissions, 
areas would have to adopt other measures to reduce emissions from other 
sources under their state or local authority. Few other measures exist 
for providing multi-pollutant reductions of the same magnitude and 
cost-effectiveness as those expected from the proposed Tier 3 
standards. Furthermore, states outside California do not have the 
authority to lower the sulfur in gasoline, which is needed to 
immediately reduce emissions from the existing fleet and also enable 
new vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards throughout 
their useful life.
    The reductions in ambient ozone and PM2.5 that would 
result from the proposed Tier 3 standards would provide significant 
health benefits. By 2030, the standards would annually prevent between 
670 and 1,700 PM-related premature deaths, between 160 and 710 ozone-
related premature deaths, 81,000 work days lost, and approximately 1.4 
million minor restricted-activity days (see Section VIII for more 
details). This proposal would also reduce air toxics; for example, we 
project that in 2030, the proposal would decrease ambient benzene 
concentrations by 10-25 percent in some urban areas. Furthermore, the 
proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce traffic-associated pollution 
near major roads. EPA is proposing Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards as 
part of a comprehensive nationwide program for regulating all types of 
air pollution from motor vehicles. EPA recently finalized standards to 
reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles, starting with model year 
2017.\28\ The Tier 3 standards in this proposal, which address non-
GHGs, would be implemented on the same timeframe, thus allowing 
manufacturers to optimize their vehicle redesigns over both sets of 
standards. Furthermore, the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards are also 
closely aligned with California's LEV III program, in such a way that 
manufacturers could design a single vehicle for nationwide sales. This 
reduces the cost of compliance for auto manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Tier 3 proposal responds to the President's request in his May 
2010 memorandum for EPA to review the adequacy of its existing non-GHG 
standards for new motor vehicles and fuels, and to promulgate new 
standards, if necessary, as part of a comprehensive approach to 
regulating motor vehicles.\29\ Based on our review, we have concluded 
that improved vehicle technology, combined with lower sulfur gasoline, 
make it feasible and cost-effective to reduce emissions well below the 
current Tier 2 levels. These emission reductions are necessary to 
reduce air pollution that is (and projected to continue to be) at 
levels that endanger public health and welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The Presidential Memorandum is found at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act

1. Clean Air Act Section 202
    We are proposing to set motor vehicle emission standards under the 
authority of section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Section 202(a) provides 
EPA with general authority to prescribe vehicle standards, subject to 
any specific limitations elsewhere in the Act. EPA is also setting 
standards for larger light-duty trucks and MDPVs under the general 
authority of section 202(a)(1) and under section 202(a)(3), which 
requires that standards applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons, 
NOX, CO and PM from heavy-duty vehicles \30\ reflect the 
greatest degree of emission reduction available for the model year to 
which such standards apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, 
energy, and safety. In addition, section 202(k) provides EPA with 
authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative 
emissions of hydrocarbons from all gasoline-fueled motor vehicles 
during: (1) Operation, and (2) over 2 or more days of nonuse;

[[Page 29829]]

under ozone-prone summertime conditions. Regulations under section 
202(k) shall take effect as expeditiously as possible and shall require 
the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable by means 
reasonably expected to be available for production during any model 
year to which the regulations apply, giving appropriate consideration 
to fuel volatility, and to cost, energy, and safety factors associated 
with the application of the appropriate technology. Further, section 
206 and in particular section 206(d) of the Clean Air Act authorizes 
EPA to establish methods and procedures for testing whether a motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with section 202 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings above 6000 lbs 
are considered ``heavy-duty vehicles'' under the CAA. See section 
202(b)(3)(C). For regulatory purposes, we refer to those LDTs at or 
below 8500 lbs GVWR as ``heavy light-duty trucks'' made up of LDT3s 
and LDT4s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Clean Air Act Section 211
    We are proposing to adopt gasoline sulfur controls pursuant to our 
authority under section 211(c)(1) of the CAA. This section allows EPA 
to establish a fuel control if at least one of the following two 
criteria is met: (1) The emission products of the fuel cause or 
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare; or (2) the emission products of the 
fuel will impair to a significant degree the performance of any 
emissions control device or system which is either in general use or 
which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a 
reasonable time it will be in general use were the fuel control to be 
adopted. We are proposing gasoline sulfur controls based on both of 
these criteria. Under the first criterion, we believe that gasoline 
with current levels of sulfur contributes to ambient levels of air 
pollution that endanger public health and welfare, as described in 
Section II.B. Under the second criterion, we believe that gasoline 
sulfur impairs the emissions control systems of vehicles, as discussed 
in Section III.A.2.

B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels

    Motor vehicles emit pollutants that contribute to ambient levels of 
ozone, PM, NO2, SO2, CO, and air toxics. Motor 
vehicles are significant contributors to emissions of VOC and 
NOX, which contribute to the formation of both ozone and 
PM2.5. Approximately 159 million people currently live in 
counties designated nonattainment for one or more of the NAAQS, and 
this figure does not include the people living in areas with a risk of 
exceeding the NAAQS in the future.\31\ The majority of Americans 
continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at 
levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects.\32\ In 
addition, populations who live, work, or attend school near major roads 
experience elevated exposure concentrations to a wide range of air 
pollutants.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population 
Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0135.
    \32\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
    \33\ Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of 
Traffic-Related Air Pollution. (2010) Traffic-related air pollution: 
a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and 
health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at https://www.healtheffects.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are 
expected to reduce ambient pollution levels. As a result of these 
programs, the number of areas that continue to violate the ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS or have high levels of air toxics is expected to 
continue to decrease. However, the baseline air quality modeling 
completed for this proposed rule predicts that without additional 
controls there will continue to be a need for reductions in ozone, 
PM2.5 and air toxics concentrations in the future. Section 
III.C of this preamble presents the air quality modeling results for 
this proposed rule.
1. Ozone
a. Background
    Ground-level ozone pollution is typically formed through reactions 
involving VOC and NOX in the lower atmosphere in the 
presence of sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone 
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, such as 
highway and nonroad motor vehicles and engines, power plants, chemical 
plants, refineries, makers of consumer and commercial products, 
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources.
    The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is 
complex. Ground-level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical set 
of chemical reactions, many of which are sensitive to temperature and 
sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high for 
several days and the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and its 
precursors can build up and result in more ozone than typically occurs 
on a single high-temperature day. Ozone and its precursors can be 
transported hundreds of miles downwind from precursor emissions, 
resulting in elevated ozone levels even in areas with low local VOC or 
NOX emissions.
b. Health Effects of Ozone
    The health and welfare effects of ozone are well documented and are 
assessed in EPA's 2006 Air Quality Criteria Document and 2007 Staff 
Paper.34 35 People who are more susceptible to effects 
associated with exposure to ozone can include children, the elderly, 
and individuals with respiratory disease such as asthma. Those with 
greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time spent outdoors 
(e.g., children and outdoor workers), are of particular concern. Ozone 
can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat 
irritation, and breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce lung function 
and cause pulmonary inflammation in healthy individuals. Ozone can also 
aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require medical 
attention and/or the use of additional medication. Thus, ambient ozone 
may cause both healthy and asthmatic individuals to limit their outdoor 
activities. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution 
of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity and highly suggestive 
evidence that short-term ozone exposure directly or indirectly 
contributes to non-accidental and cardiopulmonary-related mortality, 
but additional research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms 
causing these effects. In a report on the estimation of ozone-related 
premature mortality published by the National Research Council (NRC), a 
panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short-term exposure to 
ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths and that 
ozone-related mortality should be included in estimates of the health 
benefits of reducing ozone exposure.\36\ 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. The respiratory effects 
observed in controlled human exposure studies and animal studies are 
coherent with the evidence from epidemiologic studies supporting a 
causal relationship between acute ambient ozone exposures

[[Page 29830]]

and increased respiratory-related emergency room visits and 
hospitalizations in the warm season. In addition, there is suggestive 
evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular-related morbidity 
and non-accidental and cardiopulmonary mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. 
Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
    \35\ U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and 
Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-07-003. 
Washington, DC, U.S. EPA.
    \36\ National Research Council. (2008). Estimating Mortality 
Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air 
Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Current and Projected Ozone Levels
    Concentrations that exceed the level of the ozone NAAQS occur in 
many parts of the country, including many major population centers. In 
addition, our modeling without the proposed Tier 3 controls projects 
that in the future we will continue to have many areas that will have 
ambient ozone concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see Section 
III.C.1). States will need to meet the standard in the 2015-2032 
timeframe. The emission reductions and significant ambient ozone 
improvements from this proposed rule, which would take effect starting 
in 2017, would be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain 
the ozone NAAQS.
    The primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone are 8-hour standards with 
a level of 0.075 ppm. The most recent revision to the ozone standards 
was in 2008; the previous 8-hour ozone standards, set in 1997, had a 
level of 0.08 ppm. In 2004, the U.S. EPA designated nonattainment areas 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.37 38 As of December 14, 
2012, there were 41 ozone nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 
composed of 221 full or partial counties with a total population of 
over 118 million. Nonattainment designations for the 2008 ozone 
standard were finalized on April 30, 2012 and May 31, 2012.\39\ These 
designations include 46 areas, composed of 227 full or partial 
counties, with a population of over 123 million. As of December 14, 
2012, over 138 million people are living in ozone nonattainment 
areas.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).
    \38\ A nonattainment area is defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
as an area that is violating an ambient standard or is contributing 
to a nearby area that is violating the standard.
    \39\ 77FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
    \40\ The 138 million total is calculated by summing, without 
double counting, the 1997 and 2008 ozone nonattainment populations 
contained in the Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure 
report (https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html). If there 
is a population associated with both the 1997 and 2008 nonattainment 
areas, and they are not the same, then the larger of the two 
populations is included in the sum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States with ozone nonattainment areas are required to take action 
to bring those areas into attainment. The attainment date assigned to 
an ozone nonattainment area is based on the area's classification. Most 
ozone nonattainment areas are required to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame and then to maintain it 
thereafter.\41\ The attainment dates for areas designated nonattainment 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 timeframe, 
depending on the severity of the problem in each area. In addition, EPA 
is working to complete the current review of the ozone NAAQS by mid-
2014. If EPA revises the ozone standards in 2014 pursuant to that 
review, the attainment dates associated with areas designated 
nonattainment for that NAAQS would likely be in the 2019 to 2036 
timeframe, depending on the severity of the problem in each area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area are designated as extreme and will have to attain 
before June 15, 2024. The Sacramento, Coachella Valley, Western 
Mojave and Houston 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are designated 
as severe and will have to attain by June 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are 
expected to reduce ambient ozone levels. As a result of these and other 
federal, state and local programs, 8-hour ozone levels are expected to 
improve in the future. However, even with the implementation of all 
current state and federal regulations, there are projected to be 
counties violating the ozone NAAQS well into the future. Thus 
additional federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist areas 
with attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as 
expeditiously as practicable and may relieve areas with already 
stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated with 
adopting additional local controls.
2. Particulate Matter
a. Background
    Particulate matter is a highly complex mixture of solid particles 
and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which 
interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from 
those smaller than 1 nanometer (10-9 meter) to over 100 
micrometer ([mu]m, or 10-6 meter) in diameter (for 
reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 [mu]m in diameter and a 
grain of salt is about 100 [mu]m). Atmospheric particles can be grouped 
into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes, 
including ultrafine particles (<0.1 [mu]m), accumulation mode or `fine' 
particles (< 1 to 3 [mu]m), and coarse particles (>1 to 3 [mu]m). For 
regulatory purposes, fine particles are measured as PM2.5 
and inhalable or thoracic coarse particles are measured as 
PM10-2.5, corresponding to their size (diameter) range in 
micrometers and referring to total particle mass under 2.5 and between 
2.5 and 10 micrometers, respectively. The EPA currently has standards 
that measure PM2.5 and PM10.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Regulatory definitions of PM size fractions, and 
information on reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in 
ambient air, are provided in 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particles span many sizes and shapes and consist of hundreds of 
different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and 
are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions; the former are 
often referred to as ``primary'' particles, and the latter as 
``secondary'' particles. Particle pollution also varies by time of year 
and location and is affected by several weather-related factors, such 
as temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. A further layer of 
complexity comes from particles' ability to shift between solid/liquid 
and gaseous phases, which is influenced by concentration and 
meteorology, especially temperature.
    Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and 
by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides 
(SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and volatile 
organic compounds (VOC)) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical 
properties of PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region, 
meteorology, and source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a 
complex mixture of different components including sulfates, nitrates, 
organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These 
particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel 
hundreds to thousands of kilometers.
b. Health Effects of PM
    Scientific studies show ambient PM is associated with a series of 
adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in 
EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter.\43\ 
Further discussion of health effects associated with PM can also be 
found in the draft RIA. The ISA summarizes health effects evidence 
associated with both short-term and long-term exposures to 
PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and ultrafine particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ISA concludes that health effects associated with short-term 
exposures (hours to days) to ambient PM2.5 include 
mortality, cardiovascular effects, such as

[[Page 29831]]

altered vasomotor function and myocardial ischemia, and hospital 
admissions and emergency department visits for ischemic heart disease 
and congestive heart failure, and respiratory effects, such as 
exacerbation of asthma symptoms in children and hospital admissions and 
emergency department visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 
and respiratory infections.\44\ The ISA notes that long-term exposure 
(months to years) to PM2.5 is associated with the 
development/progression of cardiovascular disease, premature mortality, 
and respiratory effects, including reduced lung function growth in 
children, increased respiratory symptoms, and asthma development.\45\ 
The ISA concludes that the currently available scientific evidence from 
epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and toxicological studies 
supports a causal association between short- and long-term exposures to 
PM2.5 and cardiovascular effects and premature mortality. 
Furthermore, the ISA concludes that the collective evidence supports 
likely causal associations between short- and long-term 
PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects. The ISA also 
concludes that the scientific evidence is suggestive of a causal 
association for reproductive and developmental effects including 
respiratory-related infant mortality, and cancer, mutagenicity, and 
genotoxicity and long-term exposure to PM2.5.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.1.1.
    \45\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. page 2-12, Sections 
7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1.
    \46\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PM10-2.5, the ISA concludes that the current 
evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term 
exposures and premature mortality, cardiovascular effects, and 
respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding 
the health effects associated with long-term exposure to 
PM10-2.5.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.4 and Table 
2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For ultrafine particles, the ISA concludes that there is suggestive 
evidence of a causal relationship between short-term exposures and 
cardiovascular effects, such as changes in heart rhythm and blood 
vessel function. It also concludes that there is suggestive evidence of 
association between short-term exposure to ultrafine particles and 
respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding 
the health effects associated with long-term exposure to ultrafine 
particles.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.5 and Table 
2-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels
    There are many areas of the country that are currently in 
nonattainment for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Our 
modeling without the proposed Tier 3 controls projects that in the 
future we will continue to have many areas that will have ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see 
Section III.C.2). States will need to meet the 24-hour standard in the 
2015-2019 timeframe and the annual standard in the 2021-2025 timeframe. 
The emission reductions and improvements in ambient PM2.5 
from this proposed rule, which would take effect starting in 2017, 
would be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    There are two NAAQS for PM2.5: an annual standard (12 
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) and a 24-hour standard (35 
[mu]g/m\3\). The most recent revisions to these standards were in 1997, 
2006 and in December 2012. The December 2012 rule revised the level of 
the annual PM2.5 standard from 15 [mu]g/m\3\ to 12 [mu]g/
m\3\.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Particulate Matter. https://www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005 EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\50\ As of December 14, 2012, over 91 million 
people lived in the 35 areas that are designated as nonattainment for 
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These PM2.5 nonattainment 
areas are comprised of 191 full or partial counties. On October 8, 
2009, the EPA issued final nonattainment area designations for the 2006 
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\51\ These designations include 32 areas 
composed of 121 full or partial counties with a population of over 70 
million. In total, there are 50 PM2.5 nonattainment areas 
with a population of over 105 million people.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 70 FR 19844 (April 14, 2005).
    \51\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).
    \52\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population 
Exposure Report, current as of December 14, 2012 at: https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States with PM2.5 nonattainment areas will be required 
to take action to bring those areas into attainment in the future. Most 
1997 PM2.5 nonattainment areas are required to attain the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2010 to 2015 time frame and then 
required to maintain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS thereafter.\53\ 
The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas will be required 
to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2014 to 2019 
time frame and then be required to maintain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS thereafter.\54\ The 2012 PM2.5 
nonattainment areas will likely be required to attain the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2020 to 2025 time frame, depending on the 
severity of an area's fine particle pollution problems and the 
availability of pollution controls. The standards proposed here begin 
taking effect in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ U.S. EPA. (2007). PM2.5 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard Implementation Rule (Final). Washington, DC: U.S. 
EPA. 72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007.
    \54\ U.S. EPA. (2011). PM Standards Revision--2006: Timeline. 
Available at https://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html#timeline. 
Accessed December 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has already adopted many mobile source emission control 
programs that are expected to reduce ambient PM levels. As a result of 
these and other federal, state and local programs, the number of areas 
that fail to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS in the future is expected 
to decrease. However, even with the implementation of all current state 
and federal regulations, there are projected to be counties violating 
the PM2.5 NAAQS well into the future. Thus additional 
federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist areas with 
attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as 
expeditiously as practicable and may relieve areas with already 
stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated with 
adopting additional local controls.
3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides
a. Background
    Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of the NOX 
family of gases. Most NO2 is formed in the air through the 
oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high 
temperature. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), a member of the sulfur 
oxide (SOX) family of gases, is formed from burning fuels 
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil derived), extracting gasoline from 
oil, or extracting metals from ore.
    SO2 and NO2 and their gas phase oxidation 
products can dissolve in water droplets and further oxidize to form 
sulfuric and nitric acid which react with ammonia to form sulfates and

[[Page 29832]]

nitrates, both of which are important components of ambient PM. The 
health effects of ambient PM are discussed in Section II.B.2.b of this 
preamble. NOX and VOC are the two major precursors of ozone. 
The health effects of ozone are covered in Section II.B.2.1.b.
b. Health Effects of NO2
    Information on the health effects of NO2 can be found in 
the EPA Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen Oxides.\55\ 
The EPA has concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled 
human exposure, and animal toxicological studies provide evidence that 
is sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory 
effects and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA concludes that 
the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes from epidemiologic 
studies of respiratory effects including symptoms, emergency department 
visits, and hospital admissions. Based on both short- and long-term 
studies, the ISA concludes that associations of NO2 with 
respiratory health effects are stronger among a number of groups; these 
include individuals with preexisting pulmonary conditions (e.g., asthma 
or COPD), children and older adults. The ISA also draws two broad 
conclusions regarding airway responsiveness following NO2 
exposure. First, the ISA concludes that NO2 exposure may 
enhance the sensitivity to allergen-induced decrements in lung function 
and increase the allergen-induced airway inflammatory response 
following 30-minute exposures of asthmatics to NO2 
concentrations as low as 0.26 ppm. Second, exposure to NO2 
has been found to enhance the inherent responsiveness of the airway to 
subsequent nonspecific challenges in controlled human exposure studies 
of asthmatic subjects. Small but significant increases in non-specific 
airway hyperresponsiveness were reported following 1-hour exposures of 
asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO2. Enhanced airway responsiveness 
could have important clinical implications for asthmatics since 
transient increases in airway responsiveness following NO2 
exposure have the potential to increase symptoms and worsen asthma 
control. Together, the epidemiologic and experimental data sets form a 
plausible, consistent, and coherent description of a relationship 
between NO2 exposures and an array of adverse health effects 
that range from the onset of respiratory symptoms to hospital 
admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides 
of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/071. 
Washington, DC: U.S.EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the weight of evidence supporting a causal relationship is 
somewhat less certain than that associated with respiratory morbidity, 
NO2 has also been linked to other health endpoints. These 
include all-cause (nonaccidental) mortality, hospital admissions or 
emergency department visits for cardiovascular disease, and decrements 
in lung function growth associated with chronic exposure.
c. Health Effects of SO2
    Information on the health effects of SO2 can be found in 
the EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides.\56\ 
SO2 has long been known to cause adverse respiratory health 
effects, particularly among individuals with asthma. Other potentially 
sensitive groups include children and the elderly. During periods of 
elevated ventilation, asthmatics may experience symptomatic 
bronchoconstriction within minutes of exposure. Following an extensive 
evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory 
studies, the EPA has concluded that there is a causal relationship 
between respiratory health effects and short-term exposure to 
SO2. Separately, based on an evaluation of the epidemiologic 
evidence of associations between short-term exposure to SO2 
and mortality, the EPA has concluded that the overall evidence is 
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposure to 
SO2 and mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for 
Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/047F. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Current Levels of NO2
    Between 2003 and 2005, national mean concentrations of 
NO2 were about 15 parts per billion (ppb) for averaging 
periods ranging from a day to a year.\57\ There are two NAAQS for 
NO2: an annual standard (53 ppb) and a 1-hour standard (100 
ppb). The primary NAAQS for NO2 was revised in January 2010. 
EPA completed area designations in January 2012 and there are currently 
no nonattainment areas. The designations were based on the existing 
community-wide monitoring network. Once the expanded network of 
NO2 monitors is fully deployed and three years of air 
quality data have been collected, EPA intends to redesignate areas, as 
appropriate, based on the air quality data from the new monitoring 
network.58 59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ U.S. EPA. (2010). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 
for the NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS). https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf.
    \58\ U.S. EPA. (2012). Fact Sheet--Air Quality Designations for 
the 2010 Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards. https://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/designations/pdfs/20120120FS.pdf.
    \59\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Revision to 
Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Requirements. March 7, 2013. 
https://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20130307fr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Carbon Monoxide
    Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from 
combustion processes. Nationally and, particularly in urban areas, the 
majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile sources.
a. Health Effects of Carbon Monoxide
    Information on the health effects of CO can be found in the EPA 
Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Carbon Monoxide.\60\ The ISA 
concludes that ambient concentrations of CO are associated with a 
number of adverse health effects.\61\ This section provides a summary 
of the health effects associated with exposure to ambient 
concentrations of CO.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ U.S. EPA, (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon 
Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F, 2010. Available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686.
    \61\ The ISA evaluates the health evidence associated with 
different health effects, assigning one of five ``weight of 
evidence'' determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a 
causal relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate 
to infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal 
relationship. For definitions of these levels of evidence, please 
refer to Section 1.6 of the ISA.
    \62\ Personal exposure includes contributions from many sources, 
and in many different environments. Total personal exposure to CO 
includes both ambient and nonambient components; and both components 
may contribute to adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Human clinical studies of subjects with coronary artery disease 
show a decrease in the time to onset of exercise-induced angina (chest 
pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In addition, 
epidemiologic studies show associations between short-term CO exposure 
and cardiovascular morbidity, particularly increased emergency room 
visits and hospital admissions for coronary heart disease (including 
ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and angina). Some 
epidemiologic evidence is also available for increased hospital 
admissions and emergency room visits for congestive heart failure and 
cardiovascular disease as a whole. The ISA concludes that a causal 
relationship is likely to exist between short-term exposures to CO and 
cardiovascular

[[Page 29833]]

morbidity. It also concludes that available data are inadequate to 
conclude that a causal relationship exists between long-term exposures 
to CO and cardiovascular morbidity.
    Animal studies show various neurological effects with in-utero CO 
exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report inconsistent neural 
and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures. The ISA 
concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship with both 
short- and long-term exposure to CO and central nervous system effects.
    A number of epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies cited in 
the ISA have evaluated associations between CO exposure and birth 
outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth defects. The 
epidemiologic studies provide limited evidence of a CO-induced effect 
on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence for a decrease 
in birth weight. Animal toxicological studies have found associations 
between perinatal CO exposure and decrements in birth weight, as well 
as other developmental outcomes. The ISA concludes these studies are 
suggestive of a causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO 
and developmental effects and birth outcomes.
    Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of effects on respiratory 
morbidity such as changes in pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, 
and hospital admissions associated with ambient CO concentrations. A 
limited number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as 
ozone, SO2, and PM in two-pollutant models and found that CO 
risk estimates were generally robust, although this limited evidence 
makes it difficult to disentangle effects attributed to CO itself from 
those of the larger complex air pollution mixture. Controlled human 
exposure studies have not extensively evaluated the effect of CO on 
respiratory morbidity. Animal studies at levels of 50-100 ppm CO show 
preliminary evidence of altered pulmonary vascular remodeling and 
oxidative injury. The ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of 
a causal relationship between short-term CO exposure and respiratory 
morbidity, and inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists 
between long-term exposure and respiratory morbidity.
    Finally, the ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is 
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposures to CO 
and mortality. Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of an association 
between short-term exposure to CO and mortality, but limited evidence 
is available to evaluate cause-specific mortality outcomes associated 
with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of CO risk estimates 
which was often observed in copollutant models contributes to the 
uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as an indicator for 
other combustion-related pollutants. The ISA also concludes that there 
is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long-term 
exposures to CO and mortality.
5. Mobile Source Air Toxics
    Light-duty vehicle emissions contribute to ambient levels of air 
toxics known or suspected as human or animal carcinogens, or that have 
noncancer health effects. The population experiences an elevated risk 
of cancer and other noncancer health effects from exposure to the class 
of pollutants known collectively as ``air toxics.'' \63\ These 
compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter, and 
naphthalene. These compounds were identified as national or regional 
risk drivers or contributors in the 2005 National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment and have significant inventory contributions from mobile 
sources.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
    \64\ U.S. EPA (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. 
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Health Effects of Air Toxics
i. Benzene
    The EPA's IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen 
(causing leukemia) by all routes of exposure, and concludes 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.65 66 67 EPA states in its IRIS 
database that data indicate a causal relationship between benzene 
exposure and acute lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship 
between benzene exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and 
chronic lymphocytic leukemia. EPA's IRIS documentation for benzene also 
lists a range of 2.2 x 10-6 to 7.8 x 10-6 as the 
unit risk estimate (URE) for benzene.68 69 The International 
Agency for Research on Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that benzene 
is a human carcinogen and the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (DHHS) has characterized benzene as a known human 
carcinogen.70 71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 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.
    \66\ 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 1982.
    \67\ 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.
    \68\ A unit risk estimate is defined as the increase in the 
lifetime risk of an individual who is exposed for a lifetime to 1 
[micro]g/m3 benzene in air.
    \69\ 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.
    \70\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1987). 
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to 
humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and 
dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
    \71\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National 
Toxicology Program. (2011). 12th Report on Carcinogens. Available 
at: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.72 73 The most 
sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current data, 
is the depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in 
blood.74 75 EPA's inhalation reference concentration (RfC) 
for benzene is 30 [micro]g/m\3\. The RfC is based on suppressed 
absolute lymphocyte counts seen in humans under occupational exposure 
conditions. In addition, recent work, including studies sponsored by 
the Health Effects Institute (HEI), provides evidence that biochemical 
responses are occurring at lower levels of benzene exposure than 
previously known.76 77 78 79 EPA's IRIS program has

[[Page 29834]]

not yet evaluated these new data. EPA does not currently have an acute 
reference concentration for benzene. The Agency for Toxic Substances 
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) for acute 
exposure to benzene is 29 [micro]g/m\3\ for 1-14 days 
exposure.80 81
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of 
benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197.
    \73\ Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational 
medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554.
    \74\ 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.
    \75\ 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.
    \76\ 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.
    \77\ 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.
    \78\ Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al. (2004). 
Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene. Science 
306: 1774-1776.
    \79\ 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.
    \80\ U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR). (2007). Toxicological profile for benzene. Atlanta, GA: 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf.
    \81\ A minimal risk level (MRL) is defined as an estimate of the 
daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be 
without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a 
specified duration of exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Formaldehyde
    In 1991, EPA concluded that formaldehyde is a carcinogen based on 
nasal tumors in animal bioassays.\82\ An Inhalation Unit Risk for 
cancer and a Reference Dose for oral noncancer effects were developed 
by the Agency and posted on the Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS) database. Since that time, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) 
and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have concluded 
that formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen.83 84 85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. Formaldehyde 
(CASRN 50-00-0) https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419/htm.
    \83\ National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS), 12th Report on Carcinogens, June 10, 2011.
    \84\ IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to 
Humans Volume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-
Butoxypropan-2-ol.
    \85\ IARC Mongraphs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to 
Humans Volume 100F (2012): Formaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conclusions by IARC and NTP reflect the results of 
epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with 
previous animal, human and mechanistic evidence. Research conducted by 
the National Cancer Institute reported an increased risk of 
nasopharyngeal cancer and specific lymphohematopoietic malignancies 
among workers exposed to formaldehyde.86 87 88 A National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health study of garment workers 
also reported increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers 
exposed to formaldehyde.\89\ Extended follow-up of a cohort of British 
chemical workers did not report evidence of an increase in 
nasopharyngeal or lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing 
statistically significant excess in lung cancers was reported.\90\ 
Finally, a study of embalmers reported formaldehyde exposures to be 
associated with an increased risk of myeloid leukemia but not brain 
cancer.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Hauptmann, M.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; Hayes, R.B.; 
Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic malignancies among 
workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute 95: 1615-1623.
    \87\ 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.
    \88\ Beane Freeman, L.E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J.H.; Stewart, P.A.; 
Hayes, R.B.; Hoover, R.N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from 
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde 
industries: The National Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer 
Inst. 101: 751-761.
    \89\ Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment 
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 
193-200.
    \90\ Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended 
follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to 
formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608-1615.
    \91\ Hauptmann, M.; Stewart P.A.; Lubin J.H.; Beane Freeman, 
L.E.; Hornung, R.W.; Herrick, R.F.; Hoover, R.N.; Fraumeni, J.F.; 
Hayes, R.B. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies 
and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. Journal of 
the National Cancer Institute 101:1696-1708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed 
by the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry in 1999 \92\ 
and supplemented in 2010,\93\ and by the World Health Organization.\94\ 
These organizations reviewed the literature concerning effects on the 
eyes and respiratory system, the primary point of contact for inhaled 
formaldehyde, including sensory irritation of eyes and respiratory 
tract, pulmonary function, nasal histopathology, and immune system 
effects. In addition, research on reproductive and developmental 
effects and neurological effects were discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 1999.
    \93\ ATSDR. 2010. Addendum to the Toxicological Profile for 
Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 
October 2010.
    \94\ IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical Assessment 
Document 40. Formaldehyde. World Health Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde--
Inhalation Assessment through the IRIS program for peer review by the 
National Research Council (NRC) and public comment in June 2010.\95\ 
The draft assessment reviewed more recent research from animal and 
human studies on cancer and other health effects. The NRC released 
their review report in April 2011.\96\ The EPA is currently revising 
the draft assessment in response to this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. 
Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-0)--Inhalation 
Assessment: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS). External Review Draft. EPA/635/R-10/002A. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC [online]. 
Available: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/irs_drats/recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614.
    \96\ NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Review of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS Assessment of 
Formaldehyde. Washington DC: National Academies Press. https://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. 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.\97\ The URE in 
IRIS for acetaldehyde is 2.2 x 10-6 per [micro]g/m\3\.\98\ 
Acetaldehyde is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the 
U.S. DHHS in the 12th Report on Carcinogens and is classified as 
possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the 
IARC.99 100 EPA is currently conducting a reassessment of 
cancer risk from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ U.S. EPA (1991). 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.
    \98\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of 
Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
    \99\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 
pp.
    \100\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(1999). Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, and 
hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic 
Risk of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors 
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.\101\ In 
short-term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium 
was observed at various concentration levels of acetaldehyde 
exposure.102 103 Data from

[[Page 29835]]

these studies were used by EPA to develop an inhalation reference 
concentration of 9 [micro]g/m\3\. Some asthmatics have been shown to be 
a sensitive subpopulation to decrements in functional expiratory volume 
(FEV1 test) and bronchoconstriction upon acetaldehyde inhalation.\104\ 
The agency is currently conducting a reassessment of the health hazards 
from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
    \102\ 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.
    \103\ Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. Feron. (1982). 
Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. I. Acute and subacute 
studies. Toxicology. 23: 293-297.
    \104\ Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and Matsuda, 
T. (1993) Aerosolized acetaldehyde induces histamine-mediated 
bronchoconstriction in asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 148(4 Pt 
1): 940-943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Acrolein
    EPA most recently evaluated the toxicological and health effects 
literature related to acrolein in 2003 and concluded that the human 
carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not be determined because the 
available data were inadequate. No information was available on the 
carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided 
inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity.\105\ The IARC determined in 
1995 that acrolein was not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in 
humans.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 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 
at https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
    \106\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(1995). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 
chemicals to humans, Volume 63. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated 
solvents and other industrial chemicals, World Health Organization, 
Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, 
and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to 
acrolein.\107\ The Agency has developed an RfC for acrolein of 0.02 
[micro]g/m\3\ and an RfD of 0.5 [micro]g/kg-day.\108\ EPA is 
considering updating the acrolein assessment with data that have become 
available since the 2003 assessment was completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
at https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
    \108\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
at https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled, 
with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation, 
mucus hypersecretion and congestion. The intense irritancy of this 
carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human 
subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory 
reactions within minutes of exposure.\109\ These data and additional 
studies regarding acute effects of human exposure to acrolein are 
summarized in EPA's 2003 IRIS Human Health Assessment for 
acrolein.\110\ Studies in humans indicate that levels as low as 0.09 
ppm (0.21 mg/m\3\) for five minutes may elicit subjective complaints of 
eye irritation with increasing concentrations leading to more extensive 
eye, nose and respiratory symptoms. Acute exposures in animal studies 
report bronchial hyper-responsiveness. Based on animal data (more 
pronounced respiratory irritancy in mice with allergic airway disease 
in comparison to non-diseased mice \111\) and demonstration of similar 
effects in humans (e.g., reduction in respiratory rate), individuals 
with compromised respiratory function (e.g., emphysema, asthma) are 
expected to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to 
strong respiratory irritants such as acrolein. EPA does not currently 
have an acute reference concentration for acrolein. The available 
health effect reference values for acrolein have been summarized by EPA 
and include an ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to acrolein of 7 [micro]g/
m\3\ for 1-14 days exposure; and Reference Exposure Level (REL) values 
from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 
(OEHHA) for one-hour and 8-hour exposures of 2.5 [micro]g/m\3\ and 0.7 
[micro]g/m\3\, respectively.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in 
support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 
EPA/635/R-03/003. p. 10. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
    \110\ U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in 
support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 
EPA/635/R-03/003. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
    \111\ Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. (2003). 
Immediate sensory nerve-mediated respiratory responses to irritants 
in healthy and allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol 
94(4):1563-1571.
    \112\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific 
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final 
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/061, 2009. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. 1,3-Butadiene
    EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by 
inhalation.113 114 The IARC has determined that 1,3-
butadiene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS has characterized 
1,3-butadiene as a known human carcinogen.115 116 117 There 
are numerous studies consistently demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is 
metabolized into genotoxic metabolites by experimental animals and 
humans. The specific mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced carcinogenesis 
are unknown; however, the scientific evidence strongly suggests that 
the carcinogenic effects are mediated by genotoxic metabolites. Animal 
data suggest that females may be more sensitive than males for cancer 
effects associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure; there are insufficient 
data in humans from which to draw conclusions about sensitive 
subpopulations. The URE for 1,3-butadiene is 3 x 10-5 per 
[micro]g/m\3\.\118\ 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.\119\ Based on this critical effect 
and the benchmark concentration methodology,

[[Page 29836]]

an RfC for chronic health effects was calculated at 0.9 ppb 
(approximately 2 [micro]g/m\3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene. 
Office of Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report 
No. EPA600-P-98-001F. This document is available electronically at 
https://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/buta-sup.pdf.
    \114\ U.S. EPA. (2002). ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene 
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center 
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
    \115\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(1999). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 
chemicals to humans, Volume 71, Re-evaluation of some organic 
chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97 (in 
preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
    \116\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(2008). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 
chemicals to humans, 1,3-Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides 
(Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide) Volume 97, World 
Health Organization, Lyon, France.
    \117\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 
pp.
    \118\ U.S. EPA. (2002). ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene 
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center 
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
    \119\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Ethanol
    EPA is planning to develop an assessment of the health effects of 
exposure to ethanol, a compound which is not currently listed on EPA's 
IRIS database. Extensive health effects data are available for 
ingestion of ethanol, while data on inhalation exposure effects are 
sparse. In developing the assessment, EPA is evaluating pharmacokinetic 
models as a means of extrapolating across species (animal to human) and 
across exposure routes (oral to inhalation) to better characterize the 
health hazards and dose-response relationships for low levels of 
ethanol exposure in the environment.
vii. Polycyclic Organic Matter
    The term polycyclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of 
compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds 
(PAHs). One of these compounds, naphthalene, is discussed separately 
below. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are 
present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Cancer is the 
major concern from exposure to POM. Epidemiologic studies have reported 
an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to diesel exhaust, coke 
oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke; all of 
these mixtures contain POM compounds.120 121 Animal studies 
have reported respiratory tract tumors from inhalation exposure to 
benzo[a]pyrene and alimentary tract and liver tumors from oral exposure 
to benzo[a]pyrene.\122\ In 1997 EPA classified seven PAHs 
(benzo[a]pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, 
benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-
cd]pyrene) as Group B2, probable human carcinogens.\123\ Since that 
time, 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 in preschool children (3 years 
of age).124 125 These and similar studies are being 
evaluated as a part of the ongoing IRIS assessment of health effects 
associated with exposure to benzo[a]pyrene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 
(1995). Toxicological profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 
(PAHs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Public Health Service. Available electronically at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=122&tid=25.
    \121\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel 
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and 
Development, Washington DC. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
    \122\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(2012). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of 
Chemicals for Humans, Chemical Agents and Related Occupations. Vol. 
100F. Lyon, France.
    \123\ U.S. EPA (1997). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. Research and Development, National Center 
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 
available electronically at https://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0457.htm.
    \124\ 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.
    \125\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

viii. PAN
    PAN (peroxy acetyl nitrate) has not been evaluated by EPA's IRIS 
program. Information regarding the potential carcinogenicity of PAN is 
limited. As noted in the EPA air quality criteria document for ozone 
and related photochemical oxidants, cytogenetic studies indicate that 
PAN is not a potent mutagen, clastogen (a compound that can cause 
breaks in chromosomes), or DNA-damaging agent in mammalian cells either 
in vivo or in vitro. Some studies suggest that PAN may be a weak 
bacterial mutagen at concentrations much higher than exist in present 
urban atmospheres.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ U.S. EPA. (2006). Air quality criteria for ozone and 
related photochemical oxidants (Ozone CD). Research Triangle Park, 
NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; report no. EPA/
600/R-05/004aF-cF.3v. page 5-78. Available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effects of ground-level smog causing intense eye irritation have 
been attributed to photochemical oxidants, including PAN.\127\ Animal 
toxicological information on the inhalation effects of the non-ozone 
oxidants has been limited to a few studies on PAN. Acute exposure to 
levels of PAN can cause changes in lung morphology, behavioral 
modifications, weight loss, and susceptibility to pulmonary infections. 
Human exposure studies indicate minor pulmonary function effects at 
high PAN concentrations, but large inter-individual variability 
precludes definitive conclusions.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ U.S. EPA (2005). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. page 
5-63. This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 
This document may be accessed electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
    \128\ U.S. EPA (2005). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and 
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 600/R-05/004aF-cF, 2006. page 
5-78. This document is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. 
This document may be accessed electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ix. Naphthalene
    Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel 
fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in 
both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with evaporative emissions 
from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a product of 
combustion. Acute (short-term) exposure of humans to naphthalene by 
inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemolytic 
anemia and damage to the liver and the nervous system.\129\ Chronic 
(long term) exposure of workers and rodents to naphthalene has been 
reported to cause cataracts and retinal damage.\130\ EPA released an 
external review draft of a reassessment of the inhalation 
carcinogenicity of naphthalene based on a number of recent animal 
carcinogenicity studies.\131\ The draft reassessment completed external 
peer review.\132\ Based on external peer review comments received, a 
revised draft assessment that considers all routes of exposure, as well 
as cancer and noncancer effects, is under development. The external 
review draft does not represent official agency opinion and was 
released solely for the purposes of external peer review and public 
comment. The National Toxicology Program listed naphthalene

[[Page 29837]]

as ``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen'' in 2004 on the 
basis of bioassays reporting clear evidence of carcinogenicity in rats 
and some evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.\133\ 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.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ U.S. EPA. 1998. 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.
    \130\ U.S. EPA. 1998. 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.
    \131\ U.S. EPA. (1998). 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.
    \132\ Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. (2004). 
External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation 
Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403.
    \133\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 
pp.
    \134\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of 
Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Naphthalene also causes a number of chronic non-cancer effects in 
animals, including abnormal cell changes and growth in respiratory and 
nasal tissues.\135\ The current EPA IRIS assessment includes noncancer 
data on hyperplasia and metaplasia in nasal tissue that form the basis 
of the inhalation RfC of 3 [micro]g/m\3\.\136\ The ATSDR MRL for acute 
exposure to naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ 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.
    \136\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 
Assessment, Washington, DC https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

x. Other Air Toxics
    In addition to the compounds described above, other compounds in 
gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions from light-duty vehicles would be 
affected by this proposal. Mobile source air toxic compounds that would 
potentially be impacted include ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde, toluene, 
and xylene. Information regarding the health effects of these compounds 
can be found in EPA's IRIS database.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 
database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Current Levels of Air Toxics
    The majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient 
concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to 
cause adverse health effects.\138\ The levels of air toxics to which 
people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the 
kinds of activities in which they engage, as discussed in detail in 
U.S. EPA's most recent Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule.\139\ According to 
the National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) for 2005,\140\ mobile sources 
were responsible for 43 percent of outdoor toxic emissions and over 50 
percent of the cancer risk and noncancer hazard associated with primary 
emissions. Mobile sources are also large contributors to precursor 
emissions which react to form secondary concentrations of air toxics. 
Formaldehyde is the largest contributor to cancer risk of all 80 
pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 2005 NATA. Mobile sources 
were responsible for over 40 percent of primary emissions of this 
pollutant in 2005, and are major contributors to formaldehyde precursor 
emissions. Benzene is also a large contributor to cancer risk, and 
mobile sources account for over 70 percent of ambient exposure. Over 
the years, EPA has implemented a number of mobile source and fuel 
controls which have resulted in VOC reductions, which also reduced 
formaldehyde, benzene and other air toxic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 
8434, February 26, 2007.
    \139\ U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 
8434, February 26, 2007.
    \140\ U.S. EPA. (2011). 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 
Assessment. https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Near-Roadway Pollution
    Locations in close proximity to major roadways generally have 
elevated concentrations of many air pollutants emitted from motor 
vehicles. Hundreds of such studies have been published in peer-reviewed 
journals, concluding that concentrations of CO, NO, NO2, 
benzene, aldehydes, particulate matter, black carbon, and many other 
compounds are elevated in ambient air within approximately 300-600 
meters (about 1,000-2,000 feet) of major roadways. Highest 
concentrations of most pollutants emitted directly by motor vehicles 
are found at locations within 50 meters (about 165 feet) of the edge of 
a roadway's traffic lanes.
    A recent large-scale review of air quality measurements in vicinity 
of major roadways between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pollutants 
with the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadways 
were CO, ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO, 
NOX, and several VOCs.\141\ These pollutants showed a large 
reduction in concentrations within 100 meters downwind of the roadway. 
Pollutants that showed more gradual reductions with distance from 
roadways included benzene, NO2, PM2.5, and 
PM10. In the review article, results varied based on the 
method of statistical analysis used to determine the trend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Karner, A.A.; Eisinger, D.S.; Niemeier, D.A. (2010). Near-
roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real-world data. 
Environ Sci Technol 44: 5334-5344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For pollutants with relatively high background concentrations 
relative to near-road concentrations, detecting concentration gradients 
can be difficult. For example, many aldehydes have high background 
concentrations as a result of photochemical breakdown of precursors 
from many different organic compounds. This can make detection of 
gradients around roadways and other primary emission sources difficult. 
However, several studies have measured aldehydes in multiple weather 
conditions, and found higher concentrations of many carbonyls downwind 
of roadways.142 143 These findings suggest a substantial 
roadway source of these carbonyls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Kwon, J.l; et al. (2006). 
Concentrations and source characteristics of airborne carbonyl 
compounds measured outside urban residences. J Air Waste Manage 
Assoc 56: 1196-1204.
    \143\ Cahill, T.M.; Charles, M.J.; Seaman, V.Y. (2010). 
Development and application of a sensitive method to determine 
concentrations of acrolein and other carbonyls in ambient air. 
Health Effects Institute Research Report 149.Available at https://dx.doi.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past 15 years, many studies have been published with results 
showing that populations who live, work, or go to school near high-
traffic roadways experience higher rates of numerous adverse health 
effects, compared to populations far away from major roads.\144\ In 
addition, numerous studies have found adverse health effects associated 
with spending time in traffic, such as commuting or walking along high-
traffic roadways. The health outcomes with the strongest evidence 
linking them with traffic-associated air pollutants are respiratory 
effects, particularly in asthmatic children, and cardiovascular 
effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ In the widely-used PubMed database of health publications, 
between January 1, 1990 and August 18, 2011, 605 publications 
contained the keywords ``traffic, pollution, epidemiology,'' with 
approximately half the studies published after 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous reviews of this body of health literature have been 
published as well. In 2010, an expert panel of the Health Effects 
Institute (HEI) published a review of hundreds of exposure, 
epidemiology, and toxicology studies.\145\ The panel rated how the 
evidence for each type of health outcome supported a conclusion of a 
causal association with traffic-

[[Page 29838]]

associated air pollution as either ``sufficient,'' ``suggestive but not 
sufficient,'' or ``inadequate and insufficient.'' The panel categorized 
evidence of a causal association for exacerbation of childhood asthma 
as ``sufficient.'' The panel categorized evidence of a causal 
association for new onset asthma as between ``sufficient'' and as 
``suggestive but not sufficient.'' ``Suggestive of a causal 
association'' was how the panel categorized evidence linking traffic-
associated air pollutants with exacerbation of adult respiratory 
symptoms and lung function decrement. It categorized as ``inadequate 
and insufficient'' evidence of a causal relationship between traffic-
related air pollution and health care utilization for respiratory 
problems, new onset adult asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 
(COPD), nonasthmatic respiratory allergy, and cancer in adults and 
children. Other literature reviews have been published with conclusions 
similar to the HEI panel's.146 147 148 Health outcomes with 
few publications suggest the possibility of other effects still lacking 
sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Among these 
outcomes with a small number of positive studies are neurological 
impacts (e.g., autism and reduced cognitive function) and reproductive 
outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth 
weight).149 150 151 152
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of 
Traffic-Related Air Pollution. (2010). Traffic-related air 
pollution: a critical review of the literature on emissions, 
exposure, and health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at 
https://www.healtheffects.org.
    \146\ Boothe, V.L.; Shendell, D.G. (2008). Potential health 
effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and primay 
roads: review of scientific literature, 1999-2006. J Environ Health 
70: 33-41.
    \147\ Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008). Recent 
evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic 
sources on asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 14: 3-8.
    \148\ Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air pollution 
and childhood cancer: a review of the epidemiological literature. 
Int J Cancer 118: 2920-9.
    \149\ Volk, H.E.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Delwiche, L.; et al. 
(2011). Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE 
study. Environ Health Perspect 119: 873-877.
    \150\ Franco-Suglia, S.; Gryparis, A.; Wright, R.O.; et al. 
(2007). Association of black carbon with cognition among children in 
a prospective birth cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. doi: 10.1093/aje/
kwm308. [Online at https://dx.doi.org].
    \151\ Power, M.C.; Weisskopf, M.G.; Alexeef, SE.; et al. (2011). 
Traffic-related air pollution and cognitive function in a cohort of 
older men. Environ Health Perspect 2011: 682-687.
    \152\ Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; et al. (2011). Comparing 
exposure assessment methods for traffic-related air pollution in and 
adverse pregnancy outcome study. Environ Res 111: 685-6692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to health outcomes, particularly cardiopulmonary 
effects, conclusions of numerous studies suggest mechanisms by which 
traffic-related air pollution affects health. Numerous studies indicate 
that near-roadway exposures increase systemic inflammation, affecting 
organ systems, including blood vessels and 
lungs.153 154 155 156 Long-term exposures in near-road 
environments have been associated with inflammation-associated 
conditions, such as atherosclerosis and asthma.157 158 159
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Riediker, M. (2007). Cardiovascular effects of fine 
particulate matter components in highway patrol officers. Inhal 
Toxicol 19: 99-105. doi: 10.1080/08958370701495238 Available at 
https://dx.doi.org.
    \154\ Alexeef, S.E.; Coull, B.A.; Gryparis, A.; et al. (2011). 
Medium-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and markers of 
inflammation and endothelial function. Environ Health Perspect 119: 
481-486. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002560 Available at https://dx.doi.org.
    \155\ Eckel. S.P.; Berhane, K.; Salam, M.T.; et al. (2011). 
Traffic-related pollution exposure and exhaled nitric oxide in the 
Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect (IN PRESS). 
doi:10.1289/ehp.1103516. Available at https://dx.doi.org.
    \156\ Zhang, J.; McCreanor, J.E.; Cullinan, P.; et al. (2009). 
Health effects of real-world exposure diesel exhaust in persons with 
asthma. Res Rep Health Effects Inst 138. [Online at https://www.healtheffects.org].
    \157\ Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010). Air 
pollution and the microvasculatory: a cross-sectional assessment of 
in vivo retinal images in the population-based Multi-Ethnic Study of 
Atherosclerosis. PLoS Med 7(11): E1000372. doi:10.1371/
journal.pmed.1000372. Available at https://dx.doi.org.
    \158\ Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (2008). Proxpective 
analysis of traffic exposure as a risk factor for incident coronary 
heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. 
Environ Health Perspect 116: 1463-1468. doi:10.1289/ehp.11290. 
Available at https://dx.doi.org.
    \159\ McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et al. (2010). 
Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home 
and school. Environ Health Perspect 1021-1026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several studies suggest that some factors may increase 
susceptibility to the effects of traffic-associated air pollution. 
Several studies have found stronger respiratory associations in 
children experiencing chronic social stress, such as in violent 
neighborhoods or in homes with high family 
stress.160 161 162
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Islam, T.; Urban, R.; Gauderman, W.J.; et al. (2011). 
Parental stress increases the detrimental effect of traffic exposure 
on children's lung function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (In press)
    \161\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; et al. 
(2007). Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and 
exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health 
Perspect 115: 1140-1146.
    \162\ Chen, E.; Schrier, H.M.; Strunk, R.C.; et al. (2008). 
Chronic traffic-related air pollution and stress interact to predict 
biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma. Environ Health Perspect 
116: 970-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The risks associated with residence, workplace, or schools near 
major roads are of potentially high public health significance due to 
the large population in such locations. According to the 2009 American 
Housing Survey, over 22 million homes (17.0 percent of all U.S. housing 
units) were located within 300 feet of an airport, railroad, or highway 
with four or more lanes. This corresponds to a population of more than 
50 million U.S. residents in close proximity to high-traffic roadways 
or other transportation sources. As discussed in Section III, 
populations near major roads have higher fractions of minority 
residents and lower socioeconomic status. Furthermore, on average, 
Americans spend more than an hour traveling each day, bringing nearly 
all residents into a high-exposure microenvironment for part of the 
day.
    EPA continues to research near-road air quality, including the 
types of pollutants found in high concentrations near major roads and 
health problems associated with the mixture of pollutants near roads.
7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
a. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
    Elevated ozone levels contribute to environmental effects, with 
impacts to plants and ecosystems being of most concern. Ozone can 
produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on 
the concentration level and the duration of the exposure. Ozone effects 
also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that 
even low concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the 
potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to 
plants includes visible injury to leaves and impaired photosynthesis, 
both of which can lead to reduced plant growth and reproduction, 
resulting in reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of 
sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the impairment of 
photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes carbohydrates (its 
source of energy and food), can lead to a subsequent reduction in root 
growth and carbohydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more 
subtle plant and ecosystems impacts.
    These latter impacts include increased susceptibility of plants to 
insect attack, disease, harsh weather, interspecies competition and 
overall decreased plant vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on forest 
and other natural vegetation can potentially lead to species shifts and 
loss from the affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss or reduction in 
associated ecosystem goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone injury 
to leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special 
scenic significance like national parks and wilderness areas. The final 
2006 Ozone Air Quality Criteria Document presents more detailed 
information on ozone effects on vegetation and ecosystems.

[[Page 29839]]

b. Visibility
    Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is 
transparent to visible light.\163\ Visibility impairment is caused by 
light scattering and absorption by suspended particles and gases. 
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 2009 PM ISA.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ 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 book can be viewed on the 
National Academy Press Web site at https://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/.
    \164\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to address visibility 
impairment. First, EPA developed the regional haze program which was 
put in place in July 1999 to protect the visibility in Mandatory Class 
I Federal areas.\165\ There are 156 national parks, forests and 
wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas.\166\ 
These areas are defined in CAA section 162 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. Second, EPA has concluded that PM2.5 causes 
adverse effects on visibility in other areas that are not protected by 
the Regional Haze Rule, depending on PM2.5 concentrations 
and other factors that control their visibility impact effectiveness 
such as dry chemical composition and relative humidity (i.e., an 
indicator of the water composition of the particles). EPA revised the 
PM2.5 standards in December 2012 and established a target 
level of protection that is expected to be met through attainment of 
the existing secondary standards for PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
    \166\ 62 FR 38680-38681 (July 18, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Current Visibility Levels
    As mentioned in Section II.B.2.c, millions of people live in 
nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 NAAQS. These populations, 
as well as large numbers of individuals who travel to these areas, are 
likely to experience visibility impairment. In addition, while 
visibility trends have improved in mandatory class I federal areas, the 
most recent data show that these areas continue to suffer from 
visibility impairment. In summary, visibility impairment is experienced 
throughout the U.S., in multi-state regions, urban areas, and remote 
mandatory class I federal areas.
c. Atmospheric Deposition
    Wet and dry deposition of ambient particulate matter delivers a 
complex mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, lead, nickel, aluminum, 
cadmium), organic compounds (e.g., polycyclic organic matter, dioxins, 
furans) and inorganic compounds (e.g., nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial 
and aquatic ecosystems. The chemical form of the compounds deposited 
depends on a variety of factors including ambient conditions (e.g., 
temperature, humidity, oxidant levels) and the sources of the material. 
Chemical and physical transformations of the compounds occur in the 
atmosphere as well as the media onto which they deposit. These 
transformations in turn influence the fate, bioavailability and 
potential toxicity of these compounds. Atmospheric deposition has been 
identified as a key component of the environmental and human health 
hazard posed by several pollutants including mercury, dioxin and 
PCBs.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Deposition of Air Pollutants to the 
Great Waters: Third Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards. EPA-453/R-00-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adverse impacts on water quality can occur when atmospheric 
contaminants deposit to the water surface or when material deposited on 
the land enters a waterbody through runoff. Potential impacts of 
atmospheric deposition to waterbodies include those related to both 
nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse effects to human health and welfare 
can occur from the addition of excess nitrogen via atmospheric 
deposition. The nitrogen-nutrient enrichment contributes to toxic algae 
blooms and zones of depleted oxygen, which can lead to fish kills, 
frequently in coastal waters. Deposition of heavy metals or other 
toxics may lead to the human ingestion of contaminated fish, impairment 
of drinking water, damage to freshwater and marine ecosystem 
components, and limits to recreational uses. Several studies have been 
conducted in U.S. coastal waters and in the Great Lakes Region in which 
the role of ambient PM deposition and runoff is 
investigated.168 169 170 171 172
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ U.S. EPA. (2004). National Coastal Condition Report II. 
Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. EPA-620/R-03/
002.
    \169\ Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. (2002). 
Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on PM2.5 
particulate matter over the New York-New Jersey harbor estuary. 
Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077-1086.
    \170\ Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church. 
(2000). Factors influencing the atmospheric depositional fluxes of 
stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 
65-79.
    \171\ Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. (2003). Dry 
deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los Angeles Basin and 
adjacent coastal waters. J. Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11-1 to 
11-24.
    \172\ Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al. (2002). 
Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes Erie and Ontario: A 
comparative analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(3): 437-450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur contributes to 
acidification, altering biogeochemistry and affecting animal and plant 
life in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems across the United States. 
The sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to acidification 
from nitrogen and sulfur deposition is predominantly governed by 
geology. Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen and sulfur deposition in 
sensitive areas acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. Increased acidity in 
surface waters creates inhospitable conditions for biota and affects 
the abundance and nutritional value of preferred prey species, 
threatening biodiversity and ecosystem function. Over time, acidifying 
deposition also removes essential nutrients from forest soils, 
depleting the capacity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and 
negatively affecting forest sustainability. Major effects include a 
decline in sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce (Picea 
rubens) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and a loss of biodiversity of 
fishes, zooplankton, and macro invertebrates.
    In addition to the role nitrogen deposition plays in acidification, 
nitrogen deposition also leads to nutrient enrichment and altered 
biogeochemical cycling. In aquatic systems increased nitrogen can alter 
species assemblages and cause eutrophication. In terrestrial systems 
nitrogen loading can lead to loss of nitrogen sensitive lichen species, 
decreased biodiversity of grasslands, meadows and other sensitive 
habitats, and increased potential for invasive species. For a broader 
explanation of the topics treated here, refer to the description in 
Section 6.3.2 of the RIA.
    Adverse impacts on soil chemistry and plant life have been observed 
for areas heavily influenced by atmospheric

[[Page 29840]]

deposition of nutrients, metals and acid species, resulting in species 
shifts, loss of biodiversity, forest decline, damage to forest 
productivity and reductions in ecosystem services. Potential impacts 
also include adverse effects to human health through ingestion of 
contaminated vegetation or livestock (as in the case for dioxin 
deposition), reduction in crop yield, and limited use of land due to 
contamination.
    Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can reduce the aesthetic 
appeal of buildings and culturally important articles through soiling, 
and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants) 
to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion. Atmospheric 
deposition may 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).
i. Current Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
    Over the past two decades, the EPA has undertaken numerous efforts 
to reduce nitrogen and sulfur deposition across the U.S. Analyses of 
long-term monitoring data for the U.S. show that deposition of both 
nitrogen and sulfur compounds has decreased over the last 17 years. The 
data show that reductions were more substantial for sulfur compounds 
than for nitrogen compounds. In the eastern U.S., where data are most 
abundant, total sulfur deposition decreased by about 44 percent between 
1990 and 2007, while total nitrogen deposition decreased by 25 percent 
over the same time frame.\173\ These numbers are generated by the U.S. 
national monitoring network and they likely underestimate nitrogen 
deposition because neither ammonia nor organic nitrogen is measured. 
Although total nitrogen and sulfur deposition has decreased over time, 
many areas continue to be negatively impacted by deposition. Deposition 
of inorganic nitrogen and sulfur species routinely measured in the U.S. 
between 2005 and 2007 were as high as 9.6 kilograms of nitrogen per 
hectare (kg N/ha) averaged over three years and 20.8 kilograms of 
sulfur per hectare (kg S/ha) averaged over three years.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment. 
Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=216610.
    \174\ U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment. 
Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=216610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Environmental Effects of Air Toxics
    Emissions from producing, transporting and combusting fuel 
contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse 
effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds, some of which are 
considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in 
vegetation damage.\175\ In laboratory experiments, a wide range of 
tolerance to VOCs has been observed.\176\ Decreases in harvested seed 
pod weight have been reported for the more sensitive plants, and some 
studies have reported effects on seed germination, flowering and fruit 
ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or their role in conjunction with 
other stressors (e.g., acidification, drought, temperature extremes) 
have not been well studied. In a recent study of a mixture of VOCs 
including ethanol and toluene on herbaceous plants, significant effects 
on seed production, leaf water content and photosynthetic efficiency 
were reported for some plant species.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals in the 
atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3-91/001.
    \176\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M 
Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on 
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ. 
Pollut. 124:341-343.
    \177\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M 
Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on 
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ. 
Pollut. 124:341-343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants, 
which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in 
other cases to nitrogen oxides.178 179 180
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ Viskari E-L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce 
needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air, 
and Soil Pollut. 121:327-337.
    \179\ Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). Uptake and 
transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox. 
Environ. Safety 37:24-29.
    \180\ Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A Ziegler-Jons, D 
Knoppik, B Hock. (1987). Toxic components of motor vehicle emissions 
for the spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235-243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. How would this proposal reduce emissions and air pollution?

A. Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and Fuel Changes on Mobile Source 
Emissions

    The vehicle and fuel standards that EPA is proposing would 
significantly reduce the tailpipe and evaporative emissions of light- 
and heavy-duty vehicles in several ways, as described in this section. 
In addition, the proposed gasoline sulfur standard would reduce 
emissions of SO2 from existing gasoline-powered vehicles and 
equipment. As described in Section II, all of these emission reductions 
would in turn improve air quality nationwide and reduce the health 
effects associated with air pollution from mobile sources.
    As with the Tier 2 program, EPA is proposing to implement closely-
coordinated requirements for both automakers and refiners in the same 
rulemaking action. The proposed vehicle emission standards and gasoline 
sulfur standards represent a ``systems approach'' to reducing vehicle-
related exhaust and evaporative emissions. By recognizing the 
relationships among the various sources of emissions addressed by this 
proposed rule, we have been able to integrate the provisions into a 
single, coordinated program.
1. How do vehicles produce the emissions addressed in this proposal?
    The degree to which vehicles produce exhaust and evaporative 
emissions depends on the design and functionality of the engine and the 
associated exhaust and evaporative emission controls, in concert with 
the properties of the fuel on which the vehicle is operating. In the 
following paragraphs, we discuss how light- and heavy-duty vehicles 
produce each of these types of emissions, both from the tailpipe and 
from the fuel system.
a. Tailpipe (Exhaust) Emissions
    Which pollutants are emitted at the vehicle's tailpipe and their 
quantities depend on how the fuel is combusted in the engine and how 
the resulting gases are treated in the exhaust system. Historically, 
much of tailpipe emission control has focused on hydrocarbon compounds 
(HC) and NOX. The portion of hydrocarbons that is methane is 
minimally reactive in forming ozone. Thus, for emission control 
purposes, the focus is generally on non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), 
which are also expressed as non-methane organic gases (NMOG) in order 
to account for oxygenates (usually ethanol) now usually present in the 
fuel.
    Tailpipe hydrocarbon emissions also include several toxic 
pollutants, including benzene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. To 
varying degrees, the mass emissions of these pollutants are reduced 
along with other hydrocarbons by the catalytic converter and improved 
engine controls.

[[Page 29841]]

    Light- and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles also emit PM and CO. PM 
forms directly as a combustion product (primarily as elemental carbon, 
usually called soot) and also indirectly as semi-volatile hydrocarbon 
compounds that form particles in the exhaust system or soon after 
exiting the tailpipe. CO is a product of incomplete fuel combustion.
    When operating properly, modern exhaust emission controls 
(centering on the catalytic convertor) can reduce much of the HC 
(including toxics), NOX and CO exiting the engine. However, 
tailpipe emissions are increased during periods of vehicle startup, as 
catalytic convertors must warm up to be effective; during subsequent 
operation due to the interference of sulfur in the gasoline; during 
high load operating events, as the catalyst is overwhelmed or its 
operation is modified to protect against permanent damage; and as a 
vehicle ages, as the catalyst degrades in performance due to the 
effects of high temperature operation and contaminants in the fuel and 
lubricating oil.
b. Evaporative Emissions
    Gasoline vehicles also produce vapors in the fuel tank and fuel 
system that can be released as evaporative emissions. These vapors are 
primarily the lighter, more volatile hydrocarbon compounds in the 
gasoline, which, like exhaust hydrocarbons, contribute to 
concentrations of VOCs in the atmosphere.
    As discussed in Section IV below, vehicle evaporative (``evap'') 
control systems are designed to block or capture vapors as they are 
generated. Vapors are generated in the vehicle fuel tank and fuel 
system (and released to the atmosphere if not adequately controlled) as 
fuel heats up due to ambient temperature increase and/or vehicle 
operation. Fuel vapors are also released when they permeate through 
hose material, when they leak at connections or due to damaged 
components, and during refueling events.
    In general, the evap emission controls on current vehicles (and 
that would be improved under this proposed rule) consist of a canister 
filled with activated charcoal and connected by hoses to the fuel 
system. The hoses direct generated vapors to the canister, which 
collects the vapors on the carbon and stores them until the system 
experiences a ``purge'' event. During purge, the engine draws fresh air 
through the canister, carrying vapors released by the carbon to the 
engine to be combusted and restoring the capacity of the canister. 
Evaporative emissions occur when vapors are emitted to the atmosphere 
because the evap system is compromised, the carbon canister is 
overwhelmed, or vapors permeate or leak. As such, evaporative emission 
controls also involve proper material selection for fuel system 
components, careful design of these components, and onboard diagnostics 
to check the system for failure.
2. How would the proposed changes to gasoline sulfur content affect 
vehicle emissions?
    Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on catalytic converters 
to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and 
NOX, as well as PM (specifically, the volatile hydrocarbon 
fraction), CO, and most air toxics. The presence of sulfur in gasoline 
has a strong impact on these emissions, particularly NOX, 
due to its impact on proper catalyst operation.
    Sulfur naturally occurs in crude oil and thus in gasoline. In 
vehicle catalytic converters, the precious metals that catalyze the 
reactions that convert the pollutants become significantly less 
efficient when sulfur is deposited (adsorbed) onto them. The Tier 2 
rulemaking required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in 
gasoline by approximately 90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. At the 
time there were indications that sulfur reductions below 30 ppm may 
continue to provide additional emission benefits. However, the data was 
insufficient to quantify the benefits to the existing fleet, and the 
Tier 2 vehicle standards could be achieved without lowering sulfur 
further. As a result, to minimize the cost of the Tier 2 program, the 
sulfur standard was not further reduced below 30 ppm.
    As discussed in Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a 
compelling case that even this level of sulfur degrades the emission 
performance of vehicles on the road today, and inhibits necessary 
further reductions in vehicle emissions performance, which depend on 
optimum catalyst performance to reach emission targets. A study 
conducted by EPA and the auto industry in support of the Mobile Source 
Air Toxics (MSAT) rule found significant reductions in NOX, 
CO and total HC when nine Tier 2 vehicles were tested on low sulfur 
fuel, relative to 32-ppm fuel.\181\ In particular, the study found a 
nearly 50 percent increase in NOX when sulfur was increased 
from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Another recent study by Umicore showed reductions 
of 41 percent for NOX and 17 percent for HC on a PZEV 
operating on fuel with 33-ppm and 3-ppm fuel.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of Hazardous 
Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420-R-07-002, 
Chapter 6.
    \182\ Ball D., Clark D., Moser D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur 
on FTP NOx Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE 2011 
World Congress Paper 2011-01-0300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A larger study recently completed by EPA confirmed these results, 
showing significant reductions in FTP-composite NOX (23 
percent), CO (12 percent) and total HC (13 percent) on the 5-ppm fuel, 
relative to 28-ppm fuel. For NOX, the majority of overall 
reductions were driven by large reductions on warmed-up periods of the 
test cycle (Bag 2), which showed a 59 percent reduction between 28 and 
5-ppm fuel, consistent with the role of sulfur in catalyst degradation 
discussed above. Applying individual bag reductions to in-use activity 
patterns from EPA emission models suggests an overall NOX 
reduction of nearly 40 percent on the road.
    Based on these studies, the benefits of the proposed Tier 3 sulfur 
standard are significant in two ways: they enable vehicles designed to 
the proposed Tier 3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards 
for the duration of their useful life, and they facilitate immediate 
emission reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the 
sulfur controls are implemented.

B. How would emissions be reduced?

    The proposed standards would reduce emissions of VOC, 
NOX (including NO2), direct PM2.5, CO, 
SO2, and air toxics. The proposed sulfur standards would 
reduce emissions from the on-road fleet immediately upon 
implementation, so to reflect these early reductions, we present 
emission reductions in calendar year 2017. The proposed vehicle 
standards would begin to reduce emissions as the cleaner cars and 
trucks begin to enter the fleet in model year 2017. The magnitude of 
reduction would grow as more Tier 3 vehicles enter the fleet. 
Therefore, we also present emission reductions in calendar year 2030, 
when model year 2017 and later cars and trucks contribute nearly 90 
percent of fleet-wide vehicle miles travelled. Although 2030 is the 
farthest year that is feasible for air quality modeling, the full 
reduction of the vehicle program would be realized after 2030, when the 
fleet has fully turned over to Tier 3 vehicles. In Chapter 7 of the 
RIA, we present emission reductions projected in 2050, as well as 
additional calendar years between 2017 and 2030.
    Emission reductions are estimated on an annual basis, for all 50 
U.S. states

[[Page 29842]]

plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
The reductions were estimated using a version of EPA's MOVES model 
updated for this analysis, as described in detail in Chapter 7 of the 
RIA. This version of MOVES includes our most recent data on how vehicle 
emissions are affected by changes in sulfur, ethanol, and other fuel 
properties. We estimated emission reductions compared to a reference 
case that assumed partial RFS2 implementation by 2017, with full 
implementation in 2022 and beyond. The ethanol scenarios used for the 
reference and control cases were the ``post-EPAct/EISA'' scenario 
defined in Chapter 7 of the RIA, reflecting a mix of E10 and E15 in 
2017, and E15 only in 2030. The reference case also assumed 
continuation of the Tier 2 vehicle program indefinitely, and an average 
sulfur level of 30 ppm (10 ppm in California).
    As discussed throughout this preamble, implementation of the 
proposed Tier 3 standards is aligned with the 2017 LD GHG standards to 
achieve significant criteria pollutant and GHG emissions reductions 
while providing regulatory certainty and compliance efficiency to the 
auto and oil industries. The 2017 LD GHG standards were still in a 
preliminary state of development (pre-proposal) at the time we 
finalized our assumptions for the Tier 3 emissions, air quality, and 
cost analyses, so we were not able to reflect them in these analyses. 
However, we continue to expect vehicle criteria pollutant performance 
to be neutral under the GHG program, because exhaust and evaporative 
emissions are not proportional to the amount of fuel burned; rather, 
our standards are expressed on a per-mile basis, not on a per-gallon 
basis. Vehicle criteria emissions are almost exclusively controlled by 
a vehicle's emissions aftertreatment system and not by the efficiency 
of the engine.
    The majority of the NMOG that is emitted from a gasoline engine is 
generated during cold start, before the catalyst is lit off, and 
NOX is often created during higher load operation. 
Optimizing catalyst efficiency, minimizing thermal parasitics, 
minimizing fuel system leaks, and lower gasoline sulfur will be key 
enablers for all vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards, regardless of 
the vehicle's fuel efficiency. Because we do not expect the increase in 
fuel efficiency to result in lower criteria pollutant emissions, we did 
not claim in the 2017 LD GHG rule any reductions attributable to the 
ability of vehicles to meet lower criteria emission levels (see 77 FR 
62899-62901, October 15, 2012). In other words, in the 2017 LD GHG 
rule, we assumed that, absent the proposed Tier 3 standards, the light-
duty fleet would continue to meet the Tier 2 standards. Thus, we 
believe that the inclusion of the light-duty GHG standards in our cost 
and benefit analyses for the proposed Tier 3 standards would have had 
little or no impact on the results or our conclusions, as discussed in 
Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.2.1 of the draft RIA. Nevertheless, for the 
final rulemaking we will include the LD GHG requirements in the 
analysis.
    The analysis described here does account for the following national 
onroad rules:

 Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 
Control Requirements (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000)
 Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel 
Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001)
 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007)
 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable 
Fuel Standard Program (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010)
 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for 2012-2016 (75 FR 25324, 
May 7, 2010)
The analysis also accounts for many other national rules and standards. 
In addition, the modeling accounts for state and local rules including 
local fuel standards, Inspection/Maintenance programs, Stage II 
refueling controls, the National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV), 
and the section 177 states LEV and LEVII programs. See the Tier 3 
emissions modeling TSD for more detail.

    A summary of emission reductions projected to result from Tier 3, 
relative to the reference case, is shown in calendar years 2017 and 
2030 for NOX, VOC, direct PM2.5, CO, 
SO2, and total air toxics in Table III-1. For many 
pollutants, the immediate reductions in 2017 are significant; for 
example, combined NOX and VOC emissions would be reduced by 
over 300,000 tons. By 2030, combined NOX and VOC emissions 
would be reduced by roughly 750,000 tons, one quarter of the onroad 
inventory. Many of the modeled air toxics would be significantly 
reduced as well, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, 
acrolein and ethanol (ranging from 20 to nearly 40 percent of the 
national onroad inventory by 2030). The relative reduction in overall 
emissions would continue to increase beyond 2030 as more of the fleet 
continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicles; for example, by 2050, when 
nearly all of the fleet would have turned over to Tier 3 standards, we 
estimate the Tier 3 program would reduce onroad emissions of 
NOX and VOC nearly 40 percent from the level of emissions 
projected without Tier 3 controls.

                  Table III-1--Estimated Emission Reductions from the Proposed Tier 3 Standards
                                          [Annual U.S. short tons] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2017                            2030
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Percent of                      Percent of
                                                      Tons            onroad           Tons           onroad
                                                                    inventory                        inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX............................................         284,381              8           524,790              28
VOC............................................          44,782              3           226,028              23
CO.............................................         746,683              4         5,765,362              30
Direct PM2.5...................................             121              0.1           7,458              10
Benzene........................................           1,625              4             8,582              36
SO2............................................          16,261             51            17,267              51
1,3-Butadiene..................................             322              5             1,087              37
Formaldehyde...................................             727              3             2,707              12
Acetaldehyde...................................             762              3             4,414              26
Acrolein.......................................              23              1               184              15

[[Page 29843]]

 
Ethanol........................................           2,684              2            27,821              24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For
  the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it.

    Reductions for each pollutant are discussed in the following 
sections, focusing on the contribution of program elements to the total 
reductions summarized above.
1. NOX
    The proposed sulfur standards would significantly reduce 
NOX emissions immediately upon implementation of the 
program. As discussed above, recent research on the impact of sulfur on 
Tier 2 technology vehicles shows the potential for significant 
reductions in NOX emissions from the existing fleet of Tier 
2 vehicles by lowering sulfur levels to 10 ppm. Prior research shows 
that NOX emissions would also be expected to decrease from 
the fleet of older (pre-Tier 2) light-duty vehicles as well as heavy-
duty gasoline vehicles,\183\ although at to a lesser extent than for 
Tier 2 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Rao, V. (2001) Fuel Sulfur Effects on Exhaust Emissions: 
Recommendations for MOBILE6, EPA420-R-01-039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table III-2 shows the reduction in NOX emissions, in 
annual short tons, projected in calendar years 2017 and 2030. The 
reductions are split into those attributable to the introduction of low 
sulfur fuel in the pre-Tier 3 fleet (defined for this analysis as model 
years prior to 2017); and reductions attributable to vehicle standards 
enabled by low sulfur fuel (model year 2017 and later). As shown, upon 
implementation of the proposed sulfur standards, total onroad 
NOX emissions are projected to drop 8 percent. This is 
primarily due to large reductions from Tier 2 gasoline vehicles, which 
contribute about one-quarter of the NOX emissions from the 
on-road fleet in 2017. The relative reduction grows as cleaner vehicles 
turn over into the fleet. By 2030, we project that the reduction in 
overall onroad NOX inventory would be close to 30 percent.

        Table III-2--Projected NOX Reductions From Tier 3 Program
                         [Annual U.S. Tons] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2017            2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction.........................         284,381         524,790
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to           264,653          66,286
 sulfur standard........................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to                19,728         458,504
 vehicle and sulfur standards...........
Percent reduction in onroad NOX                       8%             28%
 emissions..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle
  standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will
  account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently
  adopted it.

2. VOC
    Table III-3 shows the reduction in VOC emissions, in annual short 
tons, projected in calendar years 2017 and 2030 resulting from the 
proposed standards. In 2017, as with NOX, we project 
reductions from the pre-Tier 3 fleet with the proposed fuel standards. 
By 2030 the reduction in overall onroad VOC emissions would be over 20 
percent, the majority of this from the Tier 3 fleet. The proposed 
evaporative standards are projected to account for roughly one quarter 
of the overall vehicle program reduction in 2030.

        Table III-3--Projected VOC Reductions From Tier 3 Program
                         [Annual U.S. tons] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2017            2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction.........................          44,782         226,028
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to            39,561          13,739
 sulfur standard........................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to                 5,222         212,289
 vehicle and sulfur standards...........
Exhaust.................................          41,433         168,264
Evaporative.............................           3,349          57,764
Percent reduction in onroad VOC                       3%             23%
 emissions..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle
  standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will
  account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently
  adopted it.


[[Page 29844]]

3. CO
    Table III-4 shows the reductions for CO, broken down by pre- and 
post-Tier 3 in the manner described for NOX and VOC above. 
Based on research showing sizeable CO reductions from lower sulfur 
fuel, the immediate reductions in the onroad fleet from sulfur control 
are also significant. The CO exhaust standards are projected to reduce 
onroad CO emissions 30 percent by 2030.

        Table III-4--Projected CO Reductions From Tier 3 Program
                           [Annual U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2017            2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction.........................         746,683       5,765,362
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to           608,502         139,074
 sulfur standard........................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to               138,181       5,626,288
 vehicle and sulfur standards...........
Percent reduction in onroad CO emissions              4%             30%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle
  standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will
  account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently
  adopted it.

4. Direct PM2.5
    Reductions in direct emissions of PM2.5 are projected to 
result solely from the proposed vehicle tailpipe standards, so 
meaningful reductions are realized mainly as the fleet turns over. By 
2030, we project a reduction of about 7,500 tons annually, which 
represents approximately 10 percent of the onroad direct 
PM2.5 inventory. However, since the PM standards are mainly 
focused on improving engine durability through the end of a vehicle's 
useful life, the relative reduction in onroad emissions is projected to 
grow to 17 percent with full fleet turnover in 2050. Reductions in 
NOX and VOC emissions would also reduce secondary PM 
formation, which is quantified as part of the air quality analysis 
described in Section III.C.
5. Air Toxics
    Emissions of air toxics also would be reduced by the proposed 
sulfur, exhaust and evaporative standards. Air toxics are generally a 
subset of compounds making up VOC, so the reduction trends tend to 
track the VOC reductions presented above. Table III-5 presents 
reductions for certain key air toxics, and Table III-6 presents 
reductions for the sum of 71 different toxic compounds.

                            Table III-5--Reductions for Certain Individual Compounds
                                               [Annual U.S. tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Percent                         Percent
                                                   Tons reduced    reduction in    Tons reduced    reduction in
                                                      in 2017         onroad          in 2030         onroad
                                                                     emissions                       emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde....................................             762               3           4,414              26
Formaldehyde....................................             727               3           2,707              12
Acrolein........................................              23               1             184              15
1,3-Butadiene...................................             322               5           1,087              37
Benzene.........................................           1,625               4           8,581              36
Naphthalene.....................................              96               2             420              17
Ethanol.........................................           2,684               2          27,821              24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For
  the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it.

    The totals shown in Table III-6 represent the sum of 71 species 
including the toxics in Table III-5, 15 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 
(PAH) compounds in gas and particle phase, and additional gaseous 
compounds such as toluene, xylenes, styrene, hexane, 2,2,4-
trimethylpentane, n-hexane, and propionaldehyde (Appendix 7A in the 
draft RIA). As shown, in 2030 the overall onroad inventory of total 
toxics would be reduced by over 20 percent, with nearly one third of 
the vehicle program reductions coming from the proposed evaporative 
standards.

        Table III-6--Reductions in Total Mobile Source Air Toxics
                           [Annual U.S. Tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2017            2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction.........................          15,156          89,685
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to            12,452           5,022
 sulfur standard........................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to                 2,683          84,663
 vehicle and sulfur standards...........
Exhaust.................................          13,748          64,144
Evaporative.............................           1,408          25,541
Percent reduction in onroad toxics                    3%            23%
 emissions..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle
  standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will
  account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently
  adopted it.


[[Page 29845]]

6. SO2
    SO2 emissions from mobile sources are a direct function 
of sulfur in the fuel, and reducing sulfur in gasoline would result in 
immediate reductions in SO2 from the on and off-road fleet. 
The reductions, shown in Table III-7, are a function of the sulfur 
level and fuel consumption. This is reflected in the relative 
contribution of on-road vehicles and off-road equipment, where off-road 
gasoline consumption accounts for approximately 5 percent of overall 
gasoline use.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ U.S. Energy Information Administration (2011), Annual 
Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA-0383 (2011).

        Table III-7--Projected SO2 Reductions From Tier 3 Program
                           [Annual U.S. Tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2017            2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction.........................          16,261          17,267
Reduction from onroad vehicles due to             15,494          16,370
 sulfur standard........................
Reduction from off-road equipment due to             767             897
 sulfur standard........................
Percent reduction in onroad SO2                      51%             51%
 emissions..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 7. Greenhouse Gases
    Reductions in nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and methane 
(CH4) emissions, both potent greenhouse gas emissions, are 
projected for gasoline cars and trucks due to the proposed sulfur and 
tailpipe standards. A study conducted by the University of California 
at Riverside found a 29 percent reduction in N2O emissions 
over the FTP when sulfur was reduced from 30 to 5 ppm,\185\ while EPA 
research described in Section IV.A on sulfur effects found a 25 percent 
reduction in CH4 emissions when sulfur was reduced from 28 
to 5 ppm. Several studies have established correlations between 
reductions in tailpipe NOX emissions and reductions in 
N2O from gasoline cars and trucks,186 187 188 as 
well as correlations between reductions in tailpipe HC emissions and 
reductions in CH4.189 190 One such study 
(Behrentz et al.) reported an N2O: NOX ratio of 
0.095  0.035, and supported the application of 
N2O: NOX ratios to NOX emissions as a 
reasonable method for estimating N2O emission inventories. 
As detailed in RIA Chapter 7.3, a range of N2O reductions is 
bounded by applying this ratio to NOX reductions projected 
for this proposal (from Table III-1), and applying the UC Riverside 
sulfur results to MOVES N2O inventories for pre-Tier 3 
vehicles. Using a 100-year global warming potential of 298 for 
N2O according to the 2007 IPCC AR4,\191\ the range of 
reductions calculated for N2O is from 2.9 to 7.3 million 
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2017, 
growing to 12.3 to 13.5 MMTCO2e in 2030. MOVES can be used 
to directly estimate CH4 reductions from the sulfur and 
vehicle standards, estimating an additional 0.1 MMTCO2e 
reduction in 2017, growing to 0.5 MMTCO2e in 2030. The range of total 
GHG reductions from the Tier 3 rule is 3.0 to 7.4 MMTCO2e in 
2017, growing to 12.8 to 14.0 MMTCO2e in 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ Huai, et al. (2004) Estimates of the emission rates of 
nitrous oxide from light-duty vehicles using different chassis 
dynamometer test cycles Atmospheric Environment 6621-6629.
    \186\ Michaels, H. (1998) Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from 
Highway Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA EPA420-R-98-009.
    \187\ Behrentz, et al. (2004), Measurements of nitrous oxide 
emissions from light-duty motor vehicles: a pilot study Atmospheric 
Environment 4291-4303.
    \188\ Meffert, et. al (2000) Analysis of Nitrous Oxide Emissions 
from Light Duty Passenger Cars, SAE 2000-01-1952.
    \189\ Meszler, D. (2004), Light Duty Vehicle Methane and Nitrous 
Oxide Emissions: Greenhouse Gas Impacts Study for Northeast States 
Center for a Clean Air Future.
    \190\ Graham, L. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 1997-2005 Model 
Year Light Duty Vehicles Environment Canada ERMD Report 04-
44.
    \191\ The global warming potentials (GWP) used in this rule are 
consistent with the 100-year time frame values in the 2007 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment 
Report (AR4). At this time, the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report 
(SAR) 100-year GWP values are used in the official U.S. greenhouse 
gas inventory submission to the United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change (per the reporting requirements under that 
international convention, which were last updated in 2006). 
N2O has a 100-year GWP of 298 and CH4 has a 
100-year GWP of 25 according to the 2007 IPCC AR4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These reductions would be offset to some degree by CO2 
emissions associated with higher energy use required in the process of 
removing sulfur within the refinery. To assess the potential refinery 
permitting implications of the Tier 3 proposal, we calculated the 
CO2 emission impacts on a refinery-by-refinery basis. We 
used the projected refinery-specific changes from our refinery-by-
refinery modeling (see Chapter 5 of the draft RIA) to estimate changes 
in process energy and then applied emission factors that correspond to 
those changes. The results showed an increase of up to 4.6 
MMTCO2e in 2017 for all U.S. refineries complying with the 
lower sulfur standards assuming that the proposed sulfur standards are 
fully phased-in.\192\ The actual increase is expected to be 
considerably lower, since this is a permitting analysis and refineries 
will not be operating at their permit capacity. The actual increase 
will also be a function of several factors, including technology 
options selected by the refineries and the projected use of averaging, 
banking and trading in avoiding the need for investments at some 
refineries. As a result, 4.6 MMTCO2e represents an upper-
bound estimate of the possible increase in refinery CO2 
emissions due to the need for additional process heat and hydrogen 
production to enable the additional hydrotreating required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Keller, P. (February, 2013). New Source Review Permitting 
Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2017, the range of potential decrease in CH4 and 
N2O emissions overlaps with the range of projected increase 
in CO2 from refinery processes, suggesting that a net 
increase or decrease in GHG emissions cannot be quantified with 
certainty. However, we estimate the program would result in net GHG 
reductions as the program continues into the future, as shown by our 
2030 estimates.
    We do not expect the Tier 3 vehicle standards to result in any 
discernible changes in vehicle CO2 emissions or fuel 
economy. Emissions of the pollutants that we have designed the program 
to address--NMOG, NOX, and PM--are not a function of the 
amount of fuel consumed, since manufacturers need to design their 
catalytic emission control systems to reduce these emissions regardless 
of their engine-out levels. However, there may be some slight reduction 
of vehicle mass if manufacturers explore lighter exhaust manifold 
materials in order to reduce thermal mass and promote earlier catalyst 
light-off. EPA invites comments on any potential impacts of the 
proposed Tier 3 program on vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel 
economy.

[[Page 29846]]

C. How would air pollution be reduced?

    Reductions in emissions of NOX, VOC, PM2.5 
and air toxics expected as a result of the proposed Tier 3 standards 
are projected to lead to significant decreases in ambient 
concentrations of ozone, PM2.5, and air toxics. The results 
of our air quality modeling of the impacts of the Tier 3 proposal are 
summarized in the following section. The air quality modeling predicts 
significant improvements in ozone concentrations due to the proposed 
Tier 3 standards. Ambient PM2.5 and NO2 
concentrations are also expected to improve as a result of the proposed 
Tier 3 program. Decreases in ambient concentrations of air toxics are 
projected with the proposed standards, including notable nationwide 
reductions in benzene concentrations. Our air quality modeling also 
predicts improvements in visibility and sulfur deposition, as well as 
substantial decreases in nitrogen deposition as a result of the 
proposed standards.
1. Ozone
    The air quality modeling done for this proposal projects that in 
2017, with all current controls in effect but excluding the emissions 
changes expected to occur as a result of this proposed action or any 
other additional controls, at least 40 counties, with a projected 
population of almost 50 million people, would have projected design 
values above the level of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. 
Even in 2030 the modeling projects that in the absence of additional 
controls there would be 12 counties with a population of almost 32 
million people with projected design values above the level of the 2008 
8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. Since the emission changes from this 
proposal go into effect during the period when some areas are still 
working to attain the ozone NAAQS, the projected emission changes would 
help state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain 
the ozone standard.
    Air quality modeling indicates ozone design value concentrations 
would decrease dramatically in many areas of the country as a result of 
this action and in some places those decreases would be enough to 
change the projected design values from being above the NAAQS to being 
below the NAAQS. The decreases in ozone design values are likely due to 
projected tailpipe reductions in NOX and VOCs from 
reductions in fuel sulfur and engine controls.
    In 2017, the majority of the design value decreases are between 0.5 
and 1.0 ppb. The projected population-weighted average design value 
concentration without the proposed rule is 71.3 ppb in 2017. The 
proposed rule would also reduce the projected ozone design values in 
three counties from above the level of the standard to below. These 
three counties are Bucks County in Pennsylvania, Arlington County in 
Virginia and St Louis County in Missouri. The projected population in 
these three counties in 2017 is almost 2 million people. In 2030, the 
proposed rule would result in larger decreases in ozone design values, 
with the majority of counties projecting decreases of between 1.0 and 
1.5 ppb, and over 200 more counties with decreases greater than 1.5 
ppb. The projected population-weighted average design value 
concentration without the proposed rule is 66.7 ppb in 2030. There are 
also two more counties whose projected design values would be reduced 
from above the level of the ozone standard to below by the proposed 
rule in 2030. These counties are Hudson County in New Jersey and 
Brazoria County in Texas. The projected population in these two 
counties in 2030 is over 1 million people.
    Table III-8 and Table III-9 show the average change in 2017 and 
2030 8-hour ozone design values for: (1) All counties with 2005 
baseline design values, (2) counties with 2005 baseline design values 
that exceeded the 2008 ozone standard, (3) counties with 2005 baseline 
design values that did not exceed the 2008 standard, but were within 10 
percent of it, (4) counties with 2017/2030 design values that exceeded 
the 2008 ozone standard, and (5) counties with 2017/2030 design values 
that did not exceed the standard, but were within 10 percent of it. 
Counties within 10 percent of the standard are intended to reflect 
counties that although not violating the standards, will also be 
impacted by changes in ozone as they work to ensure long-term 
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. All of these metrics show a decrease in 
2017 and 2030, indicating in five different ways the overall 
improvement in air quality.
    On a population-weighted basis, the average modeled future-year 8-
hour ozone design values are projected to decrease by 0.47 ppb in 2017 
and 1.55 ppb in 2030. On a population-weighted basis design values in 
those counties that are projected to be above the 2008 ozone standard 
in 2017 and 2030 are projected to decrease by 0.30 and 1.62 ppb 
respectively due to the proposed standards.

                 Table III-8--Average Change in Projected 8-Hour Ozone Design Value in 2017 \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change in 2017
                           Average \a\                            Number of U.S.       2020        design value
                                                                     counties     population \b\       (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.............................................................             676     238,026,106           -0.50
All, population-weighted........................................  ..............  ..............           -0.47
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone             393     176,910,535           -0.56
 standard.......................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone  ..............  ..............           -0.51
 standard, population-weighted..................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-            201      40,516,171           -0.47
 hour ozone standard............................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8- ..............  ..............           -0.42
 hour ozone standard, population-weighted.......................
Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour                 37      47,659,433           -0.35
 ozone standard.................................................
Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour     ..............  ..............           -0.30
 ozone standard, population-weighted............................
Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the                 124      68,625,934           -0.51
 2008 8-hour ozone standard.....................................
Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the      ..............  ..............           -0.49
 2008 8-hour ozone standard, population-weighted................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values.
\b\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single
  Year of Age CD.
\c\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did
  not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states
  that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.


[[Page 29847]]


                 Table III-9--Average Change in Projected 8-Hour Ozone Design Value in 2030 \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change in 2030
                           Average\a\                             Number of U.S.       2030        design value
                                                                     counties     population \b\       (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.............................................................             676     261,497,900           -1.35
All, population-weighted........................................  ..............  ..............           -1.55
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone             393     194,118,748           -1.54
 standard.......................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone  ..............  ..............           -1.69
 standard, population-weighted..................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-            201      44,436,103           -1.18
 hour ozone standard............................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8- ..............  ..............           -1.25
 hour ozone standard, population-weighted.......................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour                 10      30,619,714           -1.49
 ozone standard.................................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour     ..............  ..............           -1.62
 ozone standard, population-weighted............................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the                  40      21,541,863           -1.37
 2008 8-hour ozone standard.....................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the      ..............  ..............           -1.50
 2008 8-hour ozone standard, population-weighted................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values.
\b\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single
  Year of Age CD.
\c\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did
  not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states
  that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.

2. Particulate Matter
    The air quality modeling conducted for this proposal projects that 
in 2030, with all current controls in effect but excluding the 
emissions changes expected to occur as a result of this proposal or any 
other additional controls, at least 14 counties, with a projected 
population of over 28 million people, would have projected design 
values above the level of the annual standard of 12 [micro]g/
m3 and at least 21 counties, with a projected population of 
over 31 million people, would have projected design values above the 
level of the 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m3. \193\ Since 
the emission changes from this proposed action would go into effect 
during the period when some areas are still working to attain the 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the projected emission changes would be useful 
to state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain the 
PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ The projections from the modeling analysis for the Tier 3 
proposal differ from what was presented in the recent PM NAAQS RIA 
(https://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html). The differences in modeling 
between the analyses stem primarily from the difference in modeling 
platform and the different years being evaluated (2020 vs. 2030).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would reduce 24-hour and annual PM2.5 
design values in 2030. Annual PM2.5 design values in the 
majority of modeled counties would decrease by between 0.01 and 0.05 
[micro]g/m3 and in over 100 additional counties design 
values are projected to decrease by greater than 0.05 [mu]g/
m3. The projected population-weighted average design value 
concentration without the proposed rule is 9.5 [micro]g/m3 
in 2030. The average modeled future-year annual PM2.5 design 
values in 2030 decrease by 0.06 [micro]g/m3 on a population-
weighted basis. Design values in those counties that are projected to 
be above the annual PM2.5 standard in 2030 decrease even 
more, by 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\ on a population-weighted basis, due to the 
proposed standards. In addition, the average modeled future-year 24-
hour PM2.5 design values in 2030 decrease by 0.20 [micro]g/
m3 on a population-weighted basis. The projected population-
weighted average design value concentration without the proposed rule 
is 24.3 [micro]g/m3 in 2030. The decreases in 
PM2.5 design values are likely due to the projected tailpipe 
reductions in primary PM2.5, NOX and VOCs. The 
proposed rule has little impact on PM2.5 design values for 
the majority of counties in 2017, although our air quality modeling 
underestimated the PM decreases that would result from this proposal 
(see Section 7.4.2.3 of the draft RIA for more detail).
    Table III-10 and Table III-11 present the average change in 2030 
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 design values for: (1) All counties 
with 2005 baseline design values, (2) counties with 2005 baseline 
design values that exceeded the PM2.5 standard, (3) counties 
with 2005 baseline design values that did not exceed the standard, but 
were within 10 percent of it, (4) counties with 2030 design values that 
exceeded the PM2.5 standard, and (5) counties with 2030 
design values that did not exceed the standard, but were within 10 
percent of it. Counties within 10 percent of the standard are intended 
to reflect counties that although not violating the standards, will 
also be impacted by changes in PM2.5 as they work to ensure 
long-term maintenance of the annual and/or 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS. All of these metrics show a decrease in 2030. On a population-
weighted basis, there is a 0.06 [micro]g/m3 decrease in the 
average modeled future-year annual PM2.5 design values in 
2030 and a decrease of 0.11 [micro]g/m\3\ in those counties that are 
projected to be above the annual PM2.5 standard in 2030. In 
addition, the average population-weighted modeled future-year 24-hour 
PM2.5 design values are projected to decrease by 0.20 
[micro]g/m3 due to the proposed standards and design values 
in those counties that are projected to be above the 24-hour 
PM2.5 standard in 2030 would decrease by 0.32 [micro]g/
m3.

                Table III-10--Average Change in Projected Annual PM2.5 Design Values in 2030 \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change in 2030
                           Average \a\                            Number of U.S.       2030        design value
                                                                     counties       Population     ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.............................................................             576     247,415,381           -0.05

[[Page 29848]]

 
All, population-weighted........................................  ..............  ..............           -0.06
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM2.5                  314     152,109,569           -0.05
 standard.......................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM2.5       ..............  ..............           -0.07
 standard, population-weighted..................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual              83      31,863,376           -0.05
 PM2.5 standard.................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual  ..............  ..............           -0.05
 PM2.5 standard, population-weighted............................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM2.5                14      28,624,758           -0.11
 standard \d\...................................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM2.5    ..............  ..............           -0.10
 standard, population-weighted \d\..............................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the                  28      23,840,272           -0.07
 annual PM2.5 standard..........................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the      ..............  ..............           -0.09
 annual PM2.5 standard, population-weighted.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values.
\b\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single
  Year of Age CD.
\c\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did
  not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states
  that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.
\d\ Eight of these counties are in California, see Table 7-35 in the DRIA.


                Table III-11--Average Change in Projected 24-hour PM2.5 Design Values in 2030 \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change in 2030
                           Average \a\                            Number of U.S.       2030        design value
                                                                     counties     Population \b\   ([mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.............................................................             569     245,111,480           -0.16
All, population-weighted........................................  ..............  ..............           -0.20
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24-hour                  108      91,474,036           -0.29
 PM2.5 standard.................................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24-hour       ..............  ..............           -0.27
 PM2.5 standard, population-weighted............................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006               140      53,990,060           -0.18
 24-hour PM2.5 standard.........................................
Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006    ..............  ..............           -0.21
 24-hour PM2.5 standard, population-weighted....................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24-hour                21      31,002,272           -0.50
 PM2.5 standard \d\.............................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24-hour    ..............  ..............           -0.32
 PM2.5 standard, population-weighted \d\........................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the                   7       4,212,913           -0.37
 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard....................................
Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the      ..............  ..............           -0.50
 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, population-weighted...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values.
\b\ Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single
  Year of Age CD.
\c\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did
  not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states
  that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.
\d\ Eleven of these counties are in California, see Table 7-37 in the DRIA.

3. Nitrogen Dioxide
    Although our modeling indicates that by 2030 the majority of the 
country will experience decreases of less than 0.1 ppb in their annual 
NO2 concentrations due to this proposal, annual 
NO2 concentrations are projected to decrease by more than 
0.3 ppb in most urban areas. These emissions reductions would also 
likely decrease 1-hour NO2 concentrations and help any 
potential nonattainment areas to attain and maintain the standard. 
Additional information on the emissions reductions that are projected 
with this proposal is available in Section 7.2.1 of the draft RIA.
4. Air Toxics
    Our modeling indicates that the impacts of proposed Tier 3 
standards include generally small decreases in ambient concentrations 
of air toxics, especially in urban areas, with notable nationwide 
reductions in benzene. Although reductions are greater in 2030 (when 
Tier 3 cars and trucks would contribute nearly 90 percent of fleet-wide 
vehicle miles travelled) than in 2017 (the first year of the proposed 
program), our modeling projects there would be small immediate 
reductions in ambient concentrations of air toxics due to the proposed 
sulfur controls in 2017. Furthermore, the full reduction of the vehicle 
program would be realized after 2030, when the fleet has fully turned 
over to Tier 3 vehicles. Air toxics pollutants dominated by primary 
emissions (or a decay product of a directly emitted pollutant) have the 
largest impacts, rather than air toxics that primarily result from 
photochemical transformation. Specifically, in 2030, our modeling 
projects that the proposal would decrease ambient benzene 
concentrations across much of the country on the order of 1 to 5 
percent, with reductions ranging from 10 to 25 percent in some urban 
areas. Our modeling also shows reductions of 1,3-butadiene and acrolein 
concentrations in 2030 ranging between 1 and 25 percent, with 1,3-
butadiene decreases of at least 0.005 [mu]g/m\3\ in urban areas. These 
toxics are national risk drivers and the reductions in ambient

[[Page 29849]]

concentrations from this proposed rule would result in reductions in 
risks from cancer and noncancer health effects. In some parts of the 
country (mainly urban areas), ethanol and formaldehyde concentrations 
are projected to decrease on the order of 1 to 5 percent in 2030 as a 
result of the proposal. Decreases in ethanol concentrations are 
expected due to reductions in VOC as a result of the proposed 
standards. Changes in ambient acetaldehyde concentrations are generally 
less than 1 percent across the U.S., although the proposal may decrease 
acetaldehyde concentrations in some urban areas by 1 to 2.5 percent in 
2030.
    Although the reductions in ambient air toxics concentrations 
expected from the proposed Tier 3 standards are generally small, they 
are projected to benefit the majority of the U.S. population. As shown 
in Table III-12, over 80 percent of the total U.S. population is 
projected to experience a decrease in ambient benzene and acrolein 
concentrations of at least 2.5 percent, with more than 90 percent of 
the populations projected to experience 1,3-butadiene concentrations of 
similar magnitude. Over 80 percent of the U.S population is projected 
to experience at least a 1 percent decrease in ambient ethanol 
concentrations, and over 60 percent would experience a similar decrease 
in ambient formaldehyde concentrations with the proposed standards.

 Table III-12--Percent of Total Population Experiencing Changes in Annual Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants in 2030 as a Result of the Proposed
                                                                      Standards \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Benzene        Acrolein      1,3-Butadiene   Formaldehyde       Ethanol      Acetaldehyde
                     Percent change                          (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<= -50..................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
> -50 to <= -25.........................................  ..............  ..............             0.1  ..............  ..............  ..............
> -25 to <= -10.........................................             2.8             0.7            56.8  ..............  ..............  ..............
> -10 to <= -5..........................................            23.7            36.8            30.8  ..............  ..............  ..............
> -5 to <= -2.5.........................................            54.5            43.7             7.1             1.2            33.0             0.3
> -2.5 to <= -1.........................................            17.7            15.3             3.4            63.2            55.3            25.1
> -1 to < 1.............................................             1.4             3.5             1.7            35.6            11.6            74.6
>= 1 to < 2.5...........................................  ..............  ..............             0.0  ..............  ..............  ..............
>= 2.5 to < 5...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
>= 5 to < 10............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
>= 10 to < 25...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
>= 25 to < 50...........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
>= 50...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions
  associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will
  account for LEV III vehicle standards.

5. Visibility
    Air quality modeling conducted for this proposed action was used to 
project visibility conditions in 139 mandatory class I federal areas 
across the U.S. The results show that in 2030 all the modeled areas 
would continue to have annual average deciview levels above background 
and the proposed rule would improve visibility in all these areas.\194\ 
The average visibility at all modeled mandatory class I federal areas 
on the 20 percent worst days is projected to improve by 0.04 deciviews, 
or 0.28 percent, in 2030. Section 7.2.5.5 of the draft RIA contains 
more detail on the visibility portion of the air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ The level of visibility impairment in an area is based on 
the light-extinction coefficient and a unitless visibility index, 
called a ``deciview'', which is used in the valuation of visibility. 
The deciview metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes 
over the entire range of conditions, from clear to hazy. Under many 
scenic conditions, the average person can generally perceive a 
change of one deciview. The higher the deciview value, the worse the 
visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is a decrease in 
deciview value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
    Our air quality modeling projects substantial decreases in nitrogen 
deposition as a result of the proposed standards. The standards would 
result in annual percent decreases of greater than 5 percent in most 
major urban areas and greater than 7 percent in a few areas. In 
addition, smaller decreases, in the 1 to 1.5 percent range, would occur 
over most of the rest of the country. The impacts of the proposed 
standards on sulfur deposition are smaller, ranging from no change to 
decreases of over 2 percent in some areas. For maps of 2030 deposition 
impacts and additional information on these impacts see Section 7.2.5.6 
of the draft RIA.
7. Environmental Justice
    Environmental justice (EJ) is a principle asserting that all people 
deserve fair treatment and meaningful involvement with respect to 
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA seeks to provide the 
same degree of protection from environmental health hazards for all 
people. As referenced below, numerous studies have found that some 
environmental hazards are more prevalent in areas with high population 
fractions of racial/ethnic minorities and people with low socioeconomic 
status (SES), as would be expected on the basis of those areas' share 
of the general population.
    As discussed in Section II of this document, concentrations of many 
air pollutants are elevated near high-traffic roadways. If minority 
populations and low-income populations disproportionately live near 
such roads, then an issue of EJ may be present. Such disparities may be 
due to multiple factors.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and environmental 
equity: do housing choices determine exposure to air pollution? 
North Caroline State University Center for Environmental and 
Resource Economic Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    People with low SES often live in neighborhoods with multiple 
stressors and health risk factors, including reduced health insurance 
coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates, limited access to 
fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and elevated rates of 
obesity and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and ischemic heart 
disease. Although questions remain, several studies find stronger 
associations between air pollution and health in locations with such 
chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that populations in these areas 
may be more susceptible to the effects of air

[[Page 29850]]

pollution.196 197 198 199 Household-level stressors such as 
parental smoking and relationship stress also may increase 
susceptibility to the adverse effects of air 
pollution.200 201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Clougherty, J.E.; Kubzansky, L.D. (2009) A framework for 
examining social stress and susceptibility to air pollution in 
respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 117: 1351-1358. 
Doi:10.1289/ehp.0900612 [Online at https://dx.doi.org].
    \197\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Ryan, P.B.; 
Franco Suglia, S.; Jacobson Canner, M.; Wright, R.J. (2007) 
Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and exposure to 
violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115: 
1140-1146. doi:10.1289/ehp.9863 [Online at https://dx.doi.org].
    \198\ Finkelstein, M.M.; Jerrett, M.; DeLuca, P.; Finkelstein, 
N.; Verma, D.K.; Chapman, K.; Sears, M.R. (2003) Relation between 
income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study. Canadian Med 
Assn J 169: 397-402.
    \199\ Shankardass, K.; McConnell, R.; Jerrett, M.; Milam, J.; 
Richardson, J.; Berhane, K. (2009) Parental stress increases the 
effect of traffic-related air pollution on childhood asthma 
incidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 12406-12411. doi:10.1073/
pnas.0812910106 [Online at https://dx.doi.org].
    \200\ Lewis, A.S.; Sax, S.N.; Wason, S.C.; Campleman, S.L (2011) 
Non-chemical stressors and cumulative risk assessment: an overview 
of current initiatives and potential air pollutant interactions. Int 
J Environ Res Public Health 8: 2020-2073. Doi:10.3390/ijerph8062020 
[Online at https://dx.doi.org].
    \201\ Rosa, M.J.; Jung, K.H.; Perzanowski, M.S.; Kelvin, E.A.; 
Darling, K.W.; Camann, D.E.; Chillrud, S.N.; Whyatt, R.M.; Kinney, 
P.L.; Perera, F.P.; Miller, R.L (2010) Prenatal exposure to 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, environmental tobacco smoke and 
asthma. Respir Med (In press). doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2010.11.022 
[Online at https://dx.doi.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the existing conditions in areas near major roadways, in 
comparison with other locations, we reviewed existing scholarly 
literature examining the topic, and conducted our own evaluation of two 
national datasets: the U.S. Census Bureau's American Housing Survey for 
calendar year 2009 and the U.S. Department of Education's database of 
school locations.
    Existing publications that address EJ issues generally report that 
populations living near major roadways (and other types of 
transportation infrastructure) tend to be composed of larger fractions 
of nonwhite residents. People living in neighborhoods near such sources 
of air pollution also tend to be lower in income than people living 
elsewhere. Numerous studies evaluating the demographics and 
socioeconomic status of populations or schools near roadways have found 
that they include a greater percentage of minority residents, as well 
as lower SES (indicated by variables such as median household income). 
Locations in these studies include Los Angeles, CA, Seattle, WA, Wayne 
County, MI, Orange County, FL, and the State of California 
202 203 204 205 206 207
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: air 
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin.
    \203\ Su, J.G.; Larson, T.; Gould, T.; Cohen, M.; Buzzelli, M. 
(2010) Transboundary air pollution and environmental justice: 
Vancouver and Seattle compared. GeoJournal 57: 595-608. doi:10.1007/
s10708-009-9269-6 [Online at https://dx.doi.org].
    \204\ Chakraborty, J.; Zandbergen, P.A. (2007) Children at risk: 
measuring racial/ethnic disparities in potential exposure to air 
pollution at school and home. J Epidemiol Community Health 61: 1074-
1079. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.054130 [Online at https://dx.doi.org].
    \205\ Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; McLaughlin, R.; 
Ostro, B. (2003) Proximity of California public schools to busy 
roads. Environ Health Perspect 112: 61-66. doi:10.1289/ehp.6566 
[https://dx.doi.org].
    \206\ Wu, Y; Batterman, S.A. (2006) Proximity of schools in 
Detroit, Michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Exposure Sci & 
Environ Epidemiol. doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500484 [Online at https://dx.doi.org].
    \207\ Su, J.G.; Jerrett, M.; de Nazelle, A.; Wolch, J. (2011) 
Does exposure to air pollution in urban parks have socioeconomic, 
racial, or ethnic gradients? Environ Res 111: 319-328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We analyzed two national databases that allowed us to evaluate 
whether homes and schools were located near a major road. One database, 
the American Housing Survey (AHS), includes descriptive statistics of 
over 70,000 housing units across the nation. The study is conducted 
every two years by the U.S. Census Bureau. We analyzed data from the 
2009 AHS. The second database we analyzed was the U.S. Department of 
Education's Common Core of Data, which includes enrollment and location 
information for schools across the U.S.
    In analyzing the 2009 AHS, we focused on whether or not a housing 
unit was located within 300 feet of ``4-or-more lane highway, railroad, 
or airport.'' \208\ We analyzed whether there were differences between 
houses and householders in such locations and those not in them.\209\ 
We found that houses with a nonwhite householder were 22-34 percent 
more likely to be located within 300 feet of these large transportation 
facilities, while houses with a Hispanic householder were 17-33 percent 
more likely. Households near large transportation facilities were, on 
average, lower in income and educational attainment, more likely to be 
a rental property and located in an urban area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ This variable primarily represents roadway proximity. 
According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, in 
2010, the United States had 6,506,204 km or roadways, 224,792 km of 
railways, and 15,079 airports. As such, highways represent the 
overwhelming majority of transportation facilities described by this 
factor in the AHS.
    \209\ Bailey, C. (2011) Demographic and Social Patterns in 
Housing Units Near Large Highways and other Transportation Sources. 
Memorandum to docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In examining schools near major roadways, we examined the Common 
Core of Data (CCD) from the U.S. Department of Education, which 
includes information on all public elementary and secondary schools and 
school districts nationwide.\210\ To determine school proximities to 
major roadways, we used a geographic information system (GIS) to map 
each school and roadways based on the U.S. Census's TIGER roadway 
file.\211\ We found that minority students were overrepresented at 
schools within 200 meters of the largest roadways, and that schools 
within 200 meters of the largest roadways also had higher than expected 
numbers of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. For 
example, Black students represent 21.57 percent of students at schools 
located within 200 meters of a primary road, whereas Black students 
represent 16.62 percent of students in all U.S. schools. Hispanic 
students represent 30.13 percent of students at schools located within 
200 meters of a primary road, whereas Hispanic students represent 21.93 
percent of students in all U.S. schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
    \211\ Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of Schools 
within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads. Memorandum to 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or 
attend school near major roadways are more likely to be of a minority 
race, Hispanic ethnicity, and/or low SES. The reduction of near-roadway 
concentrations of many pollutants, discussed above, is likely to help 
in mitigating this disparity in racial, ethnic, and economically-based 
exposures.

IV. Proposed Vehicle Emissions Program

    In the more than 10 years since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle 
Program, manufacturers of light-duty vehicles have continued to develop 
a wide range of improved technologies capable of reducing key exhaust 
emissions, especially hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOX), 
and particulate matter (PM). The California LEV II program has been 
instrumental in the continuous technology improvements by requiring 
year after year reductions in fleet average hydrocarbon levels in 
addition to requiring the introduction of advanced exhaust and 
evaporative emission controls in partial zero emission vehicles 
(PZEVs). This progress in vehicle technology has made it possible for 
manufacturers to achieve

[[Page 29851]]

emission reductions well beyond the requirements of the Tier 2 program 
if gasoline sulfur levels are lowered further.
    Extensive data from existing Tier 2 (and California LEV II) 
vehicles show the opportunity for further reductions, especially in 
addressing emissions produced at start-up, emissions under high-speed, 
high-load conditions, the effects of sulfur in gasoline, the effects of 
increased oil consumption, and the effects of vehicle and control 
systems age. For these reasons, we are proposing more stringent 
standards designed to reduce emissions, primarily non-methane organic 
gases (NMOG), NOX, and PM from new vehicles. As discussed in 
detail below and in the draft RIA, we have concluded that, in 
conjunction with the reductions in fuel sulfur proposed in this action, 
the proposed vehicle emissions standards are feasible and cost-
effective across the fleet in the proposed timeframe. We believe that 
simultaneous reductions in fuel sulfur would be a key factor in 
enabling the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles to meet the proposed 
emission standards in-use, throughout the life of the vehicle.
    This section describes in detail the proposed program for reducing 
tailpipe and evaporative emissions from light-duty vehicles (LDVs, or 
passenger cars), light-duty trucks (LDT1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s), Medium-Duty 
Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs), and heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). Sections 
IV.A and B discuss the proposed tailpipe emission standards and time 
lines, and other provisions for new light-duty vehicles and MDPVs and 
for new heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight 
Rating (GVWR). Section IV.C presents the proposed evaporative emissions 
standards and program as well as proposed improvements to the existing 
Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) provisions. In Section IV.D, we describe our 
proposal to update our federal certification fuel to better match 
today's in-use fuel and to be forward-looking with respect to potential 
future gasoline ethanol and sulfur content. We also discuss in this 
section proposed compliance flexibilities for small companies and 
small-volume manufacturers (IV.E) and test procedure and other 
compliance provisions (IV.F).

A. Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty 
Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles

1. Overview
    The proposed Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to 
those in the Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the proposed 
standards would apply to all LDVs and LDTs below 8,500 lbs GVWR, and 
MDPVs (8,500 to 10,000 lbs GVWR). (We discuss the proposed standards 
for heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR other than MDPVs, in 
Section IV.B below.) Also as with Tier 2, manufacturers would select 
from several ``bins'' of emission standards such that the average of 
their vehicles' emissions complies with the proposed fleet-average 
standards.
    In the discussions of the various elements of our proposed program 
for light- and heavy-duty vehicles throughout this preamble, we 
describe how the provisions would be consistent with the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program.\212\ Auto manufacturers have 
stressed to us the importance of their being able to design and produce 
a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that would comply with 
requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III program, as well 
as greenhouse gas/CAFE requirements in the same timeframe. Consistency 
among the federal and California programs means that special versions 
of vehicles with different emission control hardware and calibrations 
would not be necessary for different geographic areas. This would allow 
manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design, 
development, calibration, and manufacturing. Consistency among programs 
would also eliminate the need to supply aftermarket parts for repair of 
multiple versions of a vehicle. We believe that the most cost-effective 
national program will result from close coordination of CARB LEV III 
and federal Tier 3 program elements and their implementation. To that 
end, we worked closely with CARB and the vehicle manufacturers, both 
individually and through their trade associations, to align the two 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ LEV III program as approved by the California Air 
Resources Board, January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Tier 3 program we are proposing is identical to LEV III in most 
major respects for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle exhaust and 
evaporative emissions requirements, as discussed in detail below in 
this section. The levels and the timing of the light-duty and heavy-
duty declining fleet-average NMOG+NOx standards that we are proposing 
would be identical to those in LEV III. Also, the Tier 3 emissions bins 
to which manufacturers would certify individual vehicle models in order 
to comply with the average standards, for both light- and heavy-duty 
vehicles, would also be identical to those in LEV III. Similarly, the 
proposed Tier 3 per-vehicle PM standards match LEV III standards 
through MY 2024. In addition, our proposed primary evaporative 
emissions standards and onboard diagnostics requirements are also 
identical to the LEV III requirements.
    We note there are a few proposed Tier 3 provisions that CARB and 
EPA understand would be different, for reasons discussed below. 
Specifically, these include the LEV III program and our proposed Tier 3 
program would have different light-duty PM requirements late in the 
program (i.e., after MY 2024 (IV.A.3.b.)), would require different test 
fuels (E10 and E15, respectively (IV.A.3.c)), and only EPA would have 
an evaporative leak test (IV.C.5.b). EPA and CARB will continue to work 
toward additional consistency between our programs whenever practicable 
as both programs are implemented. Beyond these three provisions, the 
differences between the programs would not be major and would exist 
only in the early transitional years of the Tier 3 program. These 
differences would result from the fact that the LEV III requirements 
begin slightly earlier and that a limited phase-in of some provisions 
would be necessary for a smooth transition to overall aligned programs. 
These temporary differences would include the process for how early 
compliance credits would be generated and used (e.g., Section 
IV.A.7.a); how quickly manufacturers would need move toward certifying 
all of their vehicle models to longer useful-life values (e.g., Section 
IV.A.7.b) and on the new test fuel (e.g., Section IV.A.7.c); and 
transitional emissions bins to facilitate the transition from Tier 2 to 
Tier 3 (IV.A.7.m). Similarly, the primary Tier 3 evaporative standards 
would have a brief phase in period, temporarily resulting in 
requirements that would be slightly different from those in LEV III.
    The proposed Tier 3 program is designed primarily to reduce exhaust 
and evaporative emissions during summer ambient temperature conditions 
when NMOG, NOX and PM emissions contribute to air quality 
concerns. We are not proposing new emission requirements for any 
vehicle or fuel over the cold temperatures test cycles (i.e., the 
20[emsp14][deg]F cold CO and NMHC tests). However, we seek comment on 
the need for doing so, including vehicles operating on E85 fuel, and on 
the appropriate form and level for any such cold-temperature 
requirements.

[[Page 29852]]

2. Summary of Proposed FTP and SFTP Tailpipe Standards
    We are proposing a comprehensive program that would address the key 
pollutants of concern. We are proposing new standards for the sum of 
NMOG and NOX emissions, presented as NMOG+NOX, 
and PM. As discussed in Section III above, these proposed standards 
would result in very significant improvements in vehicle emissions from 
the levels of the Tier 2 program. For these pollutants, we are 
proposing standards as measured on test procedures that represent a 
range of vehicle operation, including the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) 
and the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). Unless otherwise 
specified, the proposed FTP and SFTP standards would apply to vehicles 
operating on gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuels, including both 
flexible fuel and dedicated alternative fuel vehicles.
    The proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards would be 
fleet-average standards, meaning that the manufacturer would calculate 
the average emissions of the vehicles it sells in each model year and 
compare that average to the applicable standard for that model year. 
The proposed fleet average standards for NMOG+NOX evaluated 
over the FTP are summarized in Table I-1. (For comparison, the average 
NMOG and NOX standard for the Tier 2 program, when added 
together, equal 160 mg/mi). The standards would begin in MY 2017 at a 
level representing a 46 percent reduction from the current Tier 2 
requirements for lighter vehicles and would become increasingly 
stringent, culminating in an 81 percent reduction in MY 2025. The 
proposed FTP NMOG+NOX program includes separate fleet 
average standards for lighter and heavier vehicles that would converge 
at 30 milligrams per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025 and 
later.213 214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ The proposed declining NMOG+NOX fleet-average 
standards would consist of one set of declining standards that would 
apply to light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and small light trucks (LDT1s) 
and a second set of declining standards that would apply to heavier 
light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s. LDT4s), and MDPVs.
    \214\ This preamble presents the proposed standards in terms of 
milligrams per mile for convenience. The associated regulatory 
language will continue to present the standard in terms of grams per 
mile for consistency with earlier programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers would determine their fleet average FTP 
NMOG+NOX emission values based on the per-vehicle ``bin 
standards'' to which they certified each vehicle model. As with the 
Tier 2 program, manufacturers would be free to choose to certify 
vehicles to any of the bins, so long as the sales-weighted average of 
the NMOG+NOX values from the selected bins met the fleet 
average standard for that model year. Table IV-1 presents the per-
vehicle bin standards. Similarly, the proposed fleet average 
NMOG+NOX standards measured over the SFTP are summarized in 
Table I-2. The proposed SFTP NMOG+NOX fleet average 
standards decline from MY 2017 until MY 2025. In this case, the same 
standards would apply to both lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 2025, 
the SFTP NMOG+NOX standard would reach its fully phased-in 
fleet average level of 50 mg/mi. We are also proposing PM standards as 
part of this Tier 3 program. The proposed PM standards would apply to 
each vehicle separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in 
contrast to the declining NMOG+NOX standards, the proposed 
certification PM standard on the FTP is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and 
for all model years, but phasing in beginning in MY 2017 for vehicles 
at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and in MY 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 lbs 
GVWR. Based on EPA and CARB test programs, most current light duty 
vehicles are already performing at or below this level. However, some 
vehicles are emitting above this level, due to such factors as 
combustion chamber designs, and fuel and oil consumption controls that 
are not optimized for low PM emissions. The intent of the proposed 3 
mg/mi standard is to bring all light-duty vehicles to the PM level 
typical of that being demonstrated by most light-duty vehicles today.
    To address the uncertainties that will accompany the introduction 
of new technologies, the proposed program also includes a separate in-
use FTP PM standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in-use vehicles 
during the phase-in period, as described in more detail below. As 
presented in Table I-3, for vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR, these 
FTP certification and in-use standards would be phased in beginning 
with a requirement that at least 20 percent of a company's U.S. sales 
meet the standards in MY 2017 and reaching a 100 percent compliance 
requirement in MY 2021. The proposed standards represent a significant 
numerical reduction from the Tier 2 PM emission standards of 10 mg/mi 
for light-duty vehicles. Finally, the proposed Tier 3 program includes 
PM standards evaluated over the US06 cycle (a component of the SFTP 
test, discussed further below) at a level of 10 mg/mi for vehicles at 
or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. We are 
proposing separate standards for different sizes of vehicles because PM 
generation typically increases when vehicles are carrying heavier loads 
and/or when they are pulling trailers. The US06 PM standards would 
phase in on the same schedule as the FTP PM standards, reaching 100 
percent of each company's U.S. sales by MY 2022. These US06 standards 
would apply to the same vehicle models that a manufacture chose to 
certify to the FTP PM standard during the percent phase in period. PM 
levels over the US06 are typically higher than the PM emitted over the 
FTP due to the increased load on the vehicle. As in the case of the FTP 
PM standards, the intent of the proposed standard is to bring the 
emission performance of all vehicles to that already being demonstrated 
by many vehicles in the current light-duty fleet.
    As with the FTP PM standard, we propose a separate in-use US06 PM 
standard during the percent phase-in period of 15 and 25 mg/mi for 
vehicles of 6000 lbs GVWR and less, and for vehicles above 6,000 lbs 
GVWR, respectively.
    The next subsections describe in more detail the proposed 
standards, how they would be implemented over time, and the 
technological approaches that we believe will be available to 
manufacturers in order to comply.
3. Proposed FTP Standards
    As summarized above, we propose new standards for the primary 
pollutants of concern for this rule (NMOG, NOX, and PM) as 
measured on the FTP. The following paragraphs describe in more detail 
these FTP standards for NMOG+NOX and PM, as well as for 
carbon monoxide (CO) and formaldehyde (HCHO).
a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
    We propose that the Tier 3 NMOG and NOX standards, both 
of which are important to reduce ambient ozone concentrations, be 
expressed in terms of the sum of the two pollutants, or as 
NMOG+NOX in mg/mi.\215\ This approach contrasts with the 
Tier 2 standards, which were expressed as separate NMOG and 
NOX standards. We believe that the combined standard is 
appropriate for this proposed program for several reasons. At the 
stringent proposed emission levels, combining NMOG and NOX 
would provide a small amount of compliance flexibility, while at the 
same time significantly reducing both NMOG and NOX emission 
levels.

[[Page 29853]]

For example, the combined standard would allow a gasoline vehicle 
manufacturer to have slightly higher NMOG if it were offset by lower 
NOX, or allow a diesel vehicle manufacturer to have slightly 
higher NOX if offset by lower NMOG. This approach still 
ensures major reductions in both pollutants compared to today's levels. 
This is because the very stringent level of the fully phased-in 
proposed combined standard (30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX) means that 
even with a degree of allowed trading off of one pollutant for the 
other, the maximum emissions of either pollutant would need to be well 
below current levels. The standards of the California LEV III program 
would also be expressed as NMOG+NOX; aligning Tier 3 with 
LEV III in this respect would facilitate an important element of a 
national program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ In the past, EPA has taken a similar combined-standard 
approach for heavy-duty highway engines and many categories of 
nonroad engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that a fully phased-in level for the proposed fleet-
average standard of 30 mg/mi is the most stringent level that we could 
reasonably propose in the context of our proposed 10-ppm average 
standard for gasoline sulfur. As discussed in the feasibility Section 
IV.A.5 below, when necessary margins of compliance are considered, this 
proposed standard is very close to zero. We request comment on this 
level for the proposed standard, as well as the declining standards 
during the transition years (see Table IV-3 below). EPA is proposing 
compliance mechanisms for the new Tier 3 FTP standards that are the 
same in most respects as those of the Tier 2 program. Using the Tier 2 
approaches as much as possible would streamline the implementation of 
the program by maintaining most of the compliance processes that 
manufacturers are familiar with today.
    A key compliance mechanism adapted from the Tier 2 program is a 
``bin'' structure for the proposed emission standards. For these 
purposes, a bin is a set of several standards that are intended to be 
complied with as a group. Thus each Tier 3 bin would have an 
NMOG+NOX standard and a PM standard, as well as CO and HCHO 
standards. A manufacturer choosing to certify a vehicle to a certain 
bin would need to meet each of that bin's standards for the full useful 
life of the vehicle. In this approach, manufacturers could certify 
vehicles to any of the bins, but they would have to ensure that average 
NMOG+NOX of the bins to which all of its vehicles were 
certified met the fleet average standard specific to the vehicle 
category (i.e., LDV/LDT1 and LDT2/3/4/MDPVs) for that model year. That 
is, a manufacturer would comply by ensuring that the sales-weighted 
average of the NMOG+NOX values of the bins to which each of 
its vehicle models was certified was lower than the fleet average 
standard that applied for that model year.
    For each proposed bin, we are including CO and HCHO standards at 
levels intended to prevent new engine and emission control designs that 
would result in increases in today's CO and HCHO emissions. The 
standards are based on the comparable current LEV II and Tier 2 bin 
standards for these pollutants. The current standards do not appear to 
be technology-forcing, and we believe that this would continue to be 
the case as Tier 3 technologies are developed.
    The bin structure that we are proposing for light duty vehicles, 
light-duty trucks, and MDPVs standards is presented in Table IV-1.

                       Table IV-1--Proposed FTP Standards for LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs (mg/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NMOG+NOX (mg/
                       Bin                              mi)       PM \a\ (mg/mi)     CO (g/mi)     HCHO (mg/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160.........................................             160               3             4.2               4
Bin 125.........................................             125               3             2.1               4
Bin 70..........................................              70               3             1.7               4
Bin 50..........................................              50               3             1.7               4
Bin 30..........................................              30               3             1.0               4
Bin 20..........................................              20               3             1.0               4
Bin 0...........................................               0               0               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ In MYs 2017-20, the PM standard applies only to that segment of a manufacturer's vehicles covered by the
  percent of sales phase-in for that model year.

    Consistent with the Tier 2 principle of vehicle and fuel 
neutrality, we are proposing that the same standards apply to LDVs, 
LDTs, or MDPVs, regardless of the fuel they use. That is, vehicles 
certified to operate on any fuel (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, E85, 
CNG, LNG, hydrogen, and methanol) would all be subject to the same 
standards.
    We propose to maintain the fleet-average approach of the Tier 2 
standards. Unlike Tier 2, the proposed Tier 3 fleet-average standards 
would decline annually to a fully phased-in level of 30 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX. (The Tier 2 program, after a period of transition, 
established a single fleet average standard for all model years.) 
Specifically, we are proposing NMOG+NOX standards as 
measured on the FTP that would reduce the combined fleet-average 
emissions gradually from MY 2017 through 2025, as shown in Table IV-2 
below. Beginning in MY 2017, we propose separate fleet average 
standards for lighter and heavier vehicles that would both decline 
annually, converging in MY 2025. These proposed declining average 
standards are identical to CARB's LEV III standards.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) & GHG 2012 
regulations adopted by State of California Air Resources Board, 
March 22, 2012, Resolution 12-21 incorporating by reference 
Resolution 12-11, which was adopted January 26, 2012. Available at 
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm 
(last accessed November 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The declining fleet-average NMOG+NOX standard 
requirement would begin in 2017 for light-duty vehicles and light-duty 
trucks with a GVWR up to and including 6,000 lbs and in 2018 for all 
other light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (i.e., those with a 
GVWR greater than 6,000 lbs). The standards would apply to the heavier 
vehicles a year later to facilitate the transition to a 50-state 
program for all manufacturers. During this transition period, there 
would be two fleet-average NMOG+NOX standards for each model 
year, one for LDVs and LDT1s and a second fleet-average standard for 
all other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and for MDPVs. We are 
proposing that the fleet-average standards decline in a linear way from 
MY 2017 through MY 2025, at which point the two fleet-average standards 
would converge and stabilize for later model years at the same level, 
30 mg/mi, as shown in Table IV-2. Note that these fleet average 
standards are for LDT2 and larger vehicles, and for LDVs and LDT1s that

[[Page 29854]]

manufacturers certify to the 150,000 mile useful life value. Section 
IV.A.7.b discusses how the Clean Air Act defines the useful life values 
for certification purposes and how EPA proposes to also provide for 
certification to slightly lower emissions standards to a useful life 
value of 120,000 miles, representing a level of stringency that is 
equivalent to that of the emission standards corresponding to the 
150,000 mile useful life, for LDVs and LDT1s.

                                      Table IV-2--Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
                                                                         [mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Model Year
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                2025 and
                                                        2017 \a\     2018       2019       2020       2021       2022       2023       2024      later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV/LDT1\b\..........................................         86         79         72         65         58         51         44         37         30
LDT2,3,4 and MDPV....................................        101         92         83         74         65         56         47         38         30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ These proposed standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify all of their LDVs and LDV1s to a useful life of
  120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet average standard would apply,
  calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg.

    EPA is also proposing an alternative phase-in of the 30 mg/mi FTP 
NMOG+NOX standard that would be available if a manufacturer 
prefers a stable standard and four full years of lead time, as 
specified in the Clean Air Act for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. For 
MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6,000 
lbs GVWR to the primary declining FTP fleet average standards, as in 
the primary program. Then, beginning in MY 2019, a stable fleet average 
standard of 30 mg/mi would apply to an increasing percentage of a 
manufacturer's light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and MDPVs, both 
up to and above 6,000 lbs GVWR. The percent phase-in would match the 
proposed PM percent phase-in schedule, as discussed below--specifically 
40 percent of sales in MY 2019, 70 percent in MY 2020, and 100 percent 
in MY 2021 and later model years. A manufacturer choosing to certify 
any vehicle to this alternative phase-in would need to use this 
approach for all its models in MYs 2019 and later; certifying part of 
its fleet to the declining fleet average after MY 2018 would not be 
permitted, since the structures of the two approaches, including the 
early credits provisions of the NMOG+NOx fleet average program, would 
not be consistent. A manufacturer certifying to this alternative phase-
in would also need to comply with the alternative SFTP NMOG+NOx phase-
in and the alternative FTP PM and US06 PM phase-ins as described below. 
Vehicles covered by the alternative phase-in programs would be 
considered ``final Tier 3'' vehicles and thus would also comply with 
the Tier 3 certification fuel and full useful life provisions. EPA 
requests comment on this alternative phase-in approach as well as on 
the primary option above.
b. FTP PM Standards
    We also propose new FTP standards for PM emissions, as summarized 
in Table IV-3 below. For many years, EPA's focus for mobile source PM 
was on diesel engine emissions. In recent years, the very effective 
controls on PM exhaust emissions that manufacturers have developed for 
heavy-duty diesel engines have been successfully applied to light-duty 
diesel engines as well. At the same time, attention to gasoline engine 
PM emissions has increased as research has demonstrated that the level 
of PM from gasoline light duty vehicles is more significant than had 
been previously thought.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Nam, E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michaels, H.; 
Bauldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarboro, C. Analysis of Particulate 
Matter Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles in Kansas City, 
EPA420-R-08-010. Assessment and Standards Division Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under typical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of 
most current-technology gasoline vehicles are fairly low, well below 
the Tier 2 PM standards. At the same time we see considerable variation 
in PM emissions among vehicle models not consistently associated with 
any specific engine or emission control technology (Section 1.5.1 of 
the draft RIA). As a result, we are proposing a new FTP PM standard 
that is set to ensure that all new vehicles would perform at a level 
representing what is already being achieved by well-designed Tier 2 
emission control technologies.
    PM emissions over the FTP are generally attributed to the cold 
start, when PM formation from combustion of the fuel is facilitated by 
the operating conditions, including a cold combustion chamber and fuel 
enrichment. During cold start, PM control via oxidation of semi-
volatile organic compounds from the lubricating oil by catalytic 
converters is less effective. We believe that the proposed FTP PM 
standard can be achieved with improvements to the fuel controls during 
the cold start without the need for any new technology or hardware. 
Improvements in cold-start exhaust catalyst performance for NMOG+NOx 
control will also reduce emissions of semi-volatile organic PM. As 
such, cold start PM levels are relatively independent of vehicle 
application and therefore we are proposing a single FTP PM standard for 
all light-duty and MDPV vehicles. The PM standard level we are 
proposing would ensure that future PM performance is consistent with 
current well-performing Tier 2 vehicles. Unlike the NMOG+NOX 
FTP standard, the PM standard would not decline over time, since most 
manufacturers are already producing vehicles that would meet the 
proposed new standards.
    Although we believe it is important that the proposed FTP PM 
standard apply from the beginning of the Tier 3 program, we are 
proposing several provisions to provide a degree of flexibility for 
manufacturers in how many vehicle models would need to meet that 
standard in the early years of the program. Manufacturers have raised 
several issues that we believe these provisions would address.
    In meetings with EPA, several manufacturers have expressed concerns 
about how a PM standard in the range of the proposed 3 mg/mi standard 
would be implemented. One concern related to the initial uncertainties 
about PM emissions performance that will accompany the development of 
new engine technologies, including those that may be introduced to 
address the GHG emissions/fuel economy standards that EPA and NHTSA 
recently finalized for these vehicles. Also, manufacturers expressed 
concerns related to the testing

[[Page 29855]]

of PM on the FTP, particularly about potential updates to the test 
procedures required to accurately measure PM at very low levels. 
Finally, related to the concerns about the new test procedures are the 
current limitations that exist for some manufacturers regarding the 
capacity of their test facilities to perform a significant volume of 
gasoline vehicle PM testing.
    For these reasons, we are proposing a percent-of-sales phase-in 
during the first 5 years of the program to address these concerns. 
Beginning in MY 2017 (and in MY 2018 for vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR), 
manufacturers would comply with the PM standard with a minimum of 20 
percent of their U.S. sales. As shown in Table IV-3, the percentage of 
the manufacturer's sales that would need to comply would increase each 
year, reaching 100 percent in MY 2021. In addition to this percent 
phase-in, we are proposing a separate PM standard of 6 mg/mi that would 
apply only for in-use testing of vehicles certified to the new 
standards, and only during the percent phase-in period.
    Due to the MY 2018 start date for vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR, 
manufacturers that have few or no vehicle models over 6,000 lbs GVWR 
would be required to certify a larger percentage of their total light-
duty sales in MY 2017 than full line manufacturers. While we believe 
that most manufacturers would likely choose a single large-volume 
durability group to meet the 2017 requirements, we seek comment on an 
option to comply with the MY 2017 PM requirements by allowing 
manufactures to certify 10 percent of all their light-duty vehicle 
sales in MY 2017 to the new PM standards, including light-duty vehicles 
over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. This approach would be consistent with 
the CARB LEVIII program, which requires that 10 percent of all light-
duty vehicle sales meet the new PM standards in MY 2017.
    Because of the expected time and expense of performing emission 
tests on the improved PM test procedures, we are proposing to limit the 
number of tests using the new procedures that a manufacturer would need 
to perform at certification and during in-use testing. Specifically, 
manufacturers would be required to test vehicles representing a minimum 
of 25 percent of a model's durability test groups during certification 
each model year (and a minimum of 2 durability groups).\218\ 
Manufacturers could select which durability groups to test, but would 
need to rotate the groups tested each year to eventually cover their 
whole fleet. Similarly, manufacturers performing in-use testing under 
the In-Use Verification Program could limit their testing to 50 percent 
of their low- and high-mileage test vehicles. Again, manufacturers 
would need to rotate their vehicle models so that each model would be 
tested every other year. Overall, we believe that the flexibility that 
these proposed provisions would provide would facilitate the 
expeditious implementation of the proposed program, with no significant 
impact on the potential benefits of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ Durability groups are a subset of engine families. Several 
engine families may have the same durability group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM standards that we are proposing are the most stringent 
technically feasible standards within the implementation timeframe of 
this proposal. Although the CARB LEV III program includes a 1 mg/mi 
standard which will begin phasing in starting in MY 2025, they 
acknowledge that there is a need for continuing PM measurement method 
development prior to implementing this standard.\219\ In order for EPA 
to propose a standard at this level, there must be established methods 
to reliably and consistently measure PM below that standard, for 
compliance purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of 
Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider LEV III, December 7, 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on all of the proposed FTP standards, their 
structure, and their implementation schedules.

                                                      Table IV-3--Summary of Proposed FTP Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Program Element                          Units                                Model Year                                 Notes
                                                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          \a\      2018     2019     2020     2021     2022     2023
                                                                          2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet average)                            mg/mi          Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV[dash]2) \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-in                                                 %............       20       20       40       70      100      100      100  .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP..............................  Certification.......  mg/mi........        3        3        3        3        3        3        3  Note c
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   In-use..............  mg/mi........        6        6        6        6        6        3        3  Note d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM would apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ The percent phase-in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards.
\c\ Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year's durability groups, minimum of 2.
\d\ Manufacturers would be required to test 50 percent of their low and high mileage in-use vehicles.

    As with the proposed FTP NMOG+NOX standards, EPA is also 
proposing an alternative phase-in of the 3 mg/mi FTP PM standard that 
would be available if a manufacturer prefers 4 full years of lead time 
for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that chooses the 
alternative phase-in for the FTP NMOG+NOX program above 
could also postpone the beginning of the phase-in for PM compliance for 
vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. For MYs 2017 and 2018, a 
manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR to the 3 mg/mi 
FTP PM standard (and have a 6 mg/mi in-use PM standard) for 20 percent 
of its sales in each of those years, as with the primary PM percent 
phase-in schedule. Then, for MYs 2019 and later, it would comply with 
the 3 mg/mi (and 6 mg/mi in-use) PM standards for their LDVs, LDTs, and 
MDPVs, both up to and above 6,000 lbs GVWR. For MYs 2019 and 2020 
(i.e., before the phase-in is fully implemented in MY 2021), 
manufacturers choosing this alternative would be required to meet the 
PM standard on the same segment of their fleet vehicles being used to 
meet the NMOG+ NOX fleet average standard, and at the 
applicable phase-in percentage of sales for the given model year. 
Manufacturers

[[Page 29856]]

certifying to the alternative PM phase-in standard would also need to 
comply with the alternative US06 PM phase-in as described below, as 
well as the NMOG+ NOX FTP and SFTP phase-ins. EPA requests 
comment on this alternative phase-in approach as well as on the primary 
PM phase-in option above.
4. Proposed SFTP Standards
    In addition to the proposed FTP standards, we are proposing 
NMOG+NOX and PM standards as measured on the SFTP. The SFTP 
(and specifically the US06 component of the test) is designed to 
simulate higher speeds and higher acceleration rates (and thus higher 
loads) when substantially more heat can be generated during the 
combustion process. It is during these kinds of operation that engines 
can go into a fuel ``enrichment'' mode, where the engine's controls may 
temporarily create a rich air/fuel mixture to protect exhaust 
components from thermal damage. Enrichment can increase emissions of 
NMOG+NOX and PM, primarily due to the incomplete combustion 
that occurs under rich conditions and the diminished effectiveness of 
the catalyst in these circumstances. However, enrichment can be 
minimized or eliminated in current and future engines, where components 
can be thermally protected even under high-load conditions by careful 
electronic management of the air/fuel mixture and the combustion 
process. To reduce emissions caused by excessive enrichment, we are 
proposing new SFTP standards. Further, as described in Section IV.A.4.c 
below, we are proposing limitations on the magnitude of enrichment that 
could be commanded by the vehicle operator. We describe the proposed 
SFTP standards in the following paragraphs.
    We are also proposing an SFTP composite CO standard of 4.2 g/mi for 
all model years 2017 (or 2018) and later. This standard represents no 
effective change from the current Tier 2 SFTP CO standard, which we 
believe is already at a level that is sufficiently stringent.
a. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards
    We have reviewed certification and in-use NMOG and NOX 
data on a wide range of recent vehicles as tested on the US06 cycle. 
See Chapter 1 of the draft RIA for an analysis of this data. It is 
clear that most current vehicles are generally avoiding significant 
enrichment events during high-load operation and thus achieve 
relatively low NMOG+NOX emissions on the US06 test. The data 
shows that with minor (if any) improvements to engine calibrations and 
with no significant loss of performance, manufacturers are able to 
essentially eliminate enrichment events and their emissions 
consequences. Thus, as presented in Table IV-5 below, we are proposing 
new composite SFTP standards for NMOG+NOX at levels that 
would be more stringent than those required by the existing Tier 2 
program. We believe that the new standards would require emission 
performance at levels currently achieved today by most vehicles under 
high-load operation, and we do not believe that significant additional 
reductions would result from SFTP standards more stringent than the 
proposed 50 mg/mi fully phased-in level. The SFTP emissions value for 
certification of gaseous pollutants would continue to be calculated as 
a weighted composite value of emissions on three cycles (0.35 x FTP + 
0.28 x US06 + 0.37 x SC03), as is done for the Tier 2 SFTP standards.
    We believe that the proposed standards could be more challenging in 
the early years of the program. Thus, we propose a declining fleet 
average standard that would become increasingly stringent from MY 2017 
to MY 2025. Manufacturers would comply with a declining 
NMOG+NOX fleet-average SFTP standard for each year beginning 
in MY 2017 (MY 2018 for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR) and culminating 
for MY 2025 and later with a fleet-average standard of 50 mg/mi.
    To provide flexibility in meeting the fleet-average standards, 
manufacturers would determine for themselves what the specific SFTP 
composite standard would be for an individual vehicle family and report 
that self-selected standard and the measured emission performance. 
(These self-selected standards are analogous to ``family emission 
limits,'' or ``FELs,'' used in other programs (e.g., heavy-duty highway 
engine standards).) For each family, a manufacturer would choose any 
composite NMOG+NOX standard, up to 180 mg/mi, in even 10 mg/
mi increments. The manufacturer would then calculate the sales-weighted 
average of all the selected standards of the families across its fleet 
and compare that emissions value to the applicable fleet-average 
standards for that model year. Table IV-4 presents the proposed 
declining fleet-average SFTP NMOG+NOX standards.
    As with the proposed FTP NMOG+NOX and PM standards, EPA 
is also proposing an alternative phase-in of the 50 mg/mi SFTP 
NMOG+NOX standard that would be available if a manufacturer 
prefers a stable standard and four full years of lead time for vehicles 
above 6,000 lbs GVWR. For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would 
certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR to the primary SFTP declining 
fleet average standards, as in the primary program. Then, beginning in 
MY 2019, a stable fleet average standard of 50 mg/mi would apply to an 
increasing percentage of a manufacturer's light-duty vehicles, light-
duty trucks, and MDPVs, both up to and above 6,000 lbs GVWR. The 
percent phase-in would match the proposed PM percent phase-in schedule, 
as discussed below. A manufacturer certifying to this alternative 
phase-in would also need to comply with the alternative FTP 
NMOG+NOX phase-in and the alternative FTP PM and US06 PM 
phase-ins, as described elsewhere in this section. EPA requests comment 
on this alternative phase-in approach as well as on the primary option 
above.
b. US06 PM Standards
    Our proposed approach to addressing PM emissions on the US06 test 
(a component of the composite SFTP standard) is somewhat different from 
the SFTP standards that we are proposing for NMOG and NOX 
emissions. In the case of PM, US06 data on recent vehicles shows that 
current gasoline vehicles can have very low PM emissions, but US06 PM 
emission levels vary depending on many factors. In some cases, 
manufacturer emission control strategies that are sensitive to 
variations in operating conditions (e.g., variation due to driver 
behavior or automatic transmission shift points) appear to result in 
very low PM levels during some tests and yet higher PM on other tests 
on the same vehicle when driven slightly differently. We also believe 
that some of the observed high PM emissions may be partly due to 
increasing oil consumption in vehicles as they age, especially under 
higher-load conditions or hard closed-throttle deceleration conditions. 
Thus, we now believe that more focus on vehicles as they age is 
important.
    We have designed the proposed US06 PM standards in light of all of 
these factors, which relate to PM emission formation under relatively 
extreme driving conditions. For these standards, we are proposing to 
focus on the US06 cycle component of the composite SFTP, since most of 
our concern about PM formation and sensitivity of engine controls 
arises from high-speed, high-load driving conditions. Similarly, the 
quantity of PM emissions from warmed-up engines is closely related to 
engine load, since the higher rate of fuel consumption results in more

[[Page 29857]]

opportunities for PM to form. For this reason, we propose that heavier 
vehicles, which face high-load conditions more frequently than lighter 
vehicles, comply with a higher US06 standard and lighter vehicles 
comply with a lower standard. The proposed US06 PM standard would be 10 
mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and 20 mg/mi for heavier 
vehicles.
    EPA is seeking comment on the use of vehicle weight to establish 
separate US06 PM standards for cars and trucks. The data presented in 
Chapter 1 of the draft RIA demonstrate that today's heavier vehicles 
are already achieving PM emission levels well below our proposed 20 mg/
mi standard and are approximately equivalent to the performance of 
lighter vehicles. According to our data, manufacturers appear to be 
controlling PM emissions in heavier vehicles over severe duty cycles. 
Thus, EPA seeks comment on the proposed US06 PM standards in general, 
including whether EPA should adopt a common US06 standard of 10 mg/mi 
for all light-duty vehicles.
    As is the case for the proposed FTP PM standards, we are proposing 
a single per-vehicle maximum standard to apply in each model year, with 
an allowable percentage phase-in schedule identical to the FTP PM 
phase-in.
    Finally, as with the FTP PM standard (and for the same reasons), we 
propose a slightly less stringent in-use US06 PM standard that would 
apply during the percent phase-in period only. The proposed in-use SFTP 
PM standards would be 15 mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR 
and 25 mg/mi for heavier vehicles.
    As with the proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards and 
FTP PM standards, EPA is also proposing an alternative phase-in of the 
20 mg/mi PM standard as measured on the US06 cycle, that would be 
available if a manufacturer prefers 4 full years of lead time for 
vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that chooses the 
alternative phase-in for the FTP NMOG+NOX program above 
could also postpone the beginning of the phase-in for US06 PM 
compliance for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. For MYs 
2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs 
GVWR to the 10 mg/mi FTP PM standard (and have a 15 mg/mi in-use 
standard) for 20 percent of its sales in each of those years, as with 
the primary PM percent phase-in schedule. Then, for MYs 2019 and later, 
it would comply with the respective standards for vehicles up to and 
above 6,000 lbs GVWR for their LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs (i.e., 10 mg/mi 
and 15 mg/mi (in-use) for vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR, and 20 mg/mi 
and 25 mg/mi (in-use) for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR.) For MYs 2019 
and 2020, manufacturers choosing this alternative would be required to 
meet both the FTP PM and the US06 PM standards on the same segment of 
their fleet vehicles being used to meet the 30 mg/mi fleet average 
NMOG+NOX standards, at the applicable percent phase-in 
requirement for the given model year. Manufacturers certifying to the 
alternative US06 PM phase-in standard would also need to comply with 
the alternative FTP PM phase-in as described above, as well as the 
NMOG+NOX FTP and SFTP phase-ins. EPA requests comment on 
this alternative phase-in approach as well as on the primary US06 
phase-in option above.
    All of the proposed SFTP/US06 standards are shown in Table IV-4 and 
Table IV-5.

                                         Table IV-4--Proposed LD and MDPV SFTP Composite Fleet Average Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Model year
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                2025 and
                                                          2017       2018       2019       2020       2021       2022       2023       2024      later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/mi).....................................    \a\ 103         97         90         83         77         70         63         57         50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (g/mi)............................................                                               \a\ 4.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the NMOG+NOX and CO standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.


                                                     Table IV-5--Summary of Proposed SFTP Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Model year
            Program element                     Units        ----------------------------------------------------------------------         Notes
                                                              \a\ 2017    2018      2019      2020      2021      2022      2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet average).....  mg/mi...............           Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV[dash]4) \b\
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Standards:
    Phase-in..........................  %...................        20        20        40        70       100       100       100
US06:
    LDV, LDT1&2 Certification.........  mg/mi...............        10        10        10        10        10        10        10  Note c.
    LDV, LDT1&2 In-use................  mg/mi...............        15        15        15        15        15        10        10  Note d.
US06:
    LDT3&4, MDPV Certification........  mg/mi...............        20        20        20        20        20        20        20  Note c.
    LDT3&4, MDPV In-use...............  mg/mi...............        25        25        25        25        25        20        20  Note d.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ The percent phase-in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards.
\c\ Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year's durability groups, minimum of 2.
\d\ Manufacturers would be required to test 50 percent of their low and high mileage in-use vehicles.

    We request comment on our proposed SFTP NMOG+NOX and PM 
standards, their structure, and their implementation schedules.
c. Enrichment Limitation for Spark-Ignition Engines
    To prevent emissions from excessive enrichment during operating 
conditions represented by the SFTP cycles, we are proposing limitations 
on the magnitude of enrichment that could be commanded, including 
enrichment episodes encountered during in-use

[[Page 29858]]

operation. During conditions where enrichment was demonstrated to be 
present on the SFTP, the nominal air to fuel ratio could not be richer 
at any time than the leanest air to fuel ratio required to obtain 
maximum torque (lean best torque or LBT). An air to fuel ratio of LBT 
plus a tolerance of 4 percent additional enrichment would be allowed in 
actual vehicle testing to protect for any in-use variance in the air to 
fuel ratio from the nominal LBT air to fuel determination, for such 
reasons as air or fuel distribution differences from production 
variances or aging.
    LBT is defined as the leanest air to fuel ratio required at a speed 
and load point with a fixed spark advance to make peak torque. 
Specifically, an increase in fuel would not result in an increase in 
torque while maintaining a fixed spark advance. LBT is determined by 
setting the spark advance to a setting that is less than or equal to 
the spark advance required for best torque (MBT) and maintaining that 
spark advance when sweeping the air to fuel ratio. This fixed spark 
advance requirement is intended to prevent torque changes related to 
spark changes masking true LBT. Manufacturers may request approval of 
an alternative LBT definition for a unique technology or control 
strategy. The Agency could determine that an enrichment amount was 
excessive or not necessary and therefore deem that the approach did not 
meet the air to fuel ratio requirements.
    Enrichment required for thermal protection would continue to be 
allowed upon demonstration of necessity to the Agency, based upon 
temperature limitations of the engine or exhaust components. 
Manufacturers would be required to provide descriptions of all 
components requiring thermal protection, temperature limitations of the 
components, how the enrichment strategy will detect over-temperature 
conditions and correct them, and a justification regarding why the 
enrichment is the minimum necessary to protect the specific components. 
The Agency may determine that the enrichment is not justified or is not 
the minimum necessary based on the use of engineering judgment using 
industry-reported thermal protection requirements.
5. Feasibility of the Proposed NMOG+NOX and PM Standards
    In this section, with additional support in Chapter 1 of the draft 
RIA, we describe how we reached our conclusion that the proposed Tier 3 
standards would be technologically feasible in the time frame of the 
program. For each of the proposed emission standards, the lead time 
provided by the proposed program is more than sufficient for all 
manufacturers to comply. First, manufacturers in many cases are already 
adopting complying technologies for reasons other than this proposed 
rulemaking. For example, many of the technologies that manufacturers 
will begin to develop as early as MY 2014 in response to the CARB LEV 
III FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards for the California 
market will likely represent steps toward compliance with this proposed 
national program. Similarly, manufacturers are already building some 
vehicles that comply with our proposed evaporative emissions standards 
in response to the CARB LEV III evaporative standards. In addition, as 
described above, our proposed program incorporates a number of phase-in 
provisions that would ease the transition to compliance, including time 
some manufacturers would need to install PM testing capability and to 
ramp up production on a national scale. We invite comment on our 
conclusions relating to the feasibility of the proposed program for 
each of the standards, as discussed below, including our overall 
conclusion that technological lead time is not a driving factor in 
complying with any of the proposed standards.
    This feasibility assessment is based on a variety of complementary 
technical data, studies, and analyses. As described below, these 
include our analysis of the stringency of the proposed standards as 
compared to current Tier 2 emission levels. We also discuss below our 
observation that manufacturers are currently certifying several vehicle 
models under the California LEV II program that could likely achieve 
the proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NOX and PM standards or similar 
levels. EPA has assessed the emissions control challenges manufacturers 
would generally face (e.g., cold start NMOG reductions and running 
(warmed-up) NOX emissions under typical and more aggressive 
driving conditions) and the corresponding technologies that we expect 
to be available to manufacturers to meet these challenges. Our 
feasibility assessment accounts for the fact that the proposed Tier 3 
program would apply to all types of new vehicles, ranging from small 
cars to large pick-up trucks and MDPVs and representing a wide 
diversity in applications and in specific engine designs.
    It is important to note that our primary assessment of the 
feasibility of engine and emission control technologies is based on the 
assumption that vehicles would be certified on gasoline with a fuel 
sulfur content of 10 ppm and operated on in-use gasoline with 10 ppm 
sulfur or less.\220\ Therefore, our primary assessment does not 
incorporate the degradation of emission control system caused by higher 
levels of sulfur content, as is discussed in Section IV.6 below and in 
the draft RIA. This assessment reinforces the critical role of gasoline 
sulfur control, as proposed in Section V below, in making it possible 
for EPA to propose emission standards at these very stringent levels. 
See Section IV.6 below for a full discussion of our current knowledge 
of the effects of gasoline sulfur on current vehicle emissions as well 
as our projections of how we expect that sulfur would affect compliance 
with standards in the range of the proposed Tier 3 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ Our technology, feasibility, and cost assessments are also 
consistent with an assumption that certification fuel would contain 
15 percent ethanol and would have other properties as specified in 
Section IV.D below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since there are multiple aspects to the Tier 3 program, it is 
necessary to consider technical feasibility in light of the different 
program requirements and their interactions with each other. In many 
cases, manufacturers would be able to address more than one requirement 
with the same general technological approach (e.g., faster catalyst 
light-off can improve both FTP NMOG+NOX and PM emissions). 
At the same time, the feasibility assessment must consider that 
different technologies may be needed on different types of vehicle 
applications (i.e., cars versus trucks) and must consider the relative 
effectiveness of these technologies in reducing emissions for the full 
useful life of the vehicle while operating on expected in-use fuel. For 
example, certain smaller vehicles with correspondingly small engines 
may be less challenged to meet FTP standards than larger vehicles with 
larger engines. Conversely, these smaller vehicles may have more 
difficulty meeting the more aggressive SFTP requirements than vehicles 
with larger and more powerful engines. Additionally, the ability to 
meet the proposed SFTP emission requirements can also be impacted by 
the path taken to meet the FTP requirements (e.g., larger volume 
catalysts for US06 emissions control vs. smaller catalysts for improved 
FTP cold-start emissions control). Throughout the following discussion, 
we address how these factors, individually and in interaction with each 
other, affect the feasibility of the proposed program. We

[[Page 29859]]

invite comment on our assessments of these or any other such potential 
interactions. Also, although we are not aware of any technological 
reasons that vehicle emission controls responding to new Tier 3 
requirements should affect vehicle CO2 emissions or fuel 
economy in any significant way, it is possible that such interactions 
could occur. For example, there may be some slight change in vehicle 
mass if manufacturers explore lighter exhaust manifold materials in 
order to reduce thermal mass and promote earlier catalyst light-off or 
add emissions control equipment such as hydrocarbon adsorbers. We 
invite comment on any such potential effects as well.
a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
    The proposed new emission requirements include stringent 
NMOG+NOX standards on the FTP that would require new vehicle 
hardware in order to achieve the 30 mg/mi fleet average level in 2025. 
The type of new hardware that would be required would vary depending on 
the specific application and emission challenges. Smaller vehicles with 
corresponding smaller engines would generally need less new hardware 
while larger vehicles may need additional hardware and improvements 
beyond what would be needed for the smaller vehicles. While some 
vehicles, especially larger light trucks, may face higher costs in 
meeting the proposed standards, it is important to remember that not 
every vehicle needs to meet the standard. The proposed program has been 
structured to provide higher emission standard ``bins'' (see Table IV-1 
above) to which manufacturers may certify more challenged vehicles, so 
long as these vehicles are offset with vehicles certified in lower 
emission bins such that the fleet-wide average meets the standard. We 
believe that the availability of the proposed less-stringent bins would 
allow for feasible and cost-effective compliance for all vehicles. In 
the Tier 2 program, manufacturers took advantage of this flexibility, 
especially in the early years of the program. Then, as technologies 
improved and/or became less expensive and the need for averaging 
diminished, manufacturers began certifying all or most of their fleets 
to the average bin (Tier 2 Bin 5). We anticipate that manufacturers 
will follow a similar trend with the proposed Tier 3 standards, relying 
on fleet averaging more significantly in the transitional years but 
certifying increasing numbers of their vehicles to the final fleet 
average standard of 30 mg/mi in the later years of the program.
    In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 30 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX national fleet average FTP standard, EPA conducted 
two supporting analyses. The initial analyses performed were of the 
current Tier 2 and LEV II fleets. This provided a baseline for the 
current federal fleet emissions performance, as well as the emissions 
performance of the California LEV II fleet. The second consideration 
was a modal analysis of typical vehicle emissions under certain 
operating conditions. In this way EPA determined the specific emissions 
performance challenges that vehicle manufacturers would face in meeting 
the lower fleet average emission standards. Each of these 
considerations is described in greater detail below.
    The current federal fleet is certified to an average of Tier 2 Bin 
5, equivalent to 160 mg/mi NMOG+NOX.\221\ For MY 2009, 92 
percent of LDVs and LDT1s were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 91 percent 
of LDT2s through LDT4s were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5. This was not an 
unexpected result as there is currently no motivation for vehicle 
manufacturers to produce a federal fleet that over-complies with 
respect to the current Tier 2 standards. By comparison, in the 
California fleet, where compliance with the ``PZEV'' program encourages 
manufacturers to certify vehicles to cleaner levels, only 30 percent of 
the LDVs and LDT1s are certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 60 percent are 
certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. The situation regarding the truck fleet in 
California is similarly stratified, with 37 percent of the LDT2s 
through LDT4s being certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 55 percent being 
certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. In many cases identical vehicles are being 
certified to a lower standard in California and a higher standard 
federally. We note that vehicles certified to a lower standard in 
California are operated on gasoline with an average sulfur content of 
10 ppm and thereby are able to maintain their emissions performance in-
use. Based on these patterns of federal and California certification, 
EPA believes that much of the existing Tier 2 fleet could be certified 
to a lower federal fleet average immediately, with no significant 
feasibility concerns, if lower sulfur gasoline were made available 
nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ The current Tier 2 program does not combine NMOG and 
NOX emissions into one fleet-average standard. The fleet-
average standard in that program is for NOX emissions 
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regardless of the Tier 2 bin standards at which manufacturers 
choose to certify their vehicles, actual measured emissions performance 
of these vehicles is typically well below the numerical standards. This 
difference is referred to as ``compliance margin'' and is a result of 
manufacturers' efforts to address all the sources of variability, 
including:

 Test-to-test variability (within one test site and lab-to-lab)
 Build variation expectations
 Manufacturing tolerances and stack-up
 Vehicle operation (for example: driving habits, ambient 
temperature, etc.)
 Fuel composition
 The effects of fuel sulfur on exhaust catalysts and oxygen 
sensors
 The effects of other fuel components, including ethanol and 
gasoline additives
 Oil consumption
 The impact of oil additives and oil ash on exhaust catalysts 
and oxygen sensors

    For MY 2009, the compliance margin for a Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle 
averaged approximately 60 percent. In other words, actual vehicle 
emissions performance was on average about 40 percent of a 160 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX standard, or about 64 mg/mi. By comparison, for 
California-certified vehicles, the average Super Ultra Low Emission 
Vehicle (SULEV) compliance margin was somewhat less for the more 
stringent standards, approximately 50 percent. We believe that the 
recent California experience is a likely indicator of compliance 
margins that manufacturers would design for in order to comply with the 
proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. Thus, a typical Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle, 
performing at 40 percent of the current standard (i.e., at about 64 mg/
mi) would need improvements sufficient to reach about 15 mg/mi (50 
percent of a 30 mg/mi standards).
    To understand how the several currently-used technologies described 
below could be used by manufacturers to reach the stringent proposed 
Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards, it is helpful to consider 
emissions formation in common modes of operation for gasoline engines, 
or modal analysis.\222\ The primary challenge faced by manufacturers 
for producing Tier 3 compliant light-duty gasoline vehicle powertrains 
would be to reduce the emissions during cold-start operation which, 
based on modal analysis of a gasoline powered vehicle being operated on 
the FTP cycle, occurs during about the first 50 seconds after engine 
start. Thus, effective control of

[[Page 29860]]

these cold-start emissions would be the primary technological goal of 
manufacturers complying with the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. As 
discussed below, light-duty manufacturers are already applying several 
technologies capable of significant reductions in these cold start 
emissions to vehicles currently on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ A modal analysis provides a second-by-second view of the 
total amount of emissions over the entire cycle being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards
    The increase in the stringency of the SFTP NMOG+NOX 
standards, specifically across the US06 cycle, would generally only 
require additional focus on fuel control of the engines and diligent 
implementation of new technologies that manufacturers are already 
introducing or are likely to introduce in response to the current and 
2017 LD GHG emission standards. These include downsized gasoline direct 
injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines, which may also include 
improvements to the engine and emission control hardware to tolerate 
higher combustion and exhaust temperatures expected in these future 
GHG-oriented engine designs. The upgraded materials or components would 
enable manufacturers to rely less on fuel enrichment during high-speed/
high-load operation to protect components from overheating. This fuel 
enrichment is currently the source of elevated VOC, NOX, and 
PM emissions seen in a subset of the current Tier 2 fleet.
    With respect to enrichment, changes to the fuel/air mixture by 
increasing the fuel fraction has historically been the primary method 
available to manufacturers to protect the catalyst and other exhaust 
components from over-temperature conditions. Changing the fuel/air 
mixture is no longer the only tool available to manufacturers for this 
purpose. With the application of electronic throttle controls, variable 
valve timing, exhaust gas recirculation and other exhaust temperature 
influencing technologies on nearly every light-duty vehicle, the 
manufacturer has the ability to systematically control the operation 
and combustion processes of the engine to minimize or altogether avoid 
areas and modes of operation where thermal issues can occur. While some 
of these solutions could in some cases result in a small and temporary 
reduction in vehicle performance (absolute power levels), we believe 
that it could be an effective way to reduce NMOG+NOX 
emissions over the SFTP test.
    Additionally, some components, especially catalysts, can experience 
accelerated thermal deterioration that occurs when operating at higher 
temperatures for more time than expected under normal operation (e.g., 
trailer towing, mountain grades). Some upgrades of existing vehicle 
emission control technology, like catalyst substrates and washcoats may 
be required to limit thermal deterioration and ensure vehicle emissions 
compliance throughout the useful life of the vehicle.
    In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 50 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX national fleet average SFTP standard, EPA conducted 
an analysis of SFTP levels of Tier 2 and LEV II vehicles. The analysis 
was performed on the US06 results from current Tier 2 and LEV II 
vehicles tested in the in-use verification program (IUVP) by 
manufacturers and submitted to EPA. This analysis provided a baseline 
for the current Tier 2 and LEV II fleet emissions performance, as well 
as the SFTP emissions performance capability of the cleanest vehicles 
meeting the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. The analysis concluded that 
most vehicles in the IUVP testing program are already capable of 
meeting the composite SFTP standard of 50 mg/mi when the Tier 3 FTP 
standard levels are factored into the composite calculation. With the 
technological improvements already underway as discussed above, we 
believe all 2017 and later vehicles would be able to comply with the 
proposed SFTP standards, directly, or through the flexibility of the 
averaging, banking and trading program. For further information on the 
analysis see Chapter 1 of the draft RIA.
c. FTP and SFTP PM Standards
    As described above for NMOG+NOX over the SFTP, the 
increase in the stringency of the FTP and SFTP PM standards would 
generally also only require additional focus on fuel control of the 
engines and diligent implementation of new technologies like gasoline 
direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines. Some upgrades of 
existing vehicle emission control technology may be required to ensure 
vehicle emissions performance is maintained throughout the useful life 
of the vehicle. These upgrades may include improvements to the engine 
to control wear that could result in increased PM from oil consumption 
and selection of GDI systems that would be capable of continuing to 
perform optimally even as the systems age.
    We based our conclusions about the ability of manufacturers to meet 
the proposed PM standards largely on the PM performance of the existing 
fleet, both on the FTP and SFTP. In the case of FTP testing of current 
vehicles, data on both low and high mileage light-duty vehicles 
demonstrate that the majority of vehicles are currently achieving 
levels at or below the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards.
    The testing results can be found in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA. A 
small number of vehicles are at or just over the proposed FTP PM 
standard at low mileage and could require calibration changes and/or 
catalyst changes to meet the new standards. It is our expectation that 
the same calibration and catalyst changes required to address NMOG 
would also provide the necessary PM control. Vehicles that currently 
have higher PM emissions over the FTP or SFTP at higher mileages would 
likely be required to control oil consumption and combustion chamber 
deposits.
    We also analyzed PM test data on US06 emissions for current Tier 2 
vehicles. The data show that many vehicles are already at or below the 
proposed standards on the US06. Vehicles that have high PM emission 
rates on the US06 would likely need to control enrichment, and oil 
consumption particularly later in life. As described above for SFTP 
NMOG+NOX control, enrichment can be more accurately managed 
through available electronic engine controls. The strategies for 
reducing oil consumption are similar to those described above for 
controlling oil consumption on the FTP. However, given the higher 
engine speeds experienced on the US06 and the increase in oil 
consumption that can accompany this kind of operation, manufacturers 
would most likely focus on oil sources stemming from the piston to 
cylinder interface and positive crankcase ventilation (PCV).
    Manufacturers have informed us that they have already reduced or 
are planning to reduce the oil consumption of their engines by improved 
sealing of the paths of oil into the combustion chamber and improved 
piston-to-cylinder interfaces. They are already taking or considering 
these actions to address issues of customer satisfaction and cost of 
ownership. In addition, many vehicle manufacturers acknowledge the 
relationship between combustion chamber deposits and PM formation and 
are actively pursuing design changes to mitigate fuel impingement 
within the combustion chamber and its commensurate PM effects. Both 
types of controls are being widely applied by manufacturers today.
d. Technologies Manufacturers Are Likely To Apply
    Most of the technologies expected to be applied to light-duty 
vehicles to meet

[[Page 29861]]

the stringent proposed standards would address the emissions control 
system's ability to control emission during cold start. The 
effectiveness of current vehicle emissions control systems depends in 
large part on the time it takes for the catalyst to light off, which is 
typically defined as the catalyst reaching a temperature of 250 [deg]C. 
In order to improve catalyst light-off, we expect that manufacturers 
would add technologies that provide heat from combustion more readily 
to the catalyst or improve the catalyst efficiency at lower 
temperatures. These technologies include calibration changes, thermal 
management, close-coupled catalysts, catalyst platinum group metals 
(PGM) loading and strategy, and secondary air injection, all which 
generally improve emission performance of all pollutants. In some cases 
where the catalyst light-off and efficiency are not enough to address 
the cold start NMOG emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers may be applied to 
trap hydrocarbons until such time that the catalyst is lit off. Note 
that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of these 
technologies addresses NMOG, NOX, and PM performance. The 
technologies are described in greater detail below. Additional 
information on these technologies can also be found in Chapter 1 of the 
RIA.
     Engine Control Calibration Changes--These include changes 
to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mixtures such that more 
combustion heat is created during the cold start. Control changes may 
include injection strategies in GDI applications, unique cold-start 
variable valve timing and lift, and other available engine parameters. 
Engine calibration changes can affect NMOG, NOX and PM 
emissions.
     Catalyst PGM Loading--Additional PGM loading, increased 
loading of other active materials, and improved dispersion of PGM and 
other active materials in the catalyst provide a greater number of 
sites available to catalyze emissions and addresses NMOG, 
NOX and PM emissions. Catalyst PGM loading, when implemented 
in conjunction with low sulfur gasoline, will effectively eliminate 
NOX emissions under warmed-up conditions.
     Thermal Management--This category of technologies includes 
all design attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the 
catalyst with minimal cooling. This includes insulating the exhaust 
piping between the engine and the catalyst, reducing the wetted area of 
the exhaust path, reducing the thermal mass of the exhaust system, and/
or using close-coupled catalysts (i.e., the catalysts are packaged as 
close as possible to the engine's cylinder head to mitigate the cooling 
effects of longer exhaust piping). Thermal management technologies 
primarily address NMOG emissions, but also affect NOX and PM 
emissions.
     Secondary Air Injection--By injecting air directly into 
the exhaust stream, close to the exhaust valve, combustion can be 
maintained within the exhaust, creating additional heat by which to 
increase the catalyst temperature. The air/fuel mixture must be 
adjusted to provide a richer exhaust gas for the secondary air to be 
effective.
     Hydrocarbon Adsorber--Traps hydrocarbons during a cold 
start until the catalyst lights off, and then releases the hydrocarbons 
to be converted by the catalyst.
     Gasoline Sulfur--The relative effectiveness for NMOG and 
NOX control of the exhaust-catalyst related technologies are 
constrained by gasoline fuel sulfur levels. Thus, reduced sulfur in 
gasoline is an enabling technology to achieve the standards and 
maintain this performance during in-use operation. We discuss the 
relationship between gasoline sulfur and emissions in greater detail in 
Section IV.6 below and in the draft RIA.
    Discussions between EPA, CARB, vehicle manufacturers, and major 
component suppliers indicated that large light-duty trucks (e.g., 
pickups and full-size sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in the LDT3 and 
LDT4 categories) would be the most challenging light-duty vehicles to 
bring into compliance with the proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NOX 
standards at the 30 mg/mi corporate average emissions level. A similar 
challenge was addressed when large light-duty trucks were brought into 
compliance with the Tier 2 standards over the past decade. Figure IV-1 
provides a graphical representation of the effectiveness of Tier 3 
technologies for large light-duty truck applications. A compliance 
margin is shown in both cases. Note that the graphical representation 
of the effectiveness of catalyst technologies on NOX and 
NMOG when going from Tier 2 to Tier 3 levels also includes a reduction 
in gasoline sulfur levels from 30 ppm to 10 ppm.

[[Page 29862]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.000

6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Feasibility of the Proposed 
Vehicle Emission Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ The technologies and levels of control in this figure are 
based on a combination of confidential business information 
submitted by auto manufacturers and suppliers, public data, and EPA 
staff engineering judgment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Exhaust Catalysts
    Modern three-way catalytic exhaust systems utilize platinum group 
metals (PGM), metal oxides and other active materials to selectively 
oxidize organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases. 
These systems simultaneously reduce nitrogen oxides when air-to-fuel 
ratio control operates in a condition of relatively low amplitude/high 
frequency oscillation about the stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a well-
known catalyst poison. There is a large body of work demonstrating 
sulfur inhibition of the emissions control performance of PGM three-way 
exhaust catalyst 
systems.224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 The nature 
of sulfur interactions with washcoat materials, active catalytic

[[Page 29863]]

materials and catalyst substrates is complex and varies with catalyst 
composition and exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. The 
variation of these interactions with exhaust gas composition and 
temperature means that the operational history of a vehicle is an 
important factor; continuous light-load operation, throttle tip-in 
events and enrichment under high-load conditions can all impact sulfur 
interactions with the catalyst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.L. (1994). Impact 
of sulfur on model palladium-only catalysts under simulated three-
way operation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 3, 205-227.
    \225\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995). ``Impact of sulfur on 
the performance of vehicle aged palladium monoliths.'' Applied 
Catalysis B: Environmental 6, 185-200.
    \226\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.I. (1997). Axial 
characterization of oxygen storage capacity in close coupled 
lightoff and underfloor catalytic converters and impact of sulfur. 
Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 11, 273-290.
    \227\ Waqif, M., Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, 
G., Touret, O. (1997), Study of ceria sulfation. Applied Catalysis 
B: Environmental 11, 193-205.
    \228\ Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, G., 
Visciglio, V., Touret, O. (1997). ``Influence of platinum on ceria 
sulfation.'' Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 13, 265-274.
    \229\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. 
(2000). Fuel Property Requirement for Advanced Technology Engines. 
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-2019.
    \230\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. 
(2001). ``Fuel properties for advanced engines.'' Automotive 
Engineering International 109 12, 117-120.
    \231\ Kubsh, J.E., Anthony, J.W. (2007). The Potential for 
Achieving Low Hydrocarbon and NOX Exhaust Emissions from 
Large Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-
1261.
    \232\ Shen, Y., Shuai, S., Wang, J. Xiao, J. (2008). Effects of 
Gasoline Fuel Properties on Engine Performance. SAE Technical Paper 
2008-01-0628.
    \233\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sulfur from gasoline is oxidized during spark-ignition engine 
combustion primarily to SO2 and, to a much lesser extent, 
SO3-2. Sulfur oxides selectively chemically bind 
(chemisorb) with, and in some cases react with, active sites and 
coating materials within the catalyst, thus inhibiting the intended 
catalytic reactions. Sulfur oxides inhibit pollutant catalysis chiefly 
by selective poisoning of active PGM, ceria sites, and alumina 
washcoatings (see Figure IV-2).\234\ The amount of sulfur retained by 
the catalyst is primarily a function of its operating temperature, the 
active materials and coatings used within the catalyst, the 
concentration of sulfur oxides in the incoming exhaust gases, and air-
to-fuel ratio feedback and control by the engine management system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5: Catalyst 
Deactivation in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John 
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.001


[[Page 29864]]


Selective sulfur poisoning of platinum (Pt) and rhodium (Rh) is 
primarily from surface-layer chemisorption. Sulfur poisoning of 
palladium (Pd) and ceria appears to be via chemisorption combined with 
formation of more stable metallic sulfur compounds, e.g. PdS and 
Ce2O2S, present in both surface and bulk form 
(i.e., below the surface layer.235 236 237 238 Ceria, 
zirconia and other oxygen storage components (OSC) play an important 
role that is crucial to NOX reduction over Rh as the engine 
air-to-fuel ratio oscillates about the stoichiometric closed-loop 
control point.\239\ Water-gas-shift reactions are important for 
NOX reduction over catalysts combining Pd and ceria. This 
reaction can be blocked by sulfur poisoning and may be responsible for 
observations of reduced NOX activity over Pd/ceria catalysts 
even with exposure to fairly low levels of sulfur (equivalent to 15 ppm 
in gasoline).240 241 Pd is also of increased importance for 
meeting Tier 3 standards due to its unique application in the closed-
coupled-catalysts location required for vehicles certifying to very 
stringent emission standards. Pd is required in closed-coupled 
catalysts due to its resistance to high temperature thermal sintering. 
Sulfur removal from Pd requires rich operation at higher temperatures 
than required for sulfur removal from other PGM catalysts.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ Luo, T. Gorte, R.J. (2003). A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur 
Poisoning of the Water-Gas-Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria.'' Catalysis 
Letters, 85, Issues 3-4, pg. 139-146.
    \236\ Li-Dun, A., Quan, D.Y. (1990). ``Mechanism of sulfur 
poisoning of supported Pd(Pt)/Al2O3 catalysts 
for H2-O2 reaction.'' Applied Catalysis 61, 
Issue 1, pg. 219-234.
    \237\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive 
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley 
and Sons, Inc.
    \238\ Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. 
(2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level 
on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles. 
Environmental Science and Technology, 36, No. 2 pg. 276-282.
    \239\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive 
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley 
and Sons, Inc.
    \240\ Luo, T. Gorte, R.J. (2003) A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur 
Poisoning of the Water-Gas-Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria. Catalysis 
Letters, 85, Issues 3-4, pg. 139-146.
    \241\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper No. 2011-01-0300.
    \242\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995) Impact of sulfur on the 
performance of vehicle aged palladium monoliths. Applied Catalysis 
B: Environmental 6, 185-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its interaction with catalyst materials, sulfur can 
also react with the washcoating itself to form alumina sulfate, which 
in turn can block coating pores and reduce gaseous diffusion to active 
materials below the coating surface.\243\ This may be a significant 
mechanism for the observed storage of sulfur compounds at light and 
moderate load operation with subsequent, rapid release as sulfate 
particulate matter when high-load, high-temperature conditions are 
encountered.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. 
(2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level 
on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles. 
Environmental Science and Technology, 36, No. 2 pg. 276-282.
    \244\ Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. 
(2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level 
on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles. 
Environmental Science and Technology, 36, No. 2 pg. 276-282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operating the catalyst at a sufficiently high temperature under net 
reducing conditions (e.g., air-to-fuel equivalence that is net fuel-
rich of stoichiometry) can effectively release the sulfur oxides from 
the catalyst components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently high 
temperatures at rich air-to-fuel ratios can minimize the effects of 
fuel sulfur levels on catalyst active materials and catalyst 
efficiency. However, it cannot completely eliminate the effects of 
sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in-use fleet 
recently completed by EPA shows that emission levels immediately 
following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur 
level, suggesting that lower fuel sulfur levels will bring emission 
benefits unachievable by catalyst regeneration procedures alone.\245\ 
Furthermore, regular operation at these temperatures and at rich air-
to-fuel ratios is not desirable, for several reasons. The temperatures 
necessary to release sulfur oxides are high enough to lead to thermal 
degradation of the catalyst over time via thermal sintering of active 
materials. Sintering reduces the surface area available to participate 
in reactions. Additionally, it is not always possible to maintain these 
catalyst temperatures (because of cold weather, idle conditions, light 
load operation) and the rich air-to-fuel ratios necessary can result in 
increased PM, NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, reducing fuel sulfur levels 
has been the primary regulatory mechanism to minimize sulfur 
contamination of the catalyst and ensure optimum emissions performance 
over the useful life of a vehicle. The impact of gasoline sulfur has 
become even more important as vehicle emission standards have become 
more stringent. Some studies have suggested an increase in catalyst 
sensitivity to sulfur (in terms of percent conversion efficiency) when 
standards increase in stringency and emissions levels decrease. 
Emission standards under the programs that preceded the Tier 2 program 
(Tier 0, Tier 1 and National LEV, or NLEV) were high enough that the 
impact of sulfur was considered negligible. The Tier 2 program 
recognized the importance of sulfur and reduced the sulfur levels in 
the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in conjunction with the new 
emission standards.\246\ At that time, very little work had been done 
to evaluate the effect of further reductions in fuel sulfur, especially 
on in-use vehicles that may have some degree of catalyst deterioration 
due to real-world operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ See Chapter 1 of the RIA (Section 1.2.3.2) for more 
details on this study and its results.
    \246\ Tier 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 420-R-99-023, 
December 22, 1999), available at https://epa.gov/tier2/finalrule.htm#regs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a program 
that examined the effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties, 
benzene, and volatility on emissions from a fleet of nine Tier 2 
compliant vehicles. Section 1.2.3 of the draft RIA provides details of 
the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Study.\247\ The study found 
significant reductions in NOX, CO and total hydrocarbons 
(HC) when the vehicles were tested on low sulfur fuel, relative to 32 
ppm fuel.\248\ In particular, the study found a nearly 50 percent 
increase in NOX over the FTP when sulfur was increased from 
6 ppm to 32 ppm. Given the prep procedures related to catalyst clean-
out and loading used by these studies, these results may represent a 
``best case'' scenario relative to what would be expected under more 
typical driving conditions. Nonetheless, these data suggested the 
effect of sulfur loading was reversible for Tier 2 vehicles, and that 
there were likely to be significant emission reductions possible with 
further reductions in gasoline sulfur level. For more discussion of the 
impact of gasoline fuel sulfur on the current light-duty vehicle fleet, 
see Section III.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ This test program is described in Chapter 6 of the RIA of 
the MSAT2 final rulemaking, EPA 420-R-07-002, February 2007, 
available at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420r07002chp6.pdf.
    \248\ See Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, 
EPA 420-R-07-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. EPA Gasoline Sulfur Effects Testing
    Both the MSAT and Umicore studies showed the emission reduction 
potential of lower sulfur fuel on Tier 2 and later technology vehicles 
over the FTP cycle. However, assessing the potential for reduction on 
the in-use

[[Page 29865]]

fleet requires understanding how sulfur exposure over time impacts 
emissions, and what the state of loading is for the typical vehicle in 
the field. In response to these data needs, EPA conducted a new study 
to assess the emission reductions expected from the in-use Tier 2 fleet 
with a reduction in fuel sulfur level from current levels. It was 
designed to take into consideration what was known from prior studies 
on sulfur build-up in catalysts over time and the effect of periodic 
regeneration events that may result from higher speed and load 
operation over the course of day-to-day driving.
    The study sample described in this analysis consisted of 81 cars 
and light trucks recruited from owners in southeast Michigan, covering 
model years 2007-9 with approximately 20,000-40,000 odometer miles. The 
makes and models targeted for recruitment were chosen to be 
representative of high sales vehicles covering a range of types and 
sizes. Test fuels were two non-ethanol gasolines with properties 
typical of certification test fuel, one at a sulfur level of 5 ppm and 
the other at 28 ppm. A nominal concentration of approximately 25 ppm 
was targeted for the high level to be representative of retail fuel 
available to the public in the vehicle recruiting area. All emissions 
data was collected using the FTP cycle at a nominal temperature of 75 
[deg]F.
    Using the 28 ppm test fuel, emissions data were collected from 
vehicles in their as-received state as well as following a high-speed/
load ``clean-out'' procedure consisting of two back-to-back US06 cycles 
intended to reduce sulfur loading in the catalyst. A statistical 
analysis of this data showed highly significant reductions in several 
pollutants including NOX and hydrocarbons, suggesting that 
reversible sulfur loading exists in the in-use fleet and has a 
measurable effect on aftertreatment performance (Table IV-6). For 
example, Bag 2 NOX emissions dropped 32 percent between the 
pre- and post-cleanout tests on 28 ppm fuel.

                                   Table IV-6--Average Clean-Out Effect on In-Use Emissions Using 28 ppm Test Fuel\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX (p-value)   THC (p-value)   CO (p-value)   NMHC (p-value)   CH4 (p-value)   PM (p-value)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1...................................................  ..............  ..............            4.7%  ..............  ..............           15.4%
                                                                                                (0.0737)                                       (<0.0001)
Bag 2...................................................           31.9%           16.5%  ..............           17.8%           15.3%  ..............
                                                                (0.0009)        (0.0024)                        (0.0181)        (0.0015)
Bag 3...................................................           38.3%           21.4%           19.5%           27.8%           12.0%           24.5%
                                                               (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)        (0.0011)       (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)
FTP Composite...........................................           11.4%            4.1%            7.6%            3.0%            6.9%           13.7%
                                                               (<0.0001)        (0.0187)        (0.0008)        (0.0751)        (0.0003)       (<0.0001)
Bag 1-Bag 3.............................................  ..............  ..............            4.2%  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                                                (0.0714)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The clean-out effect is not significant at [alpha] = 0.10 when no reduction estimate is provided.

    To assess the impact of lower sulfur fuel on in-use emissions, 
further testing was conducted on a representative subset of vehicles on 
28 ppm and 5 ppm fuel with accumulated mileage. A first step in this 
portion of the study was to assess differences in the effectiveness of 
the clean-out procedure when done using different fuel sulfur levels. 
Table IV-7 presents a comparison of emissions immediately following 
(<50 miles) the clean-out procedures at the low vs. high sulfur level. 
These results show significant emission reductions for the 5 ppm fuel 
relative to the 28 ppm fuel immediately after this clean-out; for 
example, Bag 2 NOX emissions were 47 percent lower on the 5 
ppm fuel vs. the 28 ppm fuel. This indicates that the catalyst is not 
fully desulfurized, even after a clean out procedure, as long as there 
is sulfur in the fuel.

   Table IV-7--Percent Reduction in Exhaust Emissions When Going From 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur Gasoline for the First Three Repeat FTP Tests Immediately
                                                                   Following Clean-Out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX (p-value)   THC (p-value)   CO (p-value)   NMHC (p-value)   CH4 (p-value)       PM\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1...................................................            5.9%            5.4%            7.3%            4.6%           11.1%  ..............
                                                                (0.0896)        (0.0118)        (0.0023)        (0.0465)       (<0.0001)
Bag 2...................................................           47.3%           40.2%            -\a\           34.4%           53.6%  ..............
                                                                (0.0010)       (<0.0001)                        (0.0041)       (<0.0001)
Bag 3...................................................           51.2%           35.0%           10.1%           45.0%           25.4%  ..............
                                                               (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)        (0.0988)       (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)
FTP Composite...........................................           17.7%           11.2%            8.3%            8.8%           21.4%  ..............
                                                                (0.0001)       (<0.0001)        (0.0003)        (0.0003)       (<0.0001)
Bag 1-Bag 3.............................................            -\a\            -\a\            5.8%            -\a\            -\a\  ..............
                                                                                                (0.0412)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Sulfur level not significant at [alpha] = 0.10.

    To assess the overall in-use reduction between high and low sulfur 
fuel, a mixed model analysis of all data as a function of fuel sulfur 
level and miles driven after cleanout was performed. This analysis 
found highly significant reductions for several pollutants, as shown in 
Table IV-8. Reductions for Bag 2 NOX were particularly high, 
estimated at 59 percent between 28 ppm and 5 ppm overall. For some 
pollutants, such as Bag 2 NOX, the model fitting did not 
find a significant miles-by-sulfur interaction, suggesting the relative 
differences were not dependent on

[[Page 29866]]

miles driven after clean-out. Other results, such as Bag 1 
hydrocarbons, did show a significant miles-by-sulfur interaction. In 
this case, determination of a sulfur level effect for the in-use fleet 
required estimation of a miles-equivalent level of sulfur loading, 
which was determined by the cleanout results obtained from the baseline 
testing on the vehicles as-received.

 Table IV-8--Summary of Mixed Model Results for Emission Reductions When Going From 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur Gasoline, Adjusted for In-Use Sulfur Loading
                                                        (Mileage Accumulation) Where Appropriate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           NOX+NMOG (p-
                                           NOX (p-value)   THC (p-value)   CO (p-value)   NMHC (p-value)   CH4 (p-value)      value)           PM\a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1...................................           10.7%         \b\8.5%         \b\7.5%            7.5%        \b\13.9%             N/A  ..............
                                                (0.0033)        (0.0382)        (0.0552)      (< 0.0001)       (<0.0001)
Bag 2...................................           59.2%           48.8%            -\a\        \b\44.8%           49.9%             N/A  ..............
                                               (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)                        (0.0260)       (<0.0001)
Bag 3...................................           62.1%           40.2%           20.1%           49.9%           29.2%             N/A  ..............
                                               (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)       (<0.0001)
FTP Composite...........................        \b\23.0%        \b\13.0%        \b\11.9%        \b\10.6%        \b\25.8%           17.3%  ..............
                                                (0.0180)        (0.0027)        (0.0378)        (0.0032)       (<0.0001)        (0.0140)
Bag 1-Bag 3.............................            -\a\            5.2%            4.3%            5.1%            4.6%             N/A  ..............
                                                                (0.0063)        (0.0689)        (0.0107)        (0.0514)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Sulfur level not significant at [alpha] = 0.10. For THC Bag 1 and CH4 Bag 1, because the effect of clean-out was not statistically significant, the
  reduction estimates are based on the estimates of least squares means.
\b\ Model with significant sulfur and mileage interaction term.

    Major findings from this study include:
     Reversible sulfur loading is occurring in the in-use fleet 
of Tier 2 vehicles and has a measureable effect on emissions of 
NOX, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest.
     The effectiveness of high speed/load procedures in 
restoring catalyst efficiency is limited when operating on higher 
sulfur fuel.
     Reducing fuel sulfur levels from current levels to levels 
in the range of the proposed gasoline sulfur standards would be 
expected to achieve significant reductions in emissions of 
NOX, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest in the 
in-use fleet.
    The overall reductions found in this study are in agreement with 
other low sulfur studies conducted on Tier 2 vehicles. The magnitude of 
NOX and HC reductions found in this study when switching 
from 28 ppm to 5 ppm fuel are consistent with those found in MSAT and 
Umicore studies mentioned above. For further details regarding the Tier 
2 In-Use Gasoline Sulfur Effects Study, see the draft report on this 
work.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ U.S. EPA. 2013. ``The Effects of Fuel Sulfur Level on 
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles In-Use.'' EPA-420-D-13-003. Available 
in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Vehicles at the Proposed Tier 3 Levels
    As discussed in previous sections, the Tier 3 Program would reduce 
fleet average NMOG+NOX emissions by over 80 percent. The 
feasibility of the proposed 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX fleet average 
standard depends on a degree of emissions control from exhaust catalyst 
systems that will require gasoline at 10 ppm sulfur or lower. The most 
likely control strategies would involve using exhaust catalyst 
technologies and powertrain calibration primarily focused on reducing 
cold-start emissions of NMOG and on both cold-start and warmed-up 
(running) emissions of NOX. An important part of this 
strategy, particularly for larger vehicles having greater difficulty 
achieving cold-start NMOG emissions control, would be to reduce 
NOX emissions to near-zero levels. This would allow 
sufficient NMOG compliance margin to allow vehicles to meet the 
combined NMOG+NOX emissions standards for their full useful 
life.
    Achieving the proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require very 
careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures to 
ensure high catalyst efficiency. The impact of sulfur on OSC components 
in the catalyst makes this a challenge even at relatively low (10 ppm) 
gasoline sulfur levels. NOX conversion by exhaust catalysts 
is strongly influenced by the OSC components like ceria. Ceria 
sulfation may play an important role in the degradation of 
NOX emission control with increased fuel sulfur levels 
observed in the MSAT, Umicore and EPA Tier 2 In-Use Gasoline Sulfur 
Effects studies.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive 
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley 
and Sons, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Light-duty vehicles certified to CARB SULEV and federal Tier 2 Bin 
2 exhaust emission standards accounted for approximately 3.1 percent 
and 0.4 percent, respectively of vehicle sales for MY2009. Light-duty 
vehicles certified to SULEV under LEV II are more typically certified 
federally to Tier 2 Bin 3, Bin 4 or Bin 5, and vehicles certified to 
SULEV and Tier 2 Bins 3-5 comprised approximately 2.5 percent of sales 
for MY2009. In particular, nonhybrid vehicles certified in California 
as SULEV are not certified to federal Tier 2 Bin 2 emissions standards 
even though the numeric limits for NOX and NMOG are shared 
between the California LEV II and federal Tier 2 programs for SULEV and 
Bin 2. Confidential business information shared by the auto companies 
indicate that the primary reason is an inability to demonstrate 
compliance with SULEV/Bin 2 emission standards after vehicles have 
operated in-use on gasoline with greater than 10 ppm sulfur and with 
exposure to gasoline up to the Tier 2 80 ppm gasoline sulfur cap. While 
vehicles certified to the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards both 
demonstrate compliance using certification gasoline with 15-40 ppm 
sulfur content, in-use compliance of SULEV vehicles in California 
occurs after operation on gasoline with an average of 10 ppm sulfur and 
a maximum cap of 30 ppm sulfur while federally certified vehicles 
operate on gasoline with an average of 30 ppm sulfur and a maximum cap 
of 80 ppm sulfur. Although the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards are 
numerically equivalent, the increased sulfur exposure of in-use 
vehicles certified under the federal Tier 2 program results in a need 
for a higher emissions compliance margin to take into account the 
impact of in-use gasoline sulfur on full useful life vehicle emissions. 
As a result, vehicles certified

[[Page 29867]]

to California SULEV typically certify to emissions standards under the 
federal Tier 2 program that are 1-2 certification bins higher (e.g., 
SULEV certified federally as Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4) in order to ensure 
in-use compliance with emissions standards out to the full useful life 
of the vehicle when operating on higher-sulfur gasoline.
    Emissions of vehicles certified to the SULEV standard of the 
California LEV II program, or the equivalent Tier 2 Bin 2 standards, 
can provide some insight into the impact of fuel sulfur on vehicles at 
the very low proposed Tier 3 emissions levels. Vehicle testing by 
Toyota of LEV I, LEV II ULEV and prototype SULEV vehicles showed larger 
percentage increases in NOX and HC emissions for SULEV 
vehicles as gasoline sulfur increased from 8 ppm to 30 ppm, as compared 
to other LEV vehicles they tested. Testing of a SULEV-certified PZEV 
vehicle by Umicore showed a pronounced, progressive trend of increasing 
NOX emissions (referred to as ``NOX creep'') when 
switching from a 3 ppm sulfur gasoline to repeated, back-to-back FTP 
tests using 33 ppm sulfur gasoline.\251\ The PZEV Chevrolet Malibu, 
after being aged to an equivalent of 150,000 miles, demonstrated 
emissions at a level equivalent to the compliance margin for the Tier 3 
Bin 30 NMOG+NOX standard when operated on 3 ppm sulfur fuel 
and for at least one FTP test after switching to 33 ppm certification 
fuel. Following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm sulfur fuel, 
NOX emissions alone were more than double the proposed Tier 
3 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX standard.\252\ This represents a 
NOX percentage increase that is approximately 2-3 times of 
what has been reported for similar changes in fuel sulfur level for 
Tier 2 and older vehicles over a similar difference in fuel 
sulfur.253 254 There are no LDTs larger than LDT2 and no 
larger non-hybrid LDVs. We expect that additional catalyst 
technologies, for example increasing catalyst surface area (volume or 
substrate cell density) and/or increased PGM loading, would need to be 
applied to larger vehicles in order to achieve the catalyst 
efficiencies necessary to comply with the proposed Tier 3 standards. 
Any sulfur impact on catalyst efficiency would have a larger impact on 
vehicles and trucks that rely more on very high catalyst efficiencies 
in order to achieve very low emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive 
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley 
and Sons, Inc.
    \252\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technial Paper No. 2011-01-0300.
    \253\ Butler, A. and Choi, D. (2012). The Effects of Fuel Sulfur 
Level on Emissions In-Use Tier 2 Vehicles. Found in the docket, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
    \254\ Shapiro, E. (2009). National Clean Gasoline--An 
Investigation of Costs and Benefits. Published by the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on catalytic activity and 
the resultant loss of exhaust catalyst effectiveness to chemically 
reduce NOX and oxidize NMOG and air toxic emissions occurs 
across all vehicle categories. However, the impact of gasoline sulfur 
on NOX emissions control of catalysts in the fully-warmed-up 
condition is particularly of concern for larger vehicles (the largest 
LDVs and LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs). Manufacturers face the most 
significant challenges in reducing cold-start NMOG emissions for these 
vehicles. Because of the need to reach near-zero NOX levels, 
any significant degradation in NOX emissions control over 
the useful life of the vehicle would likely prevent some if not most 
larger vehicles from reaching a combined NMOG+NOX low enough 
to comply with the 30 mg/mi fleet-average standard. These vehicles 
represent a sufficiently large segment of light-duty vehicle sales now 
and in the foreseeable future that their emissions could not be offset 
(and thus the fleet-average standard achieved) by certifying vehicles 
to bins below the fleet average. Any degradation in catalyst 
performance due to gasoline sulfur would reduce or eliminate the margin 
necessary to ensure in-use compliance with the proposed Tier 3 
emissions standards. Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles 
versus the current 120,000 miles would further add to manufacturers' 
compliance challenge for Tier 3 large light trucks (See Section IV.7.b 
below for more on the useful life requirements.)
d. Gasoline Sulfur Control Required To Meet Tier 3 Emissions Standards
    The impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust catalyst 
performance and the relative stringency of the Tier 3 standards, 
particularly for larger vehicles and trucks, when considered together 
make a compelling argument for the virtual elimination of sulfur from 
gasoline. As discussed in Section V.A.2, the proposed 10-ppm standard 
for sulfur in gasoline represents the lowest practical limit from a 
standpoint of fuel production, handling and transport. While lowering 
gasoline sulfur to levels below 10 ppm would further help ensure in-use 
vehicle compliance with the Tier 3 standards, the Agency believes that 
a gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow compliance by 
gasoline-fueled engines with a national fleet average of 30 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX. The level of the proposed Tier 3 standards was 
considered in light of a 10-ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. Not 
only should a 10-ppm sulfur standard enable vehicle manufacturers to 
certify their entire product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet 
average standards, but based on the results of testing both Tier 2 
vehicles and SULEV vehicles as discussed above, reducing gasoline 
sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to maintain their 
emission performance in-use over their full useful life. It is 
important to note that while the preceding discussion focused on 
gasoline sulfur control, spark ignition engines operating on other 
fuels (i.e., CNG, LPG, E85) and utilizing a three way catalyst systems 
for control of emission are similarly affected by the sulfur levels in 
the fuel. We invite comment on all aspects of our analysis of gasoline 
sulfur effects and our conclusions, especially comments that include 
any additional relevant testing data.
7. Other Provisions
a. Early Credits
    The California LEV III program is scheduled to begin at least two 
model years earlier than the proposed federal Tier 3 program.\255\ As 
stated earlier, EPA proposes to implement the Tier 3 standards in MY 
2017, for vehicles 6,000 lbs GVWR and less, and in MY 2018 for vehicles 
over 6,000 lbs GVWR. As a result, LEV III vehicles sold in California 
beginning in MY 2015 will be required to meet a lower fleet average 
NMOG+NOX level than the federal fleet is meeting at that 
time. In addition, the California NMOG+NOX standards will 
continue to decline resulting in the gap growing between the current 
federal program and LEV III. The early credit program we are proposing 
is designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Encourage manufacturers to 
produce a cleaner federal fleet earlier than otherwise required; (2) 
provide needed flexibility to the manufacturers to facilitate the 
``step down'' from the current Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average required in 
MY 2016 to the LEV III-based declining fleet average in MY 2017; and 
(3) create a Tier 3 program that is equivalent in stringency to the LEV 
III program such that manufacturers will be able to produce a 50-state 
fleet at the earliest opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ The LEV III program as approved by the California Air 
Resources Board, January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first provision that we are proposing to address these goals is 
to allow manufacturers to generate early federal credits against the 
current Tier 2

[[Page 29868]]

Bin 5 requirement \256\ in MYs 2015 and 2016 for vehicles under 6,000 
lbs GVWR and MYs 2016 and 2017 for vehicles greater than 6,000 lbs 
GVWR. (Early credits would only be available for manufacturers 
complying under the primary program (declining fleet average), not the 
alternative phase-in approach (Section IV.A.3.a above). In order to 
generate these credits, manufacturers would sum the NMOG and 
NOX certification standards for each federally certified 
Tier 2 vehicle and calculate an NMOG+NOX fleet average. 
Credits would be based on the difference between the new, cleaner, 
fleet average and the Tier 2 Bin 5 requirement (160 mg/mi total of NMOG 
and NOX). We expect that manufacturers could accomplish this 
by certifying existing Tier 2 vehicles to a lower fleet average, mainly 
for the higher bins as the current sulfur content in gasoline would 
preclude them from certifying the cleanest bins federally (Our 
analysis, presented in Section IV.A.5 above and Chapter 1 of the draft 
RIA, shows that many vehicles currently certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 could 
likely be certified to a lower bin with some reduction in compliance 
margin; e.g., from Bin 5 to Bin 4 or Bin 3.) We expect to realize early 
environmental benefits, as the result of a cleaner federal fleet, that 
justify the credits generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ Tier 2 standards are not set in the form of 
NMOG+NOX. The equivalent Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in 
NMOG+NOX terms would be equal to 160 mg/mi (90 mg/mi NMOG 
+ 70 mg/mi NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that this provision would help us realize both our first 
and our second goals. For example, a manufacturer certifying their 
federal fleet to Tier 2 Bin 4 would earn 50 mg/mi of 
NMOG+NOX credits per vehicle (i.e., 160 mg/mi minus 110 mg/
mi) which should encourage manufacturers to certify a cleaner federal 
fleet and provide ample opportunity for credit generation to facilitate 
the ``step down'' in stringency. However, if we allowed excessive early 
credits to be generated it could allow manufacturers to delay their 
federal compliance with the same fleet average as California for 
several years. This would be in direct conflict with our third goal of 
creating a program of equal stringency to the California program as 
early as possible. In order to address this concern we are proposing 
that the application of the early federal credits be constrained under 
the following conditions:
     Early federal credits generated under the provision 
described above could be used without limitation in MY 2017.
     Credits used for compliance in MY 2018 and beyond would be 
capped at an amount equal to the lesser of the manufacturer's federal 
credits as calculated above or the manufacturer's LEV III credits 
multiplied by the ratio of 50-state sales to California only sales. 
Calculation of these credits would account for the fact that some LEV 
III credits may have begun to expire and would no longer be eligible as 
a basis for Tier 3 early credits.
    By capping the available federal credits we believe that the two 
programs, LEV III and Tier 3 would be at parity starting in 2018 MY. In 
addition, because the number of federal early credits that could be 
used would be based on the number of LEV III credits that the 
manufacturer had generated, there may be additional motivation for 
manufacturers to over-perform in California during the initial model 
years.
    We are proposing that early credit life be limited to 5 years with 
no discounting, consistent with the California LEV II and LEV III 
programs and similar to the basic credit carry-forward provisions of 
the recent light-duty and heavy-duty greenhouse gas rules. We are not 
proposing any carry-over of Tier 2 credits for use in the Tier 3 
program. We seek comment on the 5-year credit life in the context of 
the programs goals of harmonization with California LEV III and whether 
the added flexibility would be advantageous relative to any added 
burden associated with corresponding record retention requirements.
b. Useful Life
    The ``useful life'' of a vehicle is the period of time, in terms of 
years and miles, during which a manufacturer is responsible for the 
vehicle's emissions performance.\257\ For LDVs and LDTs (including 
MDPVs) under the Tier 2 program, there have historically been both 
``full useful life'' values, approximating the average life of the 
vehicle on the road, and ``intermediate useful life'' values, 
representing about half of the vehicle's life. For the Tier 3 program, 
we are proposing several changes to the current useful life provisions 
that are appropriate to the proposed standards described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ The useful life of the vehicle should not be confused with 
the vehicle's emissions warranty. The useful life value is relevant 
for certification and in-use compliance purposes; the emissions 
warranty relates to the period during which the manufacturer is 
obligated to repair or replace failing emission control equipment on 
a properly maintained vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Every vehicle manufacturer with which the EPA has met has expressed 
the desire for a single national vehicle fleet and has indicated an 
ability and willingness to certify their vehicles to a 150,000 mile, 15 
year full useful life in support of that goal, since the LEV III 
program would apply a single 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life value 
for all of the new standards. However, the CAA, written at a time when 
vehicles did not last as long as today, precludes EPA from requiring a 
useful life value longer than the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 year, as 
applicable) value set in Tier 2, for all LDVs and for LDTs up to 3,750 
lbs LVW and up to 6,000 lbs GVWR (LDT1s). For vehicles heavier than 
these limits (i.e., LDT2s, 3s, 4s, as well as MDPVs, representing a 
large fraction of the light-duty fleet) we are proposing a 150,000 
mile, 15 year useful life value. For the lighter vehicles, we are 
proposing to continue to apply the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 year, as 
applicable) full useful life requirement from the Tier 2 program. 
Numerically, we are proposing 120,000 mile useful life 
NMOG+NOX standards that are 85 percent of the respective 
NMOG+ NOX 150,000 mile standards. (See Chapter 1 of the 
draft RIA for a description of our analysis of this relationship.) For 
the lighter vehicles, we propose that manufacturers be allowed to 
choose to certify to either useful life value in complying with the 
proposed fleet average and per-vehicle standards.\258\ A manufacturer 
choosing to comply with the 120,000 mile useful life standards for any 
of their lighter vehicles would demonstrate compliance with the 
numerically lower fleet-average NMOG+ NOX standards for all 
LDV and LDT1 families. Standards for all other pollutants \259\ would 
remain the same regardless of whether compliance was at the 120,000 
mile or the 150,000 mile useful life periods. If a vehicle manufacturer 
chose to comply with the 120,000 mile useful life standards for their 
lighter vehicles, it would be required to separately demonstrate that 
its larger vehicles complied with the 150,000 mile fleet average 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ CARB has stated that they do not expect to accept vehicles 
certified under the federal Tier 3 program to a 120,000 mile useful 
life value for California certification, and thus for meeting 
California's fleet average NMOG+NOX standards.
    \259\ PM, CO, and HCHO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for vehicles not required to meet a 150,000 miles useful 
life and for which a manufacturer chose to apply the 120,000 mile 
useful life value, we propose that manufacturers be required to certify 
vehicles to the 150,000 mile useful life beginning with the first model 
year that a vehicle model is certified to the FTP NMOG+NOX 
Bin 70 or lower. This useful-life requirement

[[Page 29869]]

would apply beginning in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all vehicles 
would need to certify to the 150,000 mile useful life, regardless of 
NMOG+NOX certification bin, unless they are allowed and the 
manufacturer has chosen to remain at 120,000 mile useful life. (Note 
that the timing of the requirement to certify on the new test fuel 
would follow the same approach as for the useful life requirement 
(i.e., based on the first year a model is certified to Bin 70 or below) 
as described in Section IV.A.7.c below.)
    We request comment on the proposed useful life provisions, 
including the 85 percent factor we propose to use to establish the 
standards for the 120,000 mile useful life.
c. Test Fuels
    We recognize that test fuels are an important element of a national 
program. Vehicle manufacturers have emphasized the desire to reduce 
test burden by producing one vehicle that is tested to a single test 
procedure and a single fuel and meets both California and federal 
requirements. Although we have been able to reasonably align the 
proposed Tier 3 program with the LEV III program in most key respects, 
we recognize that there would still exist some differences in emissions 
performance between vehicles operated on the LEV III and Tier 3 
certification fuels. The largest differences between the two fuels are 
the amount of ethanol they contain and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). 
The proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards assume operation on 
federal certification fuel.
    We propose that manufacturers begin to certify vehicles on the new 
Tier 3 fuels \260\ beginning with the first model year that a vehicle 
model is certified to the FTP NMOG+NOX Bin 70 or lower, 
independent of its useful life. The new-fuel requirement would apply 
beginning in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all gasoline-fueled models 
would need to certify on the new fuel, regardless of their 
certification bin.\261\ As discussed in Section IV.A.7.b above, 
manufacturers would also need to apply the 150,000 mile useful life 
value to these same vehicles as they begin to be certified to Bin 70 
and lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ This includes fuels used for low temperature and high 
altitude testing and durability requirements. See Section IV.D 
below.
    \261\ Diesel fueled and alternative fueled vehicles would 
continue to test on the fuels used under the Tier 2 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the transition period from Tier 2 fuel to the new Tier 3 and 
LEV III fuels, manufacturers have indicated a substantial workload 
challenge of developing and certifying a vehicle to the two new fuels 
simultaneously. To address this potential workload and certification 
challenge, we propose that vehicles certified in MY 2015 through 2019 
to California LEV III standards using California LEV III certification 
fuels and test procedures could be used for certifying to EPA 
standards. (For example, for MY 2015 and 2016, EPA would consider such 
vehicles to be Tier 2 vehicles, although they could be tested on 
California LEV III fuel.\262\ Similarly, for MY 2017 through 2019, EPA 
would consider such vehicles to be Interim Tier 3 vehicles, although 
they could be tested on California LEV III fuel.) For these vehicles 
only, we would not perform or require in-use exhaust testing on Tier 3 
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ Because the Tier 2 program has NOX fleet 
average standards (instead of the NMOG+NOX fleet average 
standard of LEV III and Tier 3), manufacturers certifying to LEV III 
standards in MY 2015 and 2016 would not include such vehicles in 
their Tier 2 NOX fleet average calculation. Tier 2 
provisions that are not a part of the California program would still 
apply. For example, high altitude testing, which is only required in 
the federal program, would still need be performed on federal Tier 2 
fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California does not have fuel specifications for high altitude 
testing or cold CO and hydrocarbon testing. For this reason, we are 
proposing that for vehicles that manufacturers choose to certify using 
LEV III fuel and test procedures, they can use test fuels meeting 
either Tier 2 or Tier 3 fuel specifications to comply with these 
federal-only requirements. We would perform in-use testing for these 
vehicles on the same fuel as selected by the manufacturer at 
certification.
    Certifications after MY 2019, however, would be required to use the 
Tier 3 fuel and carry-over certifications using LEV II, LEV III or Tier 
2 certification fuels would not be allowed after MY 2019. CARB has 
indicated that they would accept Tier 3 test data (on federal 
certification fuel) to obtain a California certificate as early as MY 
2015. In this manner manufacturers should be able to avoid compliance 
testing on more than one fuel as vehicles certified to LEV III using 
federal certification fuel could obtain Final Tier 3 status.\263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ That is, a manufacturer that certifies a vehicle to LEV 
III in MY 2015 and MY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. High Altitude Requirements
    FTP emission standards are historically designed to be applicable 
at all altitudes. Under Tier 2, the same FTP emission bin standards 
applied to vehicles tested at both low and high-altitude. However, 
fundamental physical challenges exist at high altitude resulting in 
typically higher emissions during cold starts compared with starts at 
lower altitudes (i.e., sea level). This expected increase in emissions 
is primarily due to the lower air density at higher altitudes. Due to 
the lower air density, the needed volume of the hot combustion exhaust 
required to quickly heat the catalyst in the first minute after a cold 
start is reduced. As a result, catalyst light-off is delayed and cold 
start emissions increase. Vehicles under the Tier 2 program typically 
had sufficient compliance margins to absorb this increase in emissions 
during testing under high-altitude conditions. However, given the near-
zero standards we are proposing in Tier 3, vehicles will have less 
compliance margin with which to address the issue.
    Under the Tier 3 program, we expect that the emission control 
technologies selected for low altitude performance would also provide 
very significant emission control at high altitude.\264\ However, as 
explained above, unique emission challenges exist with operation at 
higher altitude. The stringency of the Tier 2 standards is such that 
manufacturers comply with the same standards at all altitudes without 
the need to design their emission control strategies specifically for 
the more challenging high altitude operation. The Tier 3 stringency may 
not allow manufacturers emission control strategies at lower altitude 
to maintain sufficient compliance margin when tested at higher 
altitude, therefore requiring manufacturers to design their emission 
controls specifically for higher altitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ High-altitude conditions means a test altitude of 1,620 
meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude 
less than 549 meters (1,800 feet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid requiring special high-altitude emission control 
technologies, we propose to allow manufacturers the limited relief of 
complying with the next less-stringent bin for testing at high altitude 
for vehicles certified at sea level to Bin 20, 30, and 50 (e.g., 
certifying to Bin 50 for testing at high altitude versus Bin 30 at sea 
level). For vehicles certified at sea level to Bins 70 and 125, 35 mg/
mi of relief will be provided. No relief is proposed for Bin 160.
    We do not believe that the impact of the fairly small fraction of 
overall U.S. driving that occurs in high altitude locations warrants a 
requirement for additional technologies to be applied specifically for 
high-altitude conditions. In addition, this provision is intended to be 
applicable to all Final Tier 3 vehicles for the duration of the Tier 3 
program.

[[Page 29870]]

    While vehicles would need to meet the Tier 3 standards at all 
intermediate altitudes, the question remains as to what the value of 
the standard should be at a given intermediate altitude. We request 
comment on both the level of the proposed high altitude standards and 
the appropriate level of the standard at intermediate altitudes. In 
particular, we seek comment on whether this could be addressed by 
requiring that all emission control strategies remain in effect at 
altitudes that are in between the specific altitudes used for high and 
low altitude testing and that any altitude-related auxiliary emission 
control device (AECD) must be identified by the manufacturer and 
justified as not being defeat devices.

              Table IV-9--Proposed High Altitude Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Sea level FTP   Altitude FTP
                   Bin                     standard (mg/   standard (mg/
                                           mi NMOG+NOX)    mi NMOG+NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160.................................             160             160
Bin 125.................................             125             160
Bin 70..................................              70             105
Bin 50..................................              50              70
Bin 30..................................              30              50
Bin 20..................................              20              30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Highway Test Standards
    Sustained high-speed operation can result in NOX 
emissions that may not be represented on either the FTP or SFTP cycles. 
Although we are not aware of any serious issues with this mode of 
operation with current Tier 2 vehicles, we are interested in preventing 
increases in these NOX emissions as manufacturers develop 
new or improved engine and emission control technologies.
    For this reason, we are proposing that the same FTP 
NMOG+NOX standards proposed above also apply on the Highway 
Fuel Economy Test (HFET), which is performed as a part of GHG and Fuel 
Economy compliance testing. Thus, the FTP NMOG+NOX standard 
for the bin at which a manufacturer has chosen to certify a vehicle 
would also apply on the HFET test. For example, if a manufacturer 
certifies a vehicle to Bin 70, the vehicle's NMOG+NOX 
performance over the HFET could not exceed 70 mg/mi. Manufacturers 
would simply need to ensure that the same emission control strategies 
implemented for the FTP and SFTP cycles were also effectively utilized 
during the highway test cycle. We believe that this proposed 
requirement would not require manufacturers to take any unique 
technological action, would not add technology costs, and would not add 
significantly to the certification burden. We request comment on this 
proposed provision.
f. Interim 4,000 mile SFTP Standards
    During the period of the declining NMOG+NOX standards, 
we are proposing that interim Tier 3 vehicles meet 4,000 mile SFTP 
standards, consistent with the existing Tier 2 and LEV II program 
requirements. The 4,000 mile standards are designed to prevent 
excessive emission levels from a single vehicle or a single SFTP cycle, 
which can occur if only a composite approach is taken. Under the Tier 3 
program, the proposed composite standards would be fleet average 
standards that would decline from 2017 until 2025, as described in 
Section IV.A.4. While this approach is expected to result in fleet-wide 
reductions in SFTP emissions during all years of the declining 
standard, the level of the fleet average requirement during the initial 
years provides an opportunity for backsliding of SFTP emissions on 
individual vehicles or on individual SFTP cycles. We believe it is 
appropriate to require any individual Interim Tier 3 vehicle to at a 
minimum meet the same requirements under the Tier 2 and LEV II 
programs. Table IV-10 below presents the proposed 4,000 mile SFTP 
standards for interim Tier 3 vehicles.

        Table IV-10--Proposed 4,000 Mile SFTP Exhaust Standards for Interim Tier 3 Vehicles (Grams/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Vehicle category            US06 NMOG+NOX      US06 CO      SC03 NMOG+NOX      SC03 CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV/LDT1..........................            0.14             8.0            0.20             2.7
LDT2..............................            0.25            10.5            0.27             3.5
LDT3..............................            0.4             10.5            0.31             3.5
LDT4..............................            0.6             11.8            0.44             4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that vehicles considered to be Final Tier 3 (i.e., they 
meet the Tier 3 PM requirements, specifically the stringent SFTP PM 
standards) will have sufficiently robust designs that the 4,000 mile 
SFTP standards will no longer be necessary. Additionally, once the 
program reaches the fully phased-in fleet average composite standard of 
50 mg/mi in 2025, high SFTP emissions even on a limited portion of a 
manufacturer's fleet should be effectively mitigated. We seek comment 
on this proposed 4,000 mile SFTP provision.
g. Phase-In Schedule
    As described in Section IV.A.3, under the proposed Tier 3 program, 
manufacturers would be required to certify each vehicle model to an FTP 
bin, which would then be used to calculate the NMOG+NOX 
fleet average of all of its vehicles. Manufacturers would also need to 
determine the SFTP levels of each model and calculate the 
NMOG+NOX fleet average for the SFTP requirements as 
described in Section IV.A.4. These separate FTP and SFTP fleet average 
calculations would satisfy one aspect of certification under the Tier 3 
program, specifically the standards associated with each model year.
    As described in Sections IV.A.7.b and IV.A.7.c above, the longer 
(150,000 mile) useful life value, as applicable, and the new Tier 3 
certification fuel for exhaust testing would be implemented as 
manufacturers certified vehicles to more stringent NMOG+NOX 
standards, with the threshold to implement both of these provisions 
being Bin 70. Beginning in MY 2017, any vehicle certified to Bin 70 or 
lower would be required to be certified on Tier 3 test fuel. In 
addition, any vehicle certified to Bin 70 or lower that would be 
required to meet the longer 150,000 mile useful life would be required 
to do so. Beginning in MY 2020 all vehicles would be required to be 
certified to on the Tier 3 test fuel, regardless of the bin they are 
certified to or the useful life they are required to meet.
    Manufacturers would also be required to comply with more stringent 
PM standards on a percent phase-in schedule. Compliance with the PM 
standards, which is consistent with the CARB LEV III program, would be 
independent of the fleet average requirements described above. The PM 
emission standards for FTP and SFTP described in Section IV.A.3 and 4 
respectively would be implemented as a

[[Page 29871]]

percent phase-in requirement as described below under a basic phase-in 
schedule or under an optional phase-in schedule.
    Vehicles certified to a Tier 3 bin, meeting the requirements of the 
PM phase-in schedule, and complying with the other Tier 3 requirements 
(i.e., 150,000 mile useful life (as applicable) and Tier 3 
certification fuel, as applicable) would be considered ``Final Tier 3'' 
compliant vehicles. All other vehicles certified to Tier 3 bins but not 
yet meeting the PM and other Tier 3 requirements would be considered 
``Interim Tier 3'' compliant vehicles. At the completion of the percent 
phase-in period for PM (2021 for the basic PM phase-in schedule and 
2022 for the alternative PM phase-in schedule, as described below), 100 
percent of vehicles would need to meet the all Tier 3 requirements and 
would be considered ``Final Tier 3'' vehicles.
    For the PM requirements, each year manufacturers would be required 
to meet either the basic PM percent phase-in or alternative PM phase-in 
as described in the following subsections. The basic percent PM phase-
in schedule is composed of fixed yearly minimum phase-in percentages 
that we expect that most manufacturers would meet to comply with the 
Tier 3 requirements. The alternative PM phase-in schedule provides 
additional flexibility for manufacturers with product offerings that 
may not provide sufficient vehicle model granularity to allow for a 
gradual transition into the Final Tier 3 requirements as described 
below. In either case, Interim Tier 3 vehicles not yet meeting the Tier 
3 PM standards must at a minimum meet the Tier 2 PM full useful life 
FTP standard of 10 mg/mi and the SFTP weighted composite standard of 70 
mg/mi.
i. Basic PM Percent Phase-In Schedule
    It is important to note that the percent phase-in of the new Tier 3 
standards that we are proposing and the declining fleet average 
standards to which a manufacturer's fleet is held are separate and 
independent elements of the Tier 3 program. ``Phase-in'' in this 
context means the fraction of a manufacturer's fleet that would be 
required to meet the new Tier 3 PM standards in a given model year. We 
expect manufacturer fleets to consist of a mix of vehicles certified to 
Tier 2, LEV II, LEV III and Tier 3 standards throughout the percent 
phase-in period.
    As discussed above, vehicles originally certified to Tier 2, LEV 
II, and LEV III would be carried over into the Tier 3 program as 
Interim Tier 3 vehicles. A vehicle would be considered a ``Final Tier 3 
vehicle'' when it is certified to one of the Tier 3 bins; meets the 
Tier 3 PM standards; certifies to the 150,000 useful life value (for 
LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs); and certifies on the new certification 
test fuel. Table IV-11 below presents the proposed PM phase-in schedule 
for Final Tier 3 vehicles.

                                               Table IV-11--PM Phase-In Schedule for Final Tier 3 Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Model year                              2017                      2018            2019            2020            2021       2022 and later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer's Fleet (%)............  20\a\.............................              20              40              70             100             100
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Types.......................  <= 6,000 lbs GVWR.................                     All vehicles <= 8,500 lbs GVWR and MDPVs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ In 2017 model year, a manufacturer may optionally include vehicles up to 8,500 lbs GVWR and/or MDPVs in its phase-in calculation.

ii. Optional PM Phase-In
    The proposed PM percent-of-sales phase-in schedule described above 
would allow manufacturers with multiple vehicle models to plan the 
phase-in of those models based on anticipated volumes of each vehicle 
model. However, manufacturers certifying only a few vehicle models 
might not benefit from this schedule. This is because, in order to 
satisfy the phase-in schedule percentages, they might have to over-
comply with the required percentages earlier than would a manufacturer 
with many vehicle models available for the phase-in.
    For instance, a manufacturer with only two models that each equally 
accounted for 50 percent of their sales would be required to introduce 
(at least) one of the models in MY 2017 meet the PM phase-in 
requirement of 20 percent in the first year. Because it represented 50 
percent of the manufacturer's sales, this model would then also meet 
the requirements for MY 2018 (20 percent) and MY 2019 (40 percent). To 
meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales, however, the 
manufacturer would need to introduce the second Tier 3 vehicle that 
year. Thus the manufacturer would have introduced 100 percent of its 
Tier 3 models one year earlier than would have been required of a 
manufacturer that was able to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet 
until MY 2021 (by distributing its their models over the entire phase-
in period).
    To provide for more equal application of this benefit among all 
manufacturers in the early years of the program, we are proposing an 
optional ``indexed'' PM phase-in schedule that could be used by a 
manufacturer to meet its PM percent phase-in requirements. A 
manufacturer that exceeded the phase-in requirements in any given year 
would be allowed to, in effect, offset some of the phase-in 
requirements in a later model year. The optional phase-in schedule 
would be acceptable if it passes a mathematical test. The mathematical 
test is designed to provide manufacturers a benefit from certifying to 
the standards at higher volumes than obligated to under the normal 
phase-in schedule, while ensuring that significant numbers of vehicles 
are meeting the new Tier 3 requirements during each year of the 
optional phase-in schedule. In this approach, manufacturers would 
weight the earlier years by multiplying their percent phase-in by the 
number of years prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second year of the 100 
percent phase-in requirement).
    The proposed mathematical equation for applying the optional PM 
phase-in is as follows:

(5 x APP2017) + (4 x APP2018) + (3 x APP2019) + (2 x APP2020) + (1 x 
APP2021) >=540,

where APP is the anticipated phase-in percentage for the referenced 
model year.
    The sum of the calculation would need to be greater than or equal 
to 540, which is the result when the optional phase-in equation is 
applied to the primary percent phase-in schedule (i.e., 5 x 20% + 4 x 
20% + 3 x 40% + 2 x 70% + 1 x 100% = 540).
    Applying the proposed optional PM phase-in equation to the 
hypothetical manufacturer in the example above, the manufacturer could 
postpone its model introductions by one year each, to MY 2018 and MY 
2021. Its calculation would be (5 x 0% + 4 x 50% + 3 x 50% + 2 x 50% + 
1 x 100% = 550, and thus the phase-in would be acceptable.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed PM phase-in schedules.

[[Page 29872]]

h. In-Use Standards
i. NMOG+NOX
    The proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require a substantial 
migration of emission control technology historically used only on a 
small percent of the fleet and typically limited to smaller vehicles 
and engines. While we believe that these technologies can generally be 
used on any vehicle and are applicable to the entire fleet, 
manufacturers have less experience with the in-use performance of these 
technologies across the fleet. For example, technologies that 
accelerate catalyst warm-up such as catalyst location close to the 
engine exhaust ports and other advanced thermal management approaches 
would be new to certain vehicle types, particularly larger vehicles 
(i.e., LDT3/4s), which have historically not relied on these 
technologies to meet emission standards.
    To help manufacturers address the lack of in-use experience and 
associated challenges with the expanded introduction of these 
technologies particularly in the larger vehicles, we are proposing 
temporarily-relaxed in-use NMOG+NOX standards that would 
apply to all vehicles certified to Bins 70 and cleaner as Interim or 
Final Tier 3 vehicles. The in-use standards would apply during the 
entire percent phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021). The proposed 
in-use standards would be 40 percent less stringent than the 
certification standards, providing a significant but reasonable 
temporary cushion for the uncertainties associated with new 
technologies (or new applications of existing technologies) over the 
life of the vehicle.
    The proposed in-use NMOG+NOX standards are shown in 
Table IV-12.

 Table IV-12--Proposed FTP In-Use Standards for Light Duty Vehicles and
                                  MDPVs
                                 [mg/mi]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NMOG+NOX (mg/
                           Bin                                  mi)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160.................................................             160
Bin 125.................................................             125
Bin 70..................................................              98
Bin 50..................................................              70
Bin 30..................................................              42
Bin 20..................................................              28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. PM
    As with the proposed NMOG+NOX standards, the 
introduction of new emission control technologies or new applications 
of existing technologies (e.g., GDI, turbocharging, downsized engines) 
would create significant uncertainties for manufacturers about in-use 
performance over the vehicle's useful life. We are proposing a 
temporary in-use FTP standard for PM of 6 mg/mi for all light duty 
vehicles and MDPVs certified to the Tier 3 full useful life 3 mg/mi 
standard. Since the Tier 3 PM standard has a percent phase-in schedule 
spread over several years, starting in 2017 with full phase-in 
completed in 2022, we are proposing that the in-use standard apply to 
all vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire 
percent phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021).
    We are also proposing temporarily-relaxed in-use US06 PM standards. 
We propose in-use standards 5 mg/mi less stringent than the 
certification standards, or 15 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles up to 
and including 6,000 lbs GVWR and 25 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles 
and light-duty trucks over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. Consistent with 
the FTP in-use standards, these in-use standards would apply to all 
vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire percent 
phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021).
    EPA requests comment on the proposed in-use standards.
i. FFVs
    Because of the physical and chemical differences in how emissions 
are generated and controlled between vehicles operating on gasoline and 
ethanol, manufacturers of vehicles designed for high-percentage blends 
of ethanol (usually called Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) may face 
unique compliance challenges under the proposed Tier 3 program. 
Historically, under the Tier 2 program, FFVs have only been required to 
meet all Tier 2 emission standards while operating on gasoline; when 
operating on the alternative fuel (generally this means a blend that is 
nominally 85 percent ethanol, or E85), they have only been required to 
meet the FTP emission standards.
    However, E85 use may rise considerably in the future as ethanol use 
increases in response to the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS). Thus, it 
is increasingly important that FFVs maintain their emission performance 
when operating on E85 across different operating conditions.
    We believe that at standard test conditions, requiring 
manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 standards on any blend of gasoline and 
ethanol would not add technological feasibility concerns beyond 
compliance on gasoline alone (or low-level blends like E10 or E15). We 
are thus proposing that in addition to complying with the Tier 3 
requirements when operating on gasoline, FFVs also comply with both the 
FTP and the SFTP emission standards when operating on E85. This would 
include the requirement to meet emission standards for both gasoline 
and E85 for the FTP, highway test, and SFTP emission standards at 
standard test temperatures (i.e., 68 [deg]F to 86 [deg]F). Since FFVs 
can operate on any blend of gasoline and ethanol (up to a nominal 85 
percent ethanol), the emission requirements apply to operation at all 
levels of the alternative fuel that can be achieved with commercially 
available fuels. However, for emission compliance demonstration 
purposes, we will continue to test on gasoline and the highest 
available level ethanol.
    EPA welcomes comment on this proposed approach to FFV compliance.
j. Credit for Direct Ozone Reduction (DOR) Technology
    Since the late 1990s, technologies have been commercialized with 
which vehicles can remove ozone from the air that flows over the 
vehicle's coolant radiator. In such direct ozone reduction (DOR) 
technology, a catalytic coating on the radiator is designed to convert 
ambient ozone into gaseous oxygen, addressing the air quality concerns 
about ozone. Detailed technical analyses for the California LEV II and 
the federal Tier 2 programs showed that when properly designed these 
systems can remove sufficient ozone from the air to be equivalent to a 
quantifiable reduction in tailpipe NMOG emissions. In the earlier 
programs, both California and EPA provided methodologies through which 
a manufacturer could demonstrate the capability and effectiveness of 
the ozone-reducing technology and be granted an NMOG credit. A small 
number of vehicle models with DOR applications received credit under 
the LEV II program; no manufacturer formally applied for credits under 
the federal Tier 2 program.
    Some manufacturers have expressed an interest in the continued 
availability of a DOR credit as a part of their potential LEV III and 
Tier 3 compliance strategies. EPA believes that when a DOR system is 
shown to be effective in reducing ozone, a credit toward Tier 3 
compliance is warranted. We propose that manufacturers following the 
California methodology for demonstrating effectiveness and calculating 
a appropriate credit for a DOR system be granted a specific credit 
toward the NMOG portion of the

[[Page 29873]]

NMOG+NOX standard.\265\ As with the California program, such 
a credit could not exceed 5 mg/mi NMOG. We invite comment on the 
appropriateness of this proposed DOR credit approach, including the 
application of the California methodology to the federal Tier 3 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ EPA is incorporating the CARB DOR methodology by 
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

k. Credit for Adopting a 150,000-Mile Emissions Warranty
    Under the Tier 3 standards proposed above manufacturers would be 
expected to design their emission control systems to continue to 
operate effectively for a useful life of 150,000 miles (120,000 miles 
for some smaller vehicles). However, as with the current Tier 2 
program, manufacturers are only required to replace failed emission 
control components or systems on customers' vehicles for a limited time 
period, specified in the Clean Air Act (80,000 miles/8 years for key 
emission control components). EPA believes that voluntary extension of 
this warranty obligation by manufacturers would provide additional 
emission reductions by helping ensure that controls continue to operate 
effectively in actual operation through the full life of the vehicle.
    We propose that a manufacturer providing its customers with a 
robust emission control system warranty of 15 years or 150,000 miles be 
eligible for a modest credit of 5 mg/mi NMOG+NOX.\266\ 
Because of the significant liability that manufacturers would be 
accepting, we do not expect that the use of this credit opportunity 
would be widespread. However, based on our modeling of the expected 
deterioration of the emissions of future Tier 3 vehicles absent repair/
replacement of failed emission controls, we anticipate that the value 
to the environment of long emissions warranties in terms of reduced 
real-world emissions would significantly exceed the 5 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX credit.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ Manufacturers choosing to comply with the standards for a 
120,000 mile useful life for their LDVs and LDT1s would not be 
eligible for this extended warranty credit for those vehicles.
    \267\ Beardsley, M, et al. (2013, February). Updates to MOVES 
for the Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to use the same criteria for approving such a credit as 
does the parallel California program.\268\ Thus, in addition to 
committing to customers that failing emission controls would be 
repaired or replaced for 15 years/150,000 miles, manufacturers would 
also need to accept the liability that in the event that a specific 
emissions control device failed on greater than 4 percent of a vehicle 
model's production, they would recall the entire production of that 
model for repair. EPA requests comment on this optional credit 
opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ EPA is incorporating the CARB extended emission warranty 
provisions by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

l. Averaging, Banking, and Trading of Credits
    An averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program was established in 
the Tier 2 program to provide for credits to be generated by certifying 
vehicles that perform better than the standards, for those credits to 
be used to offset vehicles that perform worse than the standards, and 
for credits to be banked for later use or traded to other 
manufacturers. The ABT program is largely unchanged by this Tier 3 
proposal. In some cases, especially during the transitional years, 
there would be specific restrictions on the generation of credits, as 
described above. Also, we are proposing that Tier 3 credits expire 
after 5 years, consistent with the LEV II and LEV III programs and 
similar to the basic credit carry-forward provisions in the recent 
light-duty and heavy-duty greenhouse gas rules. We invite comment on 
the ABT program in general, and specific comment on a longer Tier 3 
credit life, including any flexibilities that this may provide and any 
implications for record retention requirements by manufacturers.
m. Tier 3 Transitional Emissions Bins
    In discussions with manufacturers, EPA has become aware that some 
vehicles may continue to be produced as late as MY 2019 that could be 
certified to Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4 standards. In order to provide 
manufacturers flexibility in meeting the fleet average standards and 
thus to further facilitate the transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3, we 
will allow manufacturers to certify to the combined NMOG+NOX 
levels of these bins through MY 2019. Two proposed transitional Tier 3 
bins, Bin 110 and Bin 85, would have NMOG+NOX standards on 
the FTP of 110 mg/mi and 85 mg/mi, respectively (i.e., the sum of the 
NMOG and NOX values from the Tier 2 bins); the associated 
FTP standards for CO, PM, and HCHO corresponding to these bins would be 
identical to those for vehicles certified to the proposed Tier 3 Bin 
125. Tier 3 SFTP standards would apply to these vehicles, and these 
vehicles would be included in the Tier 3 p.m. percent phase-in 
calculations.
n. Compliance Demonstration
    In general, we are proposing that manufacturers demonstrate 
compliance with the proposed Tier 3 light-duty vehicle emission 
standards in a very similar manner to current Tier 2 vehicle compliance 
(see Sec.  86.1860 of the proposed regulatory language). However, we 
propose for Tier 3 that manufacturers calculate their compliance with 
the fleet average standards and percent phase-in standards based on 
annual nationwide sales, including sales in California and Clean Air 
Act Section 177 states. We believe that this approach represents 
another step toward achieving the goal of an effectively nationwide 
program as early as possible, which has been a basic principle in EPA's 
development of this proposed program and broadly supported by vehicle 
manufacturers. We also believe that basing compliance on nationwide 
sales may reduce the need for manufacturers to project future sales and 
track past years' sales in a disaggregated way. Because the proposed 
Tier 3 provisions will become increasingly consistent with LEV III 
provisions as the Tier 3 program phases in, we believe that any 
disproportionate impacts of different mixes of vehicles in different 
states are unlikely to occur. We seek comment on this approach to 
compliance demonstration.
    This proposed nationwide compliance calculation approach would 
apply to vehicles as they become subject to the Tier 3 provisions, 
either the declining fleet-average NMOG+NOX curves or the 
percent phase-in PM standards. Were any manufacturer to choose to use 
the alternative FTP and SFTP phase-ins, which are not a part of the LEV 
III program, the manufacturer would not include sales in California or 
in the Section 177 states in its compliance calculations.\269\


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

    \269\ If EPA ultimately decided to continue the disaggregated 
approach to fleet compliance calculations, we could potentially base 
compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emission requirements on U.S. 
sales (i.e., sales in non-California and non-Section 177 states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles

1. Overview
    We are proposing Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards for heavy-duty 
vehicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR that are certified to 
gram per mile standards on a chassis dynamometer. Vehicles in this GVWR 
range are often referred to as Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lbs) and Class 3 
(10,001-14,000 lbs) vehicles, and are typically

[[Page 29874]]

full-size pickup trucks and work vans certified as complete 
vehicles.\270\ Most are built by companies with even larger light-duty 
truck markets, and as such they frequently share major design 
characteristics and potential emissions control technologies with their 
LDT counterparts. However, in contrast to the largely gasoline-fueled 
LDT fleet, roughly half of the HD pickup and van fleet in the U.S. is 
diesel-fueled, which is a consideration in setting emissions standards, 
as diesel engine emissions and control strategies differ from those of 
gasoline engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ 40 CFR 86.1803-01 defines HDVs to also include motor 
vehicles at or below 8,500 lbs GVWR that have a vehicle curb weight 
of more than 6,000 lbs or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 
45 square feet, and we are proposing that these vehicles also would 
be subject to the standards and other provisions applicable to Class 
2b vehicles discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers of diesel-fueled complete HDVs have the option under 
existing EPA regulations to satisfy EPA criteria emissions requirements 
for these vehicles by using engines certified through engine 
dynamometer testing, but for the most part have chosen to certify whole 
vehicles on the chassis test. We are proposing to codify this common 
practice and require that diesel-fueled Class 2b and 3 complete Tier 3 
vehicles, like their gasoline-fueled counterparts, be certified to the 
Tier 3 standards on the chassis test. The current prohibition in 40 CFR 
86.1863-07(d) on averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) credit 
generation and use by chassis-certified diesel HDVs would be replaced 
by the proposed fleetwide averaging program. We are not proposing 
changes to the heavy-duty engine certification requirements at this 
time.
    Manufacturers of incomplete HDVs that are sold to secondary 
manufacturers for subsequent completion (less than 10 percent of the 
Class 2b and 3 U.S. market) are also allowed under existing EPA 
regulations to certify via either the chassis or engine test, and those 
who choose to chassis-certify in the future would be subject to Tier 3 
requirements. We are not proposing to mandate chassis certification of 
incomplete Class 2b and 3 vehicles, but we note that California's LEV 
III program does include such a requirement for Class 2b and we request 
comment on doing the same in the federal program. We further note that 
MDPVs are classified as HDVs under the Clean Air Act but, as in our 
current Tier 2 program, would be covered as part of our Tier 3 light-
duty program discussed in Section IV.A, and not in the proposed program 
described here.
    The key elements of the proposed Tier 3 program for HDVs parallel 
those proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments in 
standards levels, emissions test requirements, and implementation 
schedules, appropriate to this sector. These key elements include a 
combined NMOG+NOX declining fleet average standard beginning 
in 2018 and reaching the final, fully phased-in level in 2022, creation 
of a bin structure for standards, new stringent PM standards phasing in 
on a separate schedule, changes to the test fuel for gasoline- and 
ethanol-fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to 
150,000 miles, and a new requirement to meet standards over the SFTP 
that would address real-world driving modes not well-represented by the 
FTP cycle alone. We believe that other requirements already in place 
for HDV testing and compliance remain appropriate. In particular, we 
believe the current HDV certification requirement to test at the 
adjusted loaded vehicle weight (ALVW), equal to vehicle curb weight 
plus one-half the payload weight, is more appropriate for these heavy-
duty work trucks and vans than the LDT requirement to test at curb 
weight plus 300 lbs. These differences from light-duty requirements 
also factor into the evaluation of potential control technologies and 
subsequent choice of standards levels, as discussed below.
    As with the proposed light-duty Tier 3 program, we are putting 
strong emphasis on coordinating this HDV Tier 3 proposal with 
California's LEV III program for Class 2b and 3 vehicles, referred to 
in LEV III as medium-duty vehicles (MDVs). The goal is to create a 
coordinated ``national program'' in which California would accept 
compliance with Tier 3 standards as sufficient to also satisfy LEV III 
requirements, thus allowing manufacturers to comply nationwide by 
marketing a single vehicle fleet. With this goal in mind, we discuss 
the relationship of the proposed HDV Tier 3 program provisions to LEV 
III throughout this section. As part of this effort, we are proposing 
that manufacturers of Tier 3 HDVs calculate compliance with the fleet 
average standards and percent phase-in standards discussed in this 
section based on annual nationwide sales, including sales in California 
and Clean Air Act Section 177 states. This would help to create an 
effectively nationwide program, which has been a basic principle in 
EPA's development of this proposed program and broadly supported by 
vehicle manufacturers. If this proposed approach to HDV fleet 
compliance calculations is not adopted, EPA could base compliance with 
the proposed Tier 3 requirements on U.S. sales outside of California 
and the Section 177 states.
    Furthermore, in 2011 EPA and NHTSA set first-ever standards for 
GHGs and fuel consumption from HD pickups and vans (as well as other 
heavy-duty vehicles and engines). These standards phase in over 2014-
2018, so in developing the Tier 3 HDV proposal we have carefully taken 
this new program into account to maximize the coordination between the 
two complementary heavy-duty regulatory programs and avoid 
inconsistencies.
2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards
a. Bin Standards
    We are proposing that manufacturers certify HDVs to Tier 3 
requirements by having them meet the standards for one of the bins 
listed in Table IV-13. Manufacturers would choose bins for their 
vehicles based on their product plans and corporate strategy for 
compliance with the fleet average standards discussed in Section 
IV.A.2.b, and once a vehicle's bin is designated, those bin standards 
apply throughout its useful life. Because the fleet average standards 
become more stringent over time, the bin mix would gradually shift from 
higher to lower bins. As in the past, we are proposing numerically 
higher standards levels for Class 3 vehicles than for Class 2b 
vehicles, reflective of the added challenge in reducing per-mile 
emissions from large work trucks designed to carry and tow heavier 
loads. Also, the proposed standards levels for both Class 2b and Class 
3 HDVs are significantly higher than those being proposed for light-
duty trucks due to marked differences in vehicle size and capability, 
and to our requirement to test HDVs in a loaded condition (at ALVW). By 
conducting emissions testing with loaded vehicles, the heavy-duty 
program ensures that emissions controls are effective when these 
vehicles are performing their core function: hauling heavy loads. This 
is a key difference between the heavy-duty and light-duty truck 
programs. The proposed bin structure and standards levels are 
consistent with those in the LEV III program. We request comment on the 
usefulness of creating additional bins between Bin 0 and the next 
lowest bin in each vehicle class, as a means of encouraging clean 
technologies and adding flexibility.

[[Page 29875]]



                                                      Table IV-13--Proposed FTP Standards for HDVs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         NMOG+NOX  (mg/                                                                    Formaldehyde
                                                               mi)        NMOG  (mg/mi)   NOX  (mg/mi)     PM  (mg/mi)      CO  (g/mi)        (mg/mi)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lbs GVWR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 395 (interim)......................................  ..............             195             200               8              6.4               6
Bin 340 (interim)......................................  ..............             140             200               8              6.4               6
Bin 250................................................             250  ..............  ..............               8              6.4               6
Bin 200................................................             200  ..............  ..............               8              4.2               6
Bin 170................................................             170  ..............  ..............               8              4.2               6
Bin 150................................................             150  ..............  ..............               8              3.2               6
Bin 0..................................................               0  ..............  ..............               0              0                 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Class 3 (10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 630 (interim)......................................  ..............             230             400              10              7.3               6
Bin 570 (interim)......................................  ..............             170             400              10              7.3               6
Bin 400................................................             400  ..............  ..............              10              7.3               6
Bin 270................................................             270  ..............  ..............              10              4.2               6
Bin 230................................................             230  ..............  ..............              10              4.2               6
Bin 200................................................             200  ..............  ..............              10              3.7               6
Bin 0..................................................               0  ..............  ..............               0              0                 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed NMOG and NOX standards for the highest bins 
in each class (Class 2b Bin 395 and Class 3 Bin 630) are equal to the 
current non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOX standards 
that took full effect in 2009, as well as to equivalent LEV standards 
in California's LEV II program. These bins are intended as carryover 
bins. That is, we would expect them to be populated with vehicles that 
are designed to meet the current standards, and that are being phased 
out as new lower-emitting vehicle designs phase in to satisfy the 
proposed Tier 3 fleet average NMOG+NOX standard. We also 
consider the next highest bins (Class 2b Bin 340 and Class 3 Bin 570) 
to be carryover bins, because they likewise can be readily achieved by 
vehicles designed for today's EPA and California LEV II emissions 
programs. As the 2018-2022 phase-in progresses, it would become 
increasingly difficult to produce vehicles in these bins and still meet 
the fleet average standard. Therefore vehicles in these bins (as well 
as some others not yet designed to meet Tier 3 PM standards described 
in Section IV.B.2.d) would be considered ``interim Tier 3'' vehicles, 
and the bins themselves would be considered ``interim bins.''
    To facilitate their use in this carryover function, we are 
proposing that the interim bins not include SFTP requirements, longer 
useful life requirements, or requirements to conduct exhaust emissions 
testing with the proposed new gasoline test fuel discussed in Section 
IV.D, although testing on this fuel would be allowed. For gasoline-
fueled HDVs in all other bins, we are proposing that exhaust emissions 
testing be conducted with the new test fuel. (See Section IV.D.5 for 
discussion of our request for comment on extending this requirement to 
testing of gasoline-fueled heavy-duty engines as well.) In the context 
of these proposed accommodations for the interim bins, we propose two 
additional measures to help ensure these bins are focused on their 
function of helping manufacturers transition to Final Tier 3 vehicles. 
First, we propose that the interim bins be available only in the phase-
in years of the program, that is, through MY 2021, as is appropriate to 
their interim status.
    Second, we are proposing that vehicles in the interim bins meet 
separate NMOG and NOX standards, as indicated in Table IV-
13, rather than combined NMOG+NOX standards. This proposed 
provision is intended to keep a manufacturer from redesigning or 
recalibrating a vehicle design under combined NMOG+NOX Tier 
3 standards for such purposes as reducing fuel consumption, through 
means that result in higher NOX or NMOG emissions than 
exhibited by today's vehicles, contrary to the intended carryover 
function of the interim bins. We note that other, more stringent, 
proposed bins also carry this potential but to a lesser degree, and we 
feel their relatively low NMOG+NOX standards levels 
sufficiently mitigate this concern, whereas the interim bins have the 
potential to allow a doubling of emissions or more. We request comment 
on this issue and the proposed approach to addressing it.
b. Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
    As in the light-duty program, a key element of the Tier 3 program 
is a fleet average NMOG+NOX standard that becomes more 
stringent in successive model years: In the case of HDVs, from 2018 to 
2022. Each HDV sold by a manufacturer in each model year contributes to 
this fleet average based on the mg/mi NMOG+NOX level of the 
bin declared for it by the manufacturer. For the interim bins, with 
separate NMOG and NOX standards, the NMOG+NOX 
level is the simple sum of the NMOG and NOX standards. 
Manufacturers may also earn or use credits for fleet average 
NMOG+NOX levels below or above the standard in any model 
year, as described in Section IV.B.4. We are proposing the separate 
Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average standards shown in Table IV-14, 
though a manufacturer could effectively average the two fleet classes 
using credits (see Section IV.B.4). We believe this split-curve 
approach is superior to a single HDV phase-in because it recognizes the 
different Class 2b/Class 3 fleet mixes among manufacturers and the 
different challenges in meeting mg/mi standards between Class 2b and 
Class 3 vehicles, while still allowing for a corporate compliance 
strategy based on a combined HDV fleet through the use of credits.
    The proposed fleet average standards are consistent with those set 
for the MDV LEV III program in model years 2018 and later. Note that 
the LEV III program also sets standards for model years before 2018, 
something EPA is not requiring due to lead time considerations. 
However, we are proposing that manufacturers may voluntarily meet bin 
and fleet average standards in model years 2016 and 2017 that are 
consistent with the MDV LEV III standards, for the purpose of 
generating credits that can be used later

[[Page 29876]]

or traded to others. These proposed voluntary standards are shown in 
Table IV-14. This proposed voluntary opt-in program serves the 
important purpose of furthering consistency between the federal and 
California programs, such that manufacturers who wish to can produce a 
single vehicle fleet for sale nationwide, with the opportunity for 
reciprocal certification in affected model years. It further 
incentivizes pulling ahead of Tier 3 technologies, with resulting 
environmental benefits, by providing for early compliance credits in 
this nationwide fleet.
    Manufacturers choosing to opt into this early compliance program 
could start in either model year 2016 or 2017. They would have to meet 
the full complement of applicable bin standards and requirements, 
including SFTP standards, but not the Tier 3 PM FTP and SFTP standards 
discussed in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.B.3.a, or the evaporative 
emissions standards discussed in Section IV.C, because these 
requirements phase in on a later schedule. We are also requesting 
comment on extending the voluntary compliance opportunity to the 2015 
model year.

                                               Table IV-14--Proposed HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
                                                                         [mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Voluntary
                                                                Required program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year.....................            2016            2017            2018            2019            2020            2021  2022 and later.
Class 2b.......................             333             310             278             253             228             203  178.
Class 3........................             548             508             451             400             349             298  247.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that offering this voluntary opt-in would benefit the 
environment, the regulated industry, and vehicle purchasers, because it 
has potential to accomplish early emissions reductions while 
maintaining the goal of a cost-effective, nationwide vehicle program in 
every model year going forward. We request comment on all facets of 
this proposed approach.
    Although manufacturers would be allowed to meet the fleet average 
NMOG+NOX standard through whatever combination of bin-
specific vehicles they choose, it is instructive to note that the fully 
phased in fleet average standard for model years 2022 and later would 
be the equivalent of a Class 2b fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 170 and 10 
percent Bin 250 vehicles, and a Class 3 fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 230 
and 10 percent Bin 400 vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate to 
consider Bin 170 Class 2b vehicles and Bin 230 Class 3 vehicles to be 
representative of Tier 3-compliant HDVs in the long term.
    The Tier 3 program we are proposing for HDVs would result in 
substantial reductions in harmful emissions from this large fleet of 
work trucks and vans, vehicles that are typically driven over high 
annual miles on every part of the nation's highway and urban roadway 
system. The Final Tier 3 standards levels for NMOG+NOX and 
PM are on the order of 60 percent lower than the current stringent 
standards that took full effect three years ago.
c. Alternative NMOG+NOX Phase-In
    We believe that the program described in Sections IV.B.2.a and b 
above would provide manufacturers with a flexible and effective 
compliance path. However, as in the case of the light-duty standards 
discussed above, we are proposing to provide an alternative compliance 
path that would be available to any manufacturer who prefers a stable 
standard and four full years of lead time, as specified in the Clean 
Air Act.\271\ This alternative approach would be equivalent to the 
primary approach that is based on NMOG+NOX declining fleet 
average standards and would apply during the program phase-in over the 
2016-2022 model years, with the first three of those model year 
standards made voluntary and set at levels to align with the California 
LEVIII program. We are proposing an alternative phase-in structured to 
require an annually increasing percent-of-sales of HDVs certified to 
the fully phased in 178 mg/mi (Class 2b) and 247 mg/mi (Class 3) 
standards, as shown in Table IV-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, CAA section 
202(a)(3)(C) requires EPA to provide manufacturers with a minimum of 
4 years of lead time before mandatory changes to any standard 
applicable to HC, NOX, CO or PM can be implemented, and 3 
years of stability between changes to any such standard.

                                          Table IV-15--Proposed Percent-of-Sales Alternative NMOG+NOX Phase-in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Voluntary
                                                        Required program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year.....................            2016            2017            2018            2019            2020            2021  2022 and later.
Class 2b.......................             29%             39%             54%             65%             77%             88%  100%.
Class 3........................             21%             32%             47%             60%             73%             87%  100%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under our alternative phase-in proposal, the availability of 
emissions averaging makes the two alternatives functionally equivalent, 
not just in the annual emissions reductions they achieve, but also in 
how manufacturers may design their mix of products to meet the phase-in 
standards. Although we are proposing to make the alternative approach 
available, we believe that the primary approach--the declining fleet 
average standard discussed above--is more consistent with the approach 
taken in California's LEV III program and in recent GHG reduction 
rules.
    To help ensure that the percent-of-sales alternative is fully 
equivalent to the primary program in terms of fleet-wide emissions 
control and technology mix choices, we are proposing that it include 
some additional provisions. First, we are proposing that the Tier 3 
vehicles being phased in under the percent-of-sales alternative, in 
addition to meeting the fully phased-in NMOG+NOX FTP 
standards, must also meet all other FTP and (as described below) SFTP 
standards required by the primary compliance program. These include the 
CO and formaldehyde FTP standards in Table IV-13, the 150,000 mile (15 
year) useful life requirement, exhaust emissions testing with the new

[[Page 29877]]

test fuel for gasoline- and ethanol-fueled vehicles discussed in 
Section IV.D, and the NMOG+NOX and CO SFTP standards in 
Table IV-16. The specific proposed standards are those for the bins in 
these tables closest to the fully phased-in NMOG+NOX 
standards: Bin 170 for Class 2b and Bin 230 for Class 3. (The PM and 
evaporative emissions standards phase in on separate schedules under 
both alternatives, as discussed in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.C.)
    Second, we are proposing to make an ABT program available for the 
percent-of-sales alternative, structured like the one proposed for the 
primary option. This would involve certifying the vehicles in a 
manufacturer's HDV fleet to the bin standards in Table IV-13, and 
demonstrating compliance with the fleet average standards for the 
primary program in each model year, including through the use of ABT 
credits as in the primary program. We are proposing to use the fleet 
average calculation method for purposes of ABT because, as explained 
above, we have determined that making this demonstration is equivalent 
to demonstrating compliance with the percent-of-sales requirement, and 
we see no value in complicating the program with another set of 
calculations.
    However, we are proposing one difference between the primary and 
alternative options with respect to ABT provisions. Unlike in the 
primary option, manufacturers would not have to certify all vehicles 
into bins in order to take advantage of the ABT provisions under the 
percent-of-sales alternative. Rather they could choose to certify any 
``phase-out'' vehicles (that is, those not counting toward the percent-
of-sales phase-in) to the pre-Tier 3 NMHC and NOX standards, 
provided these vehicles do not have family emission limits (FELs) above 
those standards. These non-Tier 3 vehicles would not be subject to the 
Tier 3 standards or other vehicle-specific elements of the Tier 3 
compliance program. For the purposes of the fleet average ABT 
calculation, the NMOG+NOX levels for these non-Tier 3 
vehicles would be set equal to the sum of the NMOG and NOX 
standards for the highest bins: 395 mg/mi for Class 2b and 630 mg/mi 
for Class 3, because these standards are numerically equal to the pre-
Tier 3 NMHC and NOX standards.
d. Phase-In of PM Standards
    Consistent with the light-duty Tier 3 proposal discussed in Section 
IV.A, we are proposing to phase in the PM standards for HDVs as an 
increasing percentage of a manufacturer's production of chassis-
certified HDVs (combined Class 2b and 3) per year. The reasons 
discussed in Section IV.A for this phase-in schedule in the light-duty 
sector also apply to the heavy-duty sector. In addition to concerns 
regarding the availability and required upgrades of test facilities 
used for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle testing, manufacturers 
have expressed uncertainty about PM emissions with new engine and 
emissions control technologies entering the market as a result of new 
GHG standards. Therefore we are proposing the same phase-in schedule as 
proposed for the light-duty sector in model years 2018-2019-2020-2021: 
20-40-70-100 percent, respectively. This would apply to HDVs certified 
under either NMOG+NOX phase-in alternative. The California 
Air Resources Board is phasing in the LEV III PM standards for HDVs on 
the same schedule, except that LEVIII would also involve a 10 percent 
PM phase-in in the 2017 model year, and we ask for comment on our doing 
so as well, in the context of the voluntary opt-in discussed in Section 
IV.B.2.b. The voluntary NMOG+ NOX and PM standards may be 
pursued separately, with no requirement that they be met on the same 
vehicles.
    For manufacturers choosing the declining fleet average 
NMOG+NOX compliance path, the PM phase-in requirement for 
HDVs would be completely independent of the NMOG+NOX phase-
in. As a result, vehicles certified to any of the bin standards for 
NMOG and NOX need not necessarily meet Tier 3 PM standards 
before the 2021 model year. Instead, the current 0.02 g/mi PM standard 
would apply for those vehicles not yet phased into the Tier 3 PM 
standards. We are proposing that manufacturers choosing the percent-of-
sales phase-in alternative for NMOG+NOX would be required to 
meet the PM phase-in requirements with only those vehicles certified to 
the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standard, except in the 2018 and earlier 
model years when the standards, including the PM standards, would be 
voluntary, and in the 2021 model year when the 100 percent PM phase-in 
requirement exceeds the 87-88 percent NMOG+NOX phase-in 
requirement.
    Consistent with the approach we are proposing for the light-duty 
sector, we would consider any vehicle under either compliance path that 
is not certified to Tier 3 standards for PM, NMOG, and NOX 
(as well as the other, concomitant Tier 3 standards and requirements 
such as extended useful life), an ``Interim Tier 3'' vehicle, a term 
that also applies to vehicles certified in one of the interim bins, as 
discussed above.
    Note that compliance with Tier 3 evaporative emissions requirements 
would follow a separate phase-in schedule as described in Section IV.C, 
such that a vehicle in an exhaust emissions family that the 
manufacturer has phased into the new useful life and test fuel 
requirements, may be in an evaporative emissions family that has not 
yet phased these in for evaporative emissions testing.
i. Optional PM Phase-In
    The proposed percent-of-sales phase-in schedule for the PM 
standard, described above, would allow manufacturers with multiple 
vehicle models to determine and plan the phase-in of those models based 
on anticipated volumes of each vehicle model. However, manufacturers 
certifying only a few vehicle models may not be able to take advantage 
of this schedule. This is because, in order to satisfy the phase-in 
schedule percentages, they may have to over-comply with the required 
percentages earlier than would a manufacturer with many vehicle models 
available for the phase-in.
    For instance, a manufacturer with only two models that each equally 
accounted for 50 percent of its sales would be required to introduce 
(at least) one of the models in MY 2018 to meet the phase-in 
requirement of 20 percent in the first year. At the 50 percent level, 
this model would then also meet the requirements for MY 2019 (40 
percent). To meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales, 
however, the manufacturer would need to introduce the second Tier 3 
vehicle that year. Thus the manufacturer would have introduced 100 
percent of its Tier 3 models one year earlier compared to a 
manufacturer that was able to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet 
until MY 2021 by distributing its redesigned models over the entire 
phase-in period.
    To provide for more equal application of this benefit among all 
manufacturers in the early years of the program, we are proposing an 
optional ``indexed'' phase-in schedule that could be used by a 
manufacturer to meet its phase-in requirements. A manufacturer that 
exceeded the phase-in requirements in any given year would be allowed 
to, in effect, offset some of the phase-in requirements in a later 
model year. The optional phase-in schedule would be acceptable if it 
passes a mathematical test. The mathematical test is designed to 
provide manufacturers a benefit from certifying to the standards at 
higher volumes than obligated to under the normal phase-in schedule, 
while ensuring that significant numbers of

[[Page 29878]]

vehicles are meeting the new Tier 3 requirements during each year of 
the optional phase-in schedule. In this approach, manufacturers would 
weight the earlier years by multiplying their percent phase-in by the 
number of years prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second year of the 100 
percent phase-in requirement).
    The proposed mathematical equation for applying an optional phase-
in is as follows:

(4 x APP2018) + (3 x APP2019) + (2 x APP2020) + (1 x APP2021) >= 440,

where APP is the anticipated phase-in percentage for the referenced 
model year. The sum of the calculation would need to be greater than or 
equal to 440, which is the result when the optional phase-in equation 
is applied to the primary percent phase-in schedule (4 x 20% + 3 x 40% 
+ 2 x 70% + 1 x 100% = 440). EPA requests comment on this proposed 
optional phase-in mechanism.
e. NMOG+NOX and NMOG vs. NMHC
    The reasons for setting combined NMOG+NOX standards 
outlined in Section IV.A.1.a for the light-duty sector apply to HDVs 
certified in the non-interim Tier 3 bins as well. In fact, the combined 
standard is especially appropriate in the heavy-duty sector with 
comparable sales of diesel and gasoline-fueled vehicles, because it 
avoids the need to set ``lowest common denominator'' standards for NMOG 
(likely based on feasible gasoline vehicle technologies) and 
NOX (likely based on feasible diesel vehicle technologies). 
These considerations also apply to the form of the SFTP standards, 
discussed below.
    The current HDV standards that control emissions of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs), adopted in a 2001 final rule,\272\ are in the 
form of NMHC. This is consistent with HD engine standards adopted in 
the same final rule, but contrasts with Tier 2 LDV/LDT standards to 
control VOCs that are in the form of NMOG. We believe it is appropriate 
to transition HDVs to NMOG-based standards, and further to combined 
NMOG+NOX standards, consistent with the light-duty Tier 3 
proposal and light- and medium-duty LEV III program. Further, the 
introduction of oxygenated test fuels requires an NMOG calculation to 
properly control VOC emissions not properly accounted for in an NMHC 
calculation. This would improve consistency with the LEV III program 
and help to facilitate a single nationwide vehicle fleet. We do not 
believe that this change would add significant cost to the program as 
manufacturers are already capable of and experienced in making NMOG 
determinations at their test facilities.

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

    \272\ 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs
    Unlike passenger cars and light trucks, HDVs are not currently 
subject to SFTP standards. SFTP standards are intended to ensure 
vehicles have robust emissions control over a wide range of real-world 
driving patterns not well-covered by the FTP drive cycle. Even though 
HDVs are not typically driven in the same way as passenger cars and 
LDTs, especially as they frequently carry or tow heavy loads, we 
believe some substantial portion of real world heavy-duty pickup and 
van driving is not well-represented on the FTP cycle.
    The goal in setting the SFTP standards levels is not to force 
manufacturers to add expensive new control hardware for off-FTP cycle 
conditions, but rather to ensure a robust overall control program that 
precludes high off-FTP cycle emissions by having vehicle designers 
consider them in their choice of compliance strategies. High off-FTP 
cycle emissions, even if encountered relatively infrequently in real-
world driving, could create a substantial inadequacy in the Tier 3 
program, which aims to achieve very low overall emissions in use. The 
SFTP provisions would also help make the HDV program more consistent 
with the HD engine program, which for several years has included ``not-
to-exceed'' provisions to control off-cycle emissions. Therefore, in 
addition to the SFTP provisions, we are further limiting enrichment on 
spark ignition engines in all areas of operation unless absolutely 
necessary.
a. SFTP NMOG+NOX, PM and CO Standards
    The proposed SFTP standards levels are provided in Table IV-16. 
These are consistent with those in the LEV III program.

                                  Table IV-16--Proposed SFTP Standards for HDVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Vehicles in FTP bins                     NMOG+NOX (mg/mi)     PM (mg/mi)         CO (g/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Class 2b with horsepower (hp)/GVWR <= 0.024 hp/lb \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP Bins 200, 250, 340....................................               550                 7              22.0
FTP Bins 150, 170.........................................               350                 7              12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Class 2b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP Bins 200, 250, 340....................................               800                10              22.0
FTP Bins 150, 170.........................................               450                10              12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Class 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP Bins 270, 400, 570....................................               550                 7               6.0
FTP Bins 200, 230.........................................               350                 7               4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These standards apply for vehicles optionally tested using emissions from only the highway portion of the
  US06 cycle.

    We are proposing that Tier 3 SFTP implementation for HDVs be linked 
directly to the Tier 3 FTP phase-in and bins for these vehicles. That 
is, an HDV certified to any of the Tier 3 FTP bin standards must meet 
the SFTP standards for that bin as well. However, because the FTP PM 
standard would phase in on a separate schedule, we propose to require 
that SFTP PM compliance be linked to the same schedule. That is, an HDV 
certified to

[[Page 29879]]

the Tier 3 FTP PM standard must meet the applicable SFTP PM standard as 
well. This approach recognizes the complementary nature of FTP and SFTP 
provisions and helps to ensure that Tier 3 emissions controls are 
robust in real world driving. There are no proposed SFTP requirements 
for the interim Tier 3 bins in each class (Class 2b Bins 340 and 395 
and Class 3 Bins 570 and 630), because these are essentially carry-over 
bins from the previous standards to aid the transition to Tier 3, and 
therefore are not intended to prompt vehicle redesigns to new 
standards. These implementation provisions are consistent with the 
approach taken in the LEV III program, except that California would 
allow FTP and SFTP phase-in requirements to be met on different 
vehicles, and would apply more of the Tier 3 requirements for SFTP and 
extended useful life to vehicles in the interim bins. We request 
comment on the proposed standards, and on whether or not EPA should 
adopt any LEV III provisions that differ from what we are proposing, 
such as the application of PM SFTP standards to vehicles that are in 
the interim bins and that also are certified to the Tier 3 p.m. FTP 
standards.
    To help ensure a robust SFTP program that achieves good control 
over a wide range of real world conditions, the current Tier 2 light-
duty program adopted a weighted-composite cycle, and we are proposing 
to retain this approach for light-duty Tier 3 testing, as discussed in 
Section IV.A.1.c. Under this composite cycle, NMOG+NOX 
emissions are calculated from results of testing over three cycles: the 
US06, the FTP, and the SC03, weighting these results by 0.28, 0.35, and 
0.37, respectively. We considered applying the same composite cycle for 
all HDV SFTP testing. However, based on data provided by industry 
stakeholders, we decided that the full US06 cycle, combined with the 
ALVW loaded test condition, would not be sufficiently representative of 
real-world driving for two groups of HDVs: those with low power-to-
weight ratios and Class 3 vehicles.
    As part of their investigation of potential LEV III SFTP standards 
for MDVs, California Air Resources Board staff determined that it is 
not uncommon for vehicles above 8,500 lbs GVWR with low power-to-weight 
ratio, which are largely in Class 2b, to have to work extremely hard to 
keep up with the accelerations required in the initial and final 
portions of the full US06 cycle, even proving physically unable to do 
so in some cases, and raising the concern that these vehicles would not 
be able to run a valid emissions test.\273\ Although our SFTP 
provisions allow a test to continue when a vehicle is incapable of 
attaining the vehicle speed demanded by the drive trace, we believe 
routine occurrence of such an event for a group of vehicles would not 
be consistent with a well-designed test regime. We would expect results 
from such tests to exhibit significant test-to-test variability, making 
it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from them. Furthermore, in 
real-world driving, we would expect that most drivers who regularly 
demand and do not receive adequate response would modify either their 
driving behavior or their vehicle purchase decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ Letter from Robert H. Cross, California Air Resources 
Board, to Dawn Friest, EMA, dated March 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on manufacturer-supplied data, the California Air Resources 
Board staff established a power-to-weight (GVWR) ratio of 0.024 
horsepower (hp)/lb as an approximate threshold in their efforts to 
characterize this issue. The vast majority of Class 2b vehicles are 
above this threshold today. Those below it tend to be used in 
applications where towing is not done extensively and the need for 
cargo space is more important than payload weight. Furthermore, it is 
possible that this group of vehicles will grow as purchasers adjust to 
sustained high fuel prices and when EPA's GHG standards and NHTSA's new 
fuel consumption standards take effect.
    In consideration of this matter, we are proposing that, in SFTP 
testing of Class 2b vehicles at or below 0.024 hp/lb, manufacturers may 
at their option replace the full US06 component of the composite SFTP 
emissions with the test results from only the second of the three 
emissions sampling bags in the US06 test, generally referred to as the 
``highway'' portion of the US06, subject to correspondingly lower SFTP 
standards levels discussed above. (These vehicles would still be driven 
during the test in the same way as the higher power-to-weight Class 2b 
vehicles (over the full US06 cycle) just using best effort (maximum 
power) if the vehicle cannot maintain the driving schedule.) The large 
majority of Class 2b vehicles, with power-to-weight above 0.024 hp/lb, 
would be required to measure and use emissions over the full US06 cycle 
in the composite SFTP. We believe that this approach would provide a 
robust but repeatable and reliable test for the full range of Class 2b 
vehicles, as the highway portion of the US06 retains broad coverage of 
vehicle speed/acceleration combinations measured in real-world driving.
    For Class 3 vehicles, which can weigh as much as 14,000 lbs GVWR, 
we are also concerned that the full US06 cycle would not provide a 
representative drive cycle for SFTP testing. These vehicles are much 
larger than the light-duty vehicles that formed the basis for 
development of the US06 cycle, and loading them to ALVW for the SFTP 
test yields a very heavy test vehicle, not likely to be safely driven 
in the real world in the way typified by this aggressive cycle. We 
believe that the LA-92 (or ``Unified'') driving cycle developed by CARB 
is more representative of Class 3 truck driving patterns and would 
produce more robust results for use in SFTP evaluations. Therefore we 
are proposing that the LA-92 cycle be used in place of the US06 
component of the composite SFTP for Class 3 HDVs. The set of composite 
SFTP cycles we are proposing is fully consistent with the MDV LEV III 
program.
    Although we consider the highway portion of the US06 cycle 
appropriate for low power-to-weight vehicles, we also believe that the 
corresponding NMOG+NOX standards should be set at lower 
levels than for vehicles with emissions measured over the full US06 
test. Our goal is to provide roughly equivalent stringency and avoid 
creating an ease-of-compliance incentive to produce vehicles in one 
group or the other. We have reviewed the MDV SFTP standards set by the 
California Air Resources Board staff and consider them appropriate in 
achieving this goal. These proposed standards are included in Table IV-
16.
    HDVs do not have SC03 emissions requirements under the current HDV 
standards. Manufacturers of HDVs have indicated that they expect the 
SC03 emissions to be consistently lower than either the US06 or the FTP 
emissions levels, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden may be 
unnecessary. We are therefore proposing that HDV manufacturers have the 
option to substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissions 
results for purposes of compliance. However, we would retain the 
ability to determine the composite emissions using SC03 test results in 
confirmatory or in-use testing.
b. Enrichment Limitation for Spark-Ignition Engines
    To prevent emissions from excessive enrichment in areas not fully 
encountered in the SFTP cycles, we are proposing limitations in the 
frequency and magnitude of enrichment episodes for spark-ignition HDVs. 
These limitations would be identical to those

[[Page 29880]]

for light-duty vehicles discussed in detail in Section IV.A.4.c.
4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading
    This section describes our proposed approach for emissions credits 
related to exhaust emissions. See Section V.C for similar provisions 
that apply for evaporative emissions. We are proposing to continue the 
current practice of allowing manufacturers to satisfy standards through 
the averaging of emissions, as well as through the banking of emissions 
credits for later use and the trading of credits with others. There are 
a number of facets of this proposed Tier 3 ABT program for HDVs that 
would be different from the current program. First, instead of separate 
NMHC and NOX credits, manufacturers would earn combined 
NMOG+NOX credits, consistent with the form of the standards. 
Second, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to accrue a deficit in 
their credit balance. Deficits incurred in a model year may be carried 
forward for up to 3 model years, but must be made up with surplus 
credits after that to avoid noncompliance and possible penalties. 
Manufacturers would have to use any new credits to offset any shortfall 
before those credits can be traded or banked for additional model 
years. We are proposing that credits must be used within 5 years after 
they are earned, or otherwise be forfeited. The proposed 5/3-year 
credit/deficit life provisions are consistent with our proposed light-
duty Tier 3 approach, the California LEV III program for MDVs, and EPA 
programs for controlling GHG emissions from light- and heavy-duty 
vehicles.
    Third, as part of our proposal to require chassis certification of 
complete diesel HDVs, we are proposing to allow diesel HDVs to 
participate in this ABT program without restriction. Currently, they 
are not allowed to earn or use ABT credits. We are not proposing to 
restrict or adjust credit exchange between diesel and gasoline-fueled 
HDVs, consistent with our shift to combined NMOG+NOX 
standards that helps to ensure comparable stringency for these two 
engine types, and consistent also with the LEV III MDV program.
    We are proposing that credits earned by a Tier 3 HDV may be used to 
demonstrate compliance with NMOG+NOX standards for any other 
Tier 3 HDV, regardless of size and without adjustment. This effectively 
allows manufacturers to plan a comprehensive HDV compliance strategy 
for their entire Class 2b and Class 3 product offering, by balancing 
credits so as to demonstrate compliance with the standards for both 
classes. HDV manufacturers are currently certifying their vehicles to 
existing standards without the use of NOX or NMHC credits, 
and the levels we are proposing for Tier 3 standards are not based on 
any assumption of credit transfers into Tier 3. As a result, we are not 
proposing provisions for converting pre-Tier 3 credits, should any 
exist at the time, into Tier 3 credits, including for use in the 
interim bins.
    In the past we have set caps, called family emission limit (FEL) 
caps, on how high emissions can be for vehicles that use credits, 
regardless of how many credits might be available. Under our proposed 
bin structure, we believe that exhaust emission FEL caps are no longer 
relevant for Tier 3 HDVs, as every vehicle must meet whatever standards 
apply in the bin chosen for the vehicle by the manufacturer. (The bin 
standard becomes the effective FEL.) Indeed, because credits and 
deficits are calculated based on the difference between a 
manufacturer's fleet average emissions and the fleet average standards 
for a given model year, credits are not calculated for individual 
vehicle families at all. Under this proposed approach, the standards 
for NMOG and NOX in the highest available bin serve the 
purpose of the FEL caps in previous programs.
    We are proposing no averaging program for the HDV SFTP program, 
because we believe that the bin structure and FTP-centered 
NMOG+NOX ABT program provide adequate flexibility for smooth 
program implementation, especially in light of our aim to have the FTP 
standards be the primary technology forcers. A separate ABT program for 
SFTP compliance would add substantial complexity with little benefit, 
and, by making it possible to demonstrate robust SFTP control on a 
vehicle that lacks commensurate FTP control, could prove at odds with 
the primary goal of the supplemental test for HDVs. However, we note 
that California's LEV III program does provide some flexibility in this 
matter, on a vehicle-for-vehicle basis rather than through use of 
emissions credits, and for this reason we request comment on the need 
for and considerations surrounding our granting similar flexibility for 
HDVs in Tier 3.
5. Feasibility of HDV Standards
    The feasibility assessment, discussed in more detail in Chapter 1 
of the draft RIA, recognizes that the proposed Tier 3 program is 
composed of several new requirements for Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty 
vehicles, which include primarily large gasoline and diesel pick-up 
trucks and vans with diverse application-specific designs. These 
proposed new exhaust emissions requirements include stringent 
NMOG+NOX and PM standards for the FTP and the newly proposed 
SFTP, that would as a whole require new emissions control strategies 
and hardware in order to achieve the proposed standards. The type of 
new hardware that would be required will vary depending on the specific 
application and emissions challenges. Additionally, gasoline and diesel 
vehicles would require different emissions control strategies and 
hardware. The level of stringency for the proposed SFTP 
NMOG+NOX standards would generally only require additional 
precise control of the engine parameters not necessitated in the past 
because of the lack of SFTP requirements. Similarly, the new PM 
standards on both the FTP and SFTP cycles would require more precise 
control of engine operation on gasoline vehicles while diesels already 
equipped with diesel particulate filters would require minimal changes. 
The new PM standards may also require that manufacturers consider the 
durability of their engines to the 150,000 miles useful life 
requirement with respect to engine wear resulting in increased oil 
consumption and potentially higher PM emissions.
    In order to assess the technical feasibility of NMOG+NOX 
national fleet average FTP standards of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b vehicles 
and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles, we conducted an analysis of 
certification data for the HDVs certified in the 2010 and 2011 MYs. 
This analysis provided a baseline for the current HDV fleet emissions 
performance, as well as the emissions performance specific to the Class 
2b and 3 vehicles. The emissions performance of each heavy-duty vehicle 
class specific to gasoline and diesel is shown in Table IV-17 below. It 
is important to note that the emissions results are only the 4,000 mile 
test point results and do not incorporate any deterioration which 
manufacturers must account for when certifying to a full useful life 
standard. Designs limiting the deterioration of emission control 
hardware are critical to meeting the emission standards at the proposed 
useful life of the Tier 3 program. Deterioration factors to adjust the 
values to the proposed Tier 3 useful life standard of 150,000 miles 
were not available however deterioration factors to adjust to 120,000 
miles useful life are discussed in the RIA Chapter 1.
    The analysis also reflects the importance of the 
NMOG+NOX standard approach where diesels and gasoline MDVs 
can balance their combined

[[Page 29881]]

NMOG and NOX levels. Diesel vehicles in the analysis produce 
very low NMHC emissions (NMOG is not reported for diesels) but higher 
NOX emissions, while gasoline vehicles have opposite 
performance. The combined standard allows manufacturers to determine 
the proper balance of the unique emissions challenges of a diesel or 
gasoline vehicle.

                                             Table IV-17--2010/11 Certification Test Results at 4,000 Miles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               NMHC            NMOG             NOX             CO           NMOG+NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline..........................  Class 2b............  ..............           0.050           0.052           0.041           1.648           0.092
                                    Class 3.............  ..............           0.080           0.083           0.073           2.373           0.156
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             NMHC+NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel............................  Class 2b............  ..............           0.037  ..............           0.138           0.195           0.174
                                    Class 3.............  ..............           0.019  ..............           0.249           0.158           0.268
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Class 2b.......................................................           0.043           0.026           0.089           0.922           0.133
Combined Class 3........................................................           0.050           0.041           0.161           1.265           0.212
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers typically certify their vehicles at emissions levels 
well below the numerical standards. This difference is referred to as 
``compliance margin'' and is a result of manufacturers' efforts to 
address all the sources of variability that could occur during the 
certification or in-use testing processes and during in-use operation. 
These sources of variability include: Test-to-test variability, test 
location, build variation and manufacturing tolerances, vehicle 
operation (for example: Driving habits, ambient temperature, etc.), and 
the deleterious effects of sulfur and other oil and fuel contaminants. 
To meet the proposed NMOG+NOX standard of 178 mg/mi for 
Class 2b and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles and establish a compliance 
margin for these sources of variability, manufacturers will need to 
reduce their emission levels considerably from the levels indicated in 
this data set, particularly diesel vehicles.
    However, as discussed above, these emission results do not include 
the expected emissions deterioration which would be determined by 
manufacturers during development and certification testing. Therefore, 
manufacturers would need to further reduce emissions levels in 
anticipation of the unavoidable emissions deterioration that will occur 
during the useful life of the vehicle. Further, deterioration is a 
function of several factors, but it is predominantly due to emissions 
control hardware thermal exposure (high temperatures), which is 
typically a significant issue on vehicles used for performing work like 
Class 2b and 3 vehicles.
    We also expect that the 2011 heavy-duty GHG rule will present new 
challenges to manufacturers' emissions performance goals as vehicles 
begin to use new engines designed to meet the new GHG 
requirements.\274\ Some of these new technologies may result in 
emissions challenges that are specific to certain operating conditions. 
For example, downsized gasoline engines will likely have improved FTP 
exhaust emissions but have increased challenge with the high-load SFTP 
requirements. Diesel-fueled vehicles may need to carefully balance 
engine controls which reduce GHG emissions but can increase criteria 
emissions (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the ability of the heavy-duty fleet to meet the 
proposed PM standards for the FTP and the SFTP, we based our 
conclusions on some testing of current HDGVs and the PM performance of 
the existing light-duty fleet with similar engines. Testing of two 
HDGVs with the highest sales volume (Ford F250 and Chevrolet Silverado 
2500), albeit not aged to full useful life, confirmed that they have 
similar PM emissions levels as the light-duty counterparts and 
therefore also meet the proposed standards for both the Class 2b and 
Class 3 configurations. Data from light-duty gasoline vehicles with 
similar or common engines with their heavy-duty ``sister'' vehicle 
models demonstrates that these vehicles are currently meeting the 
proposed Tier 3 FTP PM standards at the Tier 2 useful life mileage of 
120,000 miles. Heavy-duty diesel vehicles all are equipped with DPFs 
and have no challenges meeting the FTP or SFTP PM standards being 
proposed for Tier 3.
    The SFTP test data from the same two heavy-duty vehicles described 
above indicates that gasoline vehicles can achieve the proposed 
standards for SFTP NMOG+NOX and PM. Since heavy-duty 
vehicles are not currently required to comply with any of the SFTP 
requirements, manufacturers have not focused on improving the emissions 
performance specifically over the SFTP cycles (US06 and SC03). 
Therefore, although the limited testing results had a high degree of 
variability, several tests met the proposed PM standards for the high 
power-to-weight Class 2b vehicles. Consistent with light-duty, vehicles 
that are demonstrating high PM on the US06 would need to control 
enrichment and oil consumption from engine wear. Manufacturers have 
confirmed that they have been implementing product changes to reduce 
oil consumption to address both customer satisfaction issues and to 
reduce cost of vehicle ownership.
    Given the technologies likely to be applied to meet the proposed 
HDV exhaust emissions standards, discussed below, we consider the lead 
time available before the standards take effect under all of the 
proposed alternatives to be sufficient. HDV manufacturers are already 
adopting some of the complying technologies, especially for their 
light-duty vehicles, and these can readily be adapted for heavy-duty 
applications. In addition, manufacturers have already begun developing 
these technologies for HDVs, including diesels, in response to 
California's recently adopted LEV III MDV standards which begin to take 
effect in the 2015 model year. Finally, as described above in Sections 
IV.B.2, IV.B.3, and IV.B.4, our proposed program incorporates a number 
of phase-in and alternative compliance provisions that would ease the 
transition to final standards without disrupting HD pickup and van 
product redesign cycles. Among these is an alternative phase-in that 
starts mandatory standards in model year 2019. We invite comment on our 
conclusions relating to the feasibility of the proposed program in the 
lead time we are proposing.
    We are not proposing relaxed standards for in-use testing of Tier 3

[[Page 29882]]

HDVs because we do not believe additional flexibility provisions are 
needed to successfully implement the new emission control technologies 
in the proposed timeframe. However, we note that the LEV III program 
provides such standards for PM, and also for NMOG+NOX in the 
lower-emissions MDV bins (those at or below Bin 250 and Bin 400, for 
Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles, respectively), and we are taking comment 
on the need to do so in Tier 3 as well.
    We also note that the need for NMOG+NOX in-use testing 
standards is further mitigated by our proposed structuring of the 
NMOG+NOX standards as a declining fleet average with deficit 
and credit banking provisions. These provisions provide substantial 
flexibility to manufacturers in introducing any new NMOG or 
NOX control technologies for which long-term durability is 
not yet proven. Manufacturers can place any vehicles for which they 
have in-use performance concerns in a higher bin, and this is 
facilitated by the fact that, unlike LEV III, our Tier 3 proposal does 
not target sales volumes for any individual bins. Comments supporting 
relaxed in-use NMOG+NOX standards should therefore address 
why, in the absence of these standards, the proposed declining fleet 
average standard is not feasible in one or more model years.
    Commenters on this issue are asked to also address the applicable 
model years for any such in-use testing standards. The LEV III MDV 
program has four different applicability periods based on a combination 
of specific model years listed in the regulations (up to 2020) and a 
set number of model years (two or five) after a test group is first 
certified. Comments are requested on whether it might be preferable to 
adopt a simpler approach in Tier 3, such as making in-use testing 
standards available in the model years in which standards are phasing 
in, that is, through model year 2021.
i. Technologies Likely To Be Applied
    The technologies expected to be applied to vehicles to meet the 
lower proposed standards levels would address the emissions control 
system's ability to control emissions during cold start. Current 
vehicle emissions control systems depend on the time it takes for the 
catalyst to light-off, which is typically defined as the catalyst 
reaching a temperature of 250 [deg]C. While the specific emissions 
challenge is somewhat different for gasoline engines than for diesel 
engines, achieving the necessary temperatures in the catalysts is a 
common challenge. In order to improve catalyst light-off, the 
manufacturers would likely add technologies that provide heat from 
combustion more readily to the catalyst or improve the catalyst 
efficiency at lower temperatures. These technologies could include 
calibration changes, thermal management, close-coupled catalysts, 
catalyst PGM loading, and possibly secondary air injection. In some 
cases, where the catalyst light-off response and efficiency are not 
enough to address the cold start emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers may 
be applied to trap hydrocarbons until such time that the catalyst is 
lit-off. Note that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of 
these technologies addresses both NMOG and NOX performance. 
Key potential technologies are described in greater detail below.
     Engine Control Calibration Changes--These include changes 
to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mixtures such that more 
combustion heat is created during the cold start on gasoline engines. 
Diesel engines may use unique injection timing strategies or other 
available engine control parameters. Engine calibration changes can 
affect NMOG, NOX and PM emissions.
     Thermal Management--This technology includes all design 
attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the catalyst with 
minimal cooling on both gasoline and diesel engines. This includes 
insulating the exhaust piping between the engine and the catalyst, 
reducing the wetted area of the exhaust path and/or reducing the 
thermal mass of the exhaust system. Close-coupling of catalysts 
(packaging the catalysts as close to the head of the engine as possible 
to mitigate the cooling effects of longer exhaust piping) can also be 
effective, but is more difficult to employ than in light-duty 
applications because of durability concerns with highly loaded 
operation and the potential increase in fuel consumption to protect the 
catalyst from high temperatures.
     Catalyst PGM Loading--Additional Platinum Group Metal 
(PGM) loading in the catalyst provides a greater number of sites to 
catalyze emissions and addresses NMOG, NOX and PM emissions.
     Selective Catalytic Reduction Optimization--Diesel 
applications would need to continue to refine this NOX 
emissions control strategy through improved hardware design and 
implementation in vehicle applications. Additional engineering 
enhancements in the control of the SCR system and related processes 
would also help reduce emissions levels.
6. Other HDV Provisions
a. HDV Useful Life
    Currently the HDV regulatory useful life, the period of use or time 
during which emissions standards apply, is 120,000 miles or 11 years, 
whichever occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805-4). For Tier 3 vehicle criteria 
emissions we are proposing to extend the useful life to 150,000 miles 
or 15 years, whichever occurs first. This change would better reflect 
the improvements in vehicle durability and longevity that have occurred 
in the several years since the 120,000 mile useful life was 
established, and would maintain consistency with the LEV III MDV 
program and with our Tier 3 program for large LDTs, for which the same 
useful life period has been proposed. California's LEV III staff paper 
included a discussion of the feasibility of this longer useful life 
based on experience with it in the PZEV element of the ZEV 
mandate.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ ``Preliminary Discussion Paper--Amendments to California's 
Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants--LEV III'', 
California Air Resources Board, February 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that the new useful life requirement apply to Tier 
3 HDVs in all bins except those designated as interim bins, consistent 
with the purpose of the interim bins to provide for limited carry-over 
of pre-Tier 3 vehicle designs during the phase-in period. Although the 
percentage application in each year will therefore depend on each 
manufacturer's fleet binning strategy, the declining NMOG+ 
NOX fleet average standard would ensure a robust phase-in of 
the new useful life requirement over the 2018-2022 model years, such 
that it is expected to be about 50 percent in 2018, and necessarily 
reaches 100 percent by 2022 when the interim bins are no longer 
available. For those manufacturers choosing to certify to the voluntary 
standards, the new useful life will apply even earlier, in 2016 or 
2017. For manufacturers choosing the alternative percent-of-sales NMOG+ 
NOX alternative, we are proposing that the new useful life 
requirement apply to all HDVs counted toward the phase-in requirement, 
resulting in a generally equivalent useful life phase-in rate to that 
of the primary approach. See Section IV.D.4.b for further discussion of 
useful life with regard to GHG standards. We are also proposing that 
manufacturers may optionally retain the 120,000 mile/11 year useful 
life for PM on interim Tier 3 vehicles that are not phased in to the 
Tier 3 p.m. standards.

[[Page 29883]]

b. Heavy-Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicles
    As in the proposed light-duty program, we are proposing that 
manufacturers demonstrate heavy-duty flex fuel vehicle (FFV) and dual-
fuel vehicle compliance with both the FTP and the SFTP emissions 
standards when operating on both the conventional petroleum-derived 
fuel and the alternative fuel. Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles 
would demonstrate compliance with both the FTP and SFTP emission 
standards while operating on the alternative fuel. For all of these 
vehicles, this includes the requirement to meet FTP emissions standards 
when conducting fuel consumption and GHG emissions testing, and also to 
meet the FTP and highway test requirements at high altitudes (see 
Sections IV.B.6.e and f). Because FFVs can operate on various 
combinations of their conventional and alternative fuel, the emissions 
requirements apply to operation at any mix of the fuels achievable in 
the fuel tank with commercially available fuels, including for 
compliance at high altitudes, even though the required demonstration of 
compliance is limited to the conventional and alternative fuels 
designated for certification testing.
c. Optional Certification for Vehicles Above 14,000 lbs GVWR
    The HD greenhouse gas (GHG) standards include a provision for 
optional certification of complete gasoline-fueled HDVs above 14,000 
lbs GVWR to g/mi GHG standards on the chassis test.\276\ Because that 
rule does not change the requirements for certification to criteria 
pollutant standards, manufacturers choosing this option would have to 
certify the vehicle for GHGs, but use installed engines certified to g/
hp-hr standards for all other emissions. We believe it may provide 
benefits for both the environment and the manufacturers to allow 
consistent certification of these vehicles on a chassis test for all 
emissions, treating any vehicles so certified in the same way as Class 
3 vehicles, including applicable standards, inclusion into fleet 
average calculations, test fuel, useful life, and the application of 
Tier 3 evaporative emissions requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on the value of, and any issues concerning, our 
providing such an option to manufacturers of both gasoline and diesel-
fueled HDVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR, including the applicability of the 
existing chassis test cycles for these larger trucks. Comment is also 
requested on whether manufacturers of such vehicles that are certified 
to a Final Tier 3 bin should be allowed to exclude them from the fleet 
average NMOG+NOX calculation, as a means of encouraging the 
production of such low-emissions vehicles by not penalizing them for 
having emissions somewhat above the Class 3 fleet average. Finally, we 
also request comment on whether any such option for diesel-fueled HDVs 
should extend to GHG emissions as well.
d. Existing Provision To Waive HDV PM Testing
    EPA's existing program includes a provision for manufacturers to 
waive measurement of PM emissions in non-diesel heavy-duty vehicle 
emissions testing. We are proposing to eliminate this provision. We 
believe that the PM standards we are proposing for these vehicles are 
of sufficient stringency that routine waiver of testing would not be 
appropriate. The California Air Resources Board LEV III program 
reflects this view. We do not expect this change to be onerous for 
manufacturers, as the number of heavy-duty vehicle families is not 
large. Even so, we request comment on alternative approaches, such as 
that being proposed for light-duty vehicles, involving measuring PM on 
a subset of families each year. We request comment on any other 
potential situations in which waiver of PM measurement may be 
appropriate. Note that we are proposing to waive the PM emissions 
measurement requirement for small manufacturers, for reasons explained 
in Section IV.E.
e. Meeting HDV Standards in Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions Testing
    As with the proposed light-duty Tier 3 program, we are proposing 
that HDVs must meet the FTP bin standards when tested over both the 
city and highway test cycles. We do not believe this adds a very 
significant test burden as vehicle emissions are already required to be 
measured when these tests are run for GHG and fuel consumption 
determinations. Nor do we believe that this proposed requirement is 
design forcing. Rather, we are proposing this requirement to ensure 
that test vehicle calibrations are not set by manufacturers to minimize 
fuel consumption and GHG emissions, at the expense of high criteria 
pollutant emissions. Considering the additional work involved in 
measuring PM emissions and the reduced likelihood of high PM emissions 
on the highway test, we are not proposing that PM emissions testing be 
included in this requirement, but we ask for comment on whether we 
should instead include them, but waive the requirement to measure them 
in manufacturers' certification testing, to ensure that any unforeseen 
PM control technology challenges in highway driving conditions are 
addressed in the future.
f. HDV Altitude Requirements
    As in the past, we intend that HDV Tier 3 standards result in 
emissions controls that are effective over a full range of operating 
altitudes. We do not anticipate that the proposed FTP bin standards 
would require the use of special hardware to achieve compliance at 
altitude. We also do not believe that adjustment to the FTP standards 
is appropriate for HDV testing at altitude, as we expect that 
manufacturers would be able to meet these standards with adequate 
compliance margin to cover this test condition. As in the proposed 
light-duty program, and for the same reasons, we are not proposing to 
require that HDVs comply with SFTP standards at altitude.

C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and Onboard Diagnostic System 
Requirements

    Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel systems, which are a 
mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, occur when a vehicle is in operation, 
when it is parked, and when it is being refueled. These evaporative 
emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles which occur on a daily basis 
are primarily functions of temperature, fuel vapor pressure, and 
activity. EPA first instituted evaporative emissions standards in the 
early 1970s to address hydrocarbon emissions when vehicles are parked 
after being driven. These are commonly referred to as hot soak and 
diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test procedures have 
been modified and improved, the standards have been revised to be more 
stringent, and we have addressed emissions which arose from new fuel 
system designs by establishing new requirements such as running loss 
emission standards and test procedure provisions to address resting 
losses (e.g., permeation). Onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) 
requirements for control of refueling emissions first began to phase-in 
for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) in the 1998 
MY. These were later expanded to cover medium-duty passenger vehicles 
(MDPVs) and some heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs). Even though 
evaporative and refueling emission control systems have been in place 
for

[[Page 29884]]

most of these vehicles for many years, evaporative emissions still 
contribute 30-40 percent of the on-road mobile source hydrocarbon 
inventory. These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and 
also contain air toxics such as benzene. Even though there are mature 
evaporative emission control programs in place, further hydrocarbon 
emission reductions are needed and can be achieved from highway motor 
vehicles. Vehicles demonstrating near zero fuel vapor emissions have 
been certified by CARB and a limited number are in-use in California 
and other states. Furthermore, test programs conducted by the 
Coordinating Research Council and EPA show that attention is needed to 
insure better in-use performance of current evaporative control 
systems. Cost effective hydrocarbon emission reductions can be achieved 
through new vehicle standards and improved focus on in-use performance.
    This section discusses the proposed vehicle-related evaporative 
emission standards and related provisions for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and 
HDGVs. As discussed below, we are proposing more stringent standards 
that would apply for the 2- and 3-day evaporative emissions tests, a 
new canister bleed test and emission standard, a new certification test 
fuel specification,\277\ and a new fuel/evaporative system leak test 
procedure and emission standard. We are also proposing refueling 
emission controls for a portion of HDGVs over 10,000 lbs gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR). This section also describes proposed phase-in 
flexibilities, credit and allowance programs, and seeks comment on 
several other issues related to evaporative emissions control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ For flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) certification fuel for 
evaporative and refueling emissions testing would remain a 9 RVP 
gasoline splash blended with ethanol to yield a blend containing 15 
percent ethanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed evaporative emissions program has six basic elements: 
(1) The Tier 3 evaporative emission phase-in program (MY 2018-2022+), 
(2) the early allowance/credit program (MY 2015-2016), (3) the 
transitional program (MY 2017), (4) requirements for HDGVs including 
ORVR, (5) a leak emission standard and test procedures, and (6) other 
miscellaneous proposed changes and areas for comment.
    In this proposed rule, the vehicle classifications, LDVs, LDTs, 
MDPVs, and HDGVs, would remain unchanged from Tier 2. For purposes of 
this discussion of the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions program, 
the vehicle standards can be further placed in four categories: (1) 
``Zero evaporative emission'' PZEV vehicles certified by CARB as part 
of the ZEV program, (2) vehicles certified by CARB to meet LEV III 
evaporative emission program requirements on CARB certification fuel (7 
RVP E10), (3) vehicles meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative 
emissions program requirements using the proposed certification test 
fuel (9 RVP E15), and (4) transitional vehicles meeting current EPA 
evaporative requirements on Tier 2 certification fuel (9 RVP 
E0).278 279 For ease of reference these four categories may 
be referred to as PZEV evap, LEV III evap, Tier 3 evap, and Tier 2 evap 
in this section.\280\

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

    \278\ We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission 
standards for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs in 2007 (72 FR 8428, February 
26, 2007). The most recent standards for HDGVs were adopted in 2000 
(66 FR 5165, January 18, 2001).
    \279\ See Section IV.D.1 for a discussion of the proposed 
certification fuel changes, including discussion of options for and 
implications of the certification test fuel having 10 percent 
ethanol.
    \280\ ``PZEV evap'' as discussed here refers only to the 
evaporative emission and useful life requirements of the PZEV 
program, not the exhaust emission requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
a. Proposed Standards
    This proposal for evaporative emissions builds on previous EPA 
requirements as well as CARB's recent LEV III rule which starts phasing 
in with the 2018 MY. This proposal facilitates a national program for 
vehicle evaporative emissions control. We believe the proposed program 
is appropriate since it would require new evaporative emissions control 
technology in new vehicles while also achieving improved in-use system 
performance.
    This section describes proposed requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, 
and HDGVs. The proposal includes more stringent emission standards for 
hot soak plus diurnal emissions (2- and 3-day tests), plus a new 
canister bleed standard and testing requirement for measuring emissions 
from the fuel tank and the evaporative canister. The proposal also 
introduces a limited corporate averaging program for demonstrating 
compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal standards. We are proposing a 
phase-in of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards that would begin 
with the 2017 MY, with incentives for manufacturers to introduce Tier 3 
compliant vehicles earlier or in greater numbers than required. The 
proposal includes revised provisions for demonstrating compliance with 
the evaporative emission standards at high altitude. See Section IV.C.3 
for additional provisions for the HDGV category.
i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standards
    Previous hot soak and diurnal emission controls have dramatically 
reduced vehicle evaporative emissions over the past thirty plus years. 
However, some emissions remain and control technology is available to 
capture these emissions in a cost effective manner. Toward that end, 
EPA is proposing more stringent hot soak plus diurnal evaporative 
emission standards for the Tier 3 program. The standards apply to both 
the 2-day and 3-day evaporative emission test requirements.
    The standards are designed to bring into the broader motor vehicle 
fleet the ``zero evap'' technology used by the manufacturers in their 
partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs). Manufacturers developed this 
``zero evap'' technology as part of their response to meeting the 
requirements of the CARB Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program. This 
program, which is in effect in 11 other states, allows manufacturers to 
meet their ZEV mandate percentages (totally or in-part) by the use of 
vehicles which among other characteristics have very low fuel vapor 
emissions.
    The standard levels presented in Table IV-18 are designed primarily 
to accommodate what is often referred to as new vehicle background 
hydrocarbon emissions. These emissions arise from the off-gassing of 
volatile hydrocarbons from plastics, rubbers, and other polymers found 
in new vehicles (e.g., new tires, interiors, seats, fuel system 
components, paints, and adhesives). In the field these emissions 
decrease over time as the vehicle ages, but this cannot necessarily be 
replicated in the time that manufacturers normally allocate for vehicle 
certification. In the past manufacturers have employed techniques such 
as vehicle baking (discussed below) to accelerate the rate of this off-
gassing, and until recently it has not been a major consideration for 
certification.
    In the past EPA has set relatively uniform (but not identical) 
evaporative emission standards for LDVs and LDTs and somewhat higher 
values for HDGVs. The proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standards 
presented in Table IV-18 are somewhat higher as vehicles get larger in 
weight and physical size. This is because in general the vehicles have 
higher levels of non-fuel background emissions as they get larger. As 
mentioned above, the standards, which are approximately a 50 percent 
reduction from the existing hot soak plus diurnal standards, are 
intended

[[Page 29885]]

primarily to accommodate non-fuel background emissions. Thus, the 
technology focus for the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards 
is for vehicles to have essentially zero fuel vapor emissions.
    As described in more detail in Section IV.C.2 below, EPA is 
proposing a program that would allow manufacturers to demonstrate 
compliance with the proposed hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission 
standards using averaging concepts. Under the proposal, manufacturers 
may comply by averaging within each of the four vehicle categories but 
for the reasons discussed below, may not rely on averaging across 
categories. The technical approaches to meeting the proposed standards 
are discussed in Section IV.C.2. EPA is not proposing any changes to 
the existing light-duty running loss or refueling emission standards 
with the Tier 3 proposal, with the exception of the certification test 
fuel requirement.

  Table IV-18--Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards (g/test) \a\ \b\
                                   \c\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Highest hot soak +
                                                   diurnal level (over
                Vehicle category                   both 2-day and 3-day
                                                      diurnal tests)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1......................................                    0.300
LDT2...........................................                    0.400
LDT3, LDT4, MDPV...............................                    0.500
HDGVs..........................................                    0.600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The standards are in grams of hydrocarbons as measured by flame
  ionization detector during the diurnal and hot soak emission tests in
  the enclosure known as the sealed housing for evaporative
  determination (SHED).
\b\ Note that the proposed standards are the same for both tests;
  current standards are slightly different for the 2- and 3-day tests.
\c\ Vehicle categories are the same as in EPA's Tier 2 final rule; see
  65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.

ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard
    In addition to more stringent hot soak plus diurnal standards, EPA 
is proposing a new canister bleed emission test and standard as part of 
the Tier 3 program. The proposed bleed test procedure is described in 
Section IV.C.4.a., below. The purpose of the new test and standard is 
to ensure that near-zero fuel vapor emissions are being emitted by 
vehicles from the fuel tank through the evaporative emission canister. 
Under this proposal, manufacturers would be required to measure diurnal 
emissions over the 2-day diurnal test procedure from just the fuel tank 
and the evaporative emission canister and comply with a 0.020 g/test 
standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs and 0.030 g/test for HDGVs. The 
feasibility of this standard is discussed in Section IV.C.2.g.ii below. 
EPA is proposing not to apply the averaging program to this new bleed 
test standard as compliance is relatively straightforward and low in 
cost. Therefore, each evaporative/refueling emission family certified 
by manufacturers would need to demonstrate compliance with their 
respective standard. As discussed below, the canister bleed standard 
would not apply at high altitude. The canister bleed test and standard 
drives canister design elements such as total gasoline working 
capacity, internal architecture, and the type of carbon used. Since the 
performance of the canister is also evaluated in the hot soak plus 
diurnal evaporative emissions sealed housing for evaporative 
determination (SHED) test we are proposing that the canister bleed 
emission standard not be included in the In-Use Verification Program 
but it must be met in use. We would not expect to have canister bleed 
specific family criteria for certification but the test would have to 
be completed and the standard met for each evaporative/refueling family 
including potentially twice if there were two canisters used. A 
deterioration factor would not be required, but as mentioned above, the 
standard would have to be met in-use and could be evaluated in EPA 
confirmatory testing.
iii. Early and Transitional Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standard
    As part of its LEV III program, CARB has included an alternative 
set of evaporative emission standards, referred to as Option 1 
standards. These are shown in Table IV-19.

                            Table IV-19--CARB Option 1 Evaporative Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Highest hot soak + diurnal level
                                                              (over both 2- and 3-day diurnal
                     Vehicle category                                 tests) (g/test)           Running Loss (g/
                                                           ------------------------------------       mile)
                                                              Vehicle SHED        Rig SHED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car.............................................             0.350               0.0              0.05
LDT <= 6,000 lbs GVWR.....................................             0.500               0.0              0.05
All other vehicles > 6,000 lbs GVWR.......................             0.750               0.0              0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Option 1 standards include evaporative emission standards (hot 
soak plus diurnal) that are slightly higher numerically than our 
proposed standards. Vehicles certified under this option may not use 
averaging in the CARB LEV III program because they basically represent 
the same evaporative emission standards as exist for PZEVs under CARBs 
ZEV program wherein averaging is not permitted. Option 1 also includes 
an additional test of the vehicle fuel system (rig test) that from an 
engineering perspective is practically more difficult to conduct than 
the bleed test discussed above and is intended to force manufacturers 
to demonstrate at certification that their stand alone (not in chassis) 
fuel/vapor control system designs have no (<=54 mg) fuel vapor 
emissions. EPA is not proposing that Option 1 be part of the long term 
Tier 3 evaporative emission program. While we see the merit of the rig 
test as an engineering design and development tool for the 
manufacturers, by its very nature, the rig SHED standard is not 
implementable as an enforceable standard. We believe that the hot soak 
plus diurnal SHED test and the canister bleed test will accomplish the 
same objective of keeping fuel vapor emissions to a minimum.
    EPA believes most manufacturers will prefer to certify to the 
averaging based standards proposed by EPA (similar in

[[Page 29886]]

stringency and program construct to CARB Option 2). However, because 
some manufacturers may have vehicle models meeting the CARB Option 1 
standards and emission requirements now or in the near future, EPA is 
proposing that compliance with the CARB Option 1 standards would be an 
acceptable interim alternative to compliance with the proposed Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards if the model is certified by CARB before 
the 2017 MY. EPA proposes that these vehicles could then be certified 
using carryover provisions through the 2019 MY.\281\ As noted in the 
following sections, vehicles certified under this provision would count 
toward the phase-in percentage requirements and could earn allowances 
as discussed below, but the vehicles would not be eligible to earn or 
use credits for the evaporative emissions averaging program. Carryover 
vehicles would have to meet EPA leak emission standard to be counted 
toward the sales percentage requirements for 2018 and later model 
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the CARB 
Option 1 test procedures and emission standards for this interim 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Useful Life
    Trends indicate that vehicle lifetimes are increasing. It is 
important that emission control systems be designed to meet 
requirements while vehicles are in use. As discussed in Section IV.A 
and IV.B of this proposal, along with the new emission standards, we 
are proposing a longer useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years, whichever 
comes first, for LDTs up to 6,000 lbs GVWR but over 3,750 lbs loaded 
vehicle weight (LVW) (LDT2s), all LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR (LDT3/4), 
MDPVs, and HDGVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. The proposed longer 
useful life would also apply to certifications to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements. For an evaporative/refueling family 
certified to 150,000 miles/15 year useful life for evaporative 
emissions this useful life would also apply to the refueling, leak, and 
high altitude standards, where applicable when a family certifies to 
the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements. All of these standards 
impact the fuel and vapor control systems and it is technologically 
consistent to require the same useful life for these standards because 
they all rely on the mechanical integrity, durability, and operational 
performance of the same components in the evaporative emissions control 
system.
    Due to limitations in the CAA, for LDVs and for LDTs up to 6,000 
lbs GVWR and at or below 3,750 lbs LVW (LDT1s), we are keeping the 
current useful life of 120,000 miles/10 years unless, as described in 
Section IV.A, a manufacturer elects alternative exhaust emission 
requirements that are associated with 150,000 mile/15 year useful life 
for these vehicles. For manufacturers that select those optional 
standards, the useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years would apply for 
all Tier3 evaporative emission standards including the hot soak plus 
diurnal emission standards, the refueling emission standard, and the 
leak standard because of the design and operating relationships between 
the engine, the fuel system, the evaporative control system and their 
various components.
    During the early and transitional program periods and until the 
final year of the allowed phase-in period for the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission program (MY 2015-2022) the differences between the proposed 
exhaust and evaporative emission phase-in programs presents the 
possibility that in some cases a manufacturer could certify a model to 
the Tier 3 exhaust requirements but not necessarily to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements.\282\ In those situations, we are 
proposing that a family could have a 150,000 miles/15 years useful life 
for exhaust emissions but maintain the current useful life for all of 
the evaporative and refueling emission standards. We also propose that 
during the phase-in period, if a family is certified to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements but not yet certified for Tier 3 
exhaust emission requirements, then the useful life could be 150,000 
miles/15 years for evaporative and refueling emissions standards but 
the current useful life for exhaust emissions, However, by the 2022 MY 
EPA proposes that the useful life for all of these requirements would 
be 150,000 miles/15 years for LDT2/3/4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs since by that 
model year all vehicles must be certified using Tier 3 certification 
fuel and test procedures and meet Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ By the 2020 MY, all Tier 3 evaporative system emissions 
certifications must use Tier 3 certification test fuel and test 
procedures. This affects evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal), 
canister bleed, refueling, and leak emission standards 
certification.
    \283\ The only exception here would be for vehicles not meeting 
Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022 MY as a result 
of the use of previously earned allowances and small businesses 
which have until the 2022 MY to meet the proposed Tier 3 evaporative 
emission requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OBD regulations call for the systems to operate effectively over 
the useful life of the vehicle. We are not proposing to change that 
requirement, but rather to clarify that during the early and transition 
years of the phase-in (MY 2015-2022), all of the OBD monitoring 
requirements have the same useful life as that for the exhaust emission 
standard except for the evaporative system leak monitoring requirement 
which has the same as that required for the evaporative and refueling 
emission standards control systems.
2. Evaporative Emissions Program Structure and Implementation 
Flexibilities
a. Percentage Phase-In Requirements
    The proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards would be phased 
in over a period of six model years (MYs), including a transitional 
year in 2017. For MY 2017, except as discussed below, the requirement 
would apply to 40 percent of a manufacturer's combined sales of LDVs, 
LDT1s, and LDT2s. To be consistent with the start date for new exhaust 
standards affecting these vehicles, the phase-in requirements would not 
include vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR until the 2018 MY. For the 2018-
2019 MYs, the requirement would apply to 60 percent of a manufacturer's 
sales of all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. This would increase to 80 
percent for MYs 2020 and 2021 and by MY 2022 it would apply to 100 
percent of sales in these four categories. Beginning in MY 2018 any 
vehicle included in the percentage projection, except vehicles that had 
earned allowances would have to meet the leak emission standard.
    Our proposal for MY 2017 has two options and we are seeking comment 
on a third option. The first, which we are calling the ``percentage'' 
option, would require that 40 percent of a manufacturer' s LDVs, LDT1s, 
and LDT2s sold outside of California and the states that have adopted 
the CARB ZEV or LEV III programs must meet the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission requirements on average. The second which we are calling the 
``PZEV zero evap only'' option, would require a manufacturer to sell 
all of the LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s certified with CARB as meeting the 
PZEV evaporative emission requirements (zero evap) in MY 2017 
throughout all of the U.S. and not to offer for sale any non-PZEV zero 
evap version of those vehicles in any state whose vehicles are covered 
by the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Thus, this would apply to 
sales in any state except for California and states that

[[Page 29887]]

have adopted the CARB ZEV or LEV III programs under section 177 of the 
Clean Air Act. Under this second option, no tracking of sales or end of 
year compliance calculation would be required. Some manufacturers may 
find this option attractive, as they have more limited product 
offerings and find tracking of production and sales more difficult.
    The basic goal of the 2017 MY program is to provide evaporative 
emission reductions benefits in the other states which are similar to 
those expected in California and the states which adopted LEV III under 
section 177 of the Clean Air Act. Due to model phase-out and phase-in 
issues related to current and future products, some manufacturers have 
indicated that increasing production of Tier 3 evaporative emission 
compliant vehicles for the 2017 MY to meet the 40 percent value 
discussed above could be difficult and costly. To address this issue, 
we are asking for comment on a third option: decreasing this value from 
40 percent to 20 percent but requiring that these same vehicles also 
meet the leak emission standard in the 2017 MY. This approach has the 
potential to address the transition issue and EPA believes that the 
leak standard will provide evaporative emission reduction benefits 
equal to or greater than the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. 
Thus, under this approach, the manufacturers' product transition 
concerns could be addressed and the overall evaporative emission 
reductions would still be achieved for 2017 MY vehicles. As discussed 
below, beginning in the 2018 MY, a Tier 3 compliant vehicle must also 
meet the leak emission standard. This option would be effective only in 
the 2017 MY. EPA asks for comment on whether this option should require 
the leak emission standard to apply to the same 20 percent of vehicles 
that are complying with the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements, 
or whether this option should allow manufacturers the flexibility to 
meet some or all of the 20 percent leak emission standard requirement 
with vehicles not yet compliant with the Tier 3 evaporative 
requirements.
    At the time of certification, manufacturers would identify which 
families would be included in their Tier 3 evaporative emission 
percentage calculations (this could be families above or below the 
individual Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for the given class of 
vehicles as well as vehicles meeting CARB's Option 1 standards) and 
could also include earned allowances as discussed below. They would use 
projected sales information for these families plus allowances as 
desired and available, to show how they expect to meet the phase-in 
percentages for the model year of interest. At the end of the model 
year they would be expected to show that the percentages were met and 
if not they would either use additional allowances or bring more 
vehicle families into the calculation.
    Requiring a showing at the time of certification based on projected 
sales requires due diligence by the manufacturers and EPA, but the Tier 
3 evaporative emissions program allows for fleet averaging, so a 
validation or ``truing up'' of these sales projections is necessary for 
determining compliance with the requirements of the standard. This is 
discussed in Sections IV.C.2.c.and d. As discussed further below, 
validated sales information would also be used for earning early 
allowances and to show compliance with the alternative phase-in 
schedule approach.
    For these purposes, vehicles included in the phase-in percentage 
could be: (1) Families which certified to CARB LEV III requirements in 
MYs 2015 and 2016 (CARB Option 1), (2) families certified to meet Tier 
3 evaporative emission requirements, and (3) vehicles from the early 
allowance program. However, beginning in the 2017 MY, any new 
evaporative/refueling emission family certifications would have to meet 
the proposed EPA Tier 3 certification requirements for both test 
procedure and certification test fuel for the evaporative and refueling 
emission standards. The leak emission standard would apply in the 2018 
MY. Furthermore, assuming other regulatory provisions related to 
carryover of emissions data are met, 2015-2016 MY CARB evaporative 
emissions certifications could be carried over until the end of the 
2019 MY and included as compliant vehicles within the program if they 
met the leak emission standard.
    The phase-in percentages for MYs 2017 through 2022 reflect a 
percentage phase-in concept applied successfully by EPA in previous 
rules involving evaporative and refueling emissions control. The 
proposed phase-in provides an appropriate balance between the needed 
emission reductions and time for the manufacturers to make an orderly 
transition to the new technology on such a broad scale. The higher 
initial percentage here is appropriate because the expected evaporative 
emission control technology is already being used to varying degrees by 
16 manufacturers on over 50 vehicle models today and is projected to 
gain even deeper penetration by 2017 due to the partial zero emission 
vehicles (PZEV) option within the CARB ZEV program.
    As a flexibility, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to 
demonstrate compliance with the phase-in percentage requirements of the 
evaporative emissions program by using a manufacturer-determined 
alternative phase-in percentage scheme. Under this approach, before the 
2018 MY, manufacturers would have to present a plan to EPA which 
demonstrates that the sum of the product of a weighting factor and the 
percentages of their U.S. vehicle sales for each model year from 2018 
through 2022 is greater than or equal to 1040. The 1040 value is equal 
to the sum of the product of the weighting factors and the percentage 
requirements for MYs 2018 through 2022, calculated in the following 
manner: [(5)(2018MY %)+4(2019MY %)+3(2020MY %)+2(2021MY %)+(1)(2022MY 
%)]. This would allow manufacturers to use a phase-in more consistent 
with product plans which may call for a lower percentage in the early 
years or to benefit from producing and selling more than the minimum 
percentage of compliant vehicles early. This flexibility could also be 
helpful in the event that a manufacturer elects to put some vehicles on 
a different phase-in schedule for meeting Tier 3 exhaust and 
evaporative emission standards. As explained further below, any 
allowances earned could be counted toward compliance with the 1040 
value. Within this proposed flexibility EPA asks for comment in three 
areas. First, we seek comment on the need for and value of this 
alternative phase-in percentage flexibility option. Second, we did not 
include the 2017 MY in this flexibility because we believe that the 
PZEV zero evap nationwide option, the use of any earned allowances, and 
the ability to have a deficit in a given year are sufficient. However, 
we ask for comment on including the 2017 MY ``percentage'' option in 
this flexibility (both the 40 and 20 percent approaches discussed 
above). If after comment the 40 percent option from the 2017 MY is 
included in the final rule, the sum of the percentages would include an 
additional 240= (6)(40) for a total; of 1280; the equation above would 
add a term of (6)(2017MY %). Similarly, we ask for comment on whether 
the 20 percent option from the 2017 MY should be included in the 
alternative phase-in approach. If it is included in the final rule, the 
sum of the percentages would include an additional 120= (6)(20) for a 
total; of 1160; the equation above would add a term of (6)(2017MY %).

[[Page 29888]]

b. Early Allowance Program
    We are proposing incentives for early introduction of vehicles 
compliant with the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations. 
Manufacturers could take advantage of these incentives prior to MY 2018 
by selling vehicles that meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
regulations earlier than required or in greater numbers than required.
    As described below, manufacturers could earn ``allowances'' for 
selling any vehicle certified to the proposed Tier 3 evaporative 
emission regulations earlier than required. The vehicles could be LDVs, 
LDTs, MDPVs, or HDGVs. Specifically these include the following: (1) 
For MYs 2015 and 2016, any LDVs and LDTs meeting the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission regulations and sold outside of California and the states that 
have adopted CARB's ZEV or LEV III programs, (2) for MYs 2015-2017, any 
MDPV or HDGV meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations early 
and sold in any state, (3) for MY 2017, any LDT3/4 meeting the Tier 3 
evaporative emission regulations and sold outside of California and the 
states that have adopted CARB's LEV III or ZEV programs, and (4) for 
MYs 2015-2017, any HDGV between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs GVWR meeting the 
refueling emissions regulations and sold outside of California and the 
states that have adopted CARB's LEV III or ZEV programs.
    In order to demonstrate compliance with the proposed Tier 3 
evaporative emission regulations, the vehicles could be certified to 
either the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or CARB's 
PZEV zero evaporative emission and useful life requirements. Vehicles 
generating allowances would have to meet the proposed evaporative 
emission standards (CARB Option 1 or EPA Tier 3), the high altitude 
evaporative emission standard, the canister bleed standard as well as 
the refueling emission standards. Manufacturers would earn one 
allowance for each qualifying vehicle sold. Manufacturers can use these 
allowances in MY 2017 through 2022 to help demonstrate compliance with 
the phase-in percentage requirements and fleet average evaporative 
emission standards for those years.
    Allowances would be used in the compliance determination in the 
following manner. Vehicles qualifying for allowances could be used in 
the fleet average evaporative emission standard calculation for any 
year during the phase-in. This would apply to the primary phase-in and 
alternative phase-in programs. Allowance vehicles would be entered into 
the compliance calculation with an emission value equivalent to the 
evaporative emission standard for their vehicle category from Table IV-
18 even if it was certified to CARB Option 1 standards (Table IV-19). 
For the percent phase-in requirement in either the primary or 
alternative phase-in schemes, allowance vehicles would count for one 
vehicle for each allowance used within their vehicle category. For the 
primary scheme this would be counted as one vehicle, but for the 
alternative phase-in option the value would be multiplied by the 
weighting factor (5 for 2018, 4 for 2019, 3 for 2020, etc). Within the 
alternative phase-in scheme the manufacturer would be limited to using 
these early allowances for no more than 10 percentage points of the 
phase-in requirements in any given model year (e.g., MYs 2018-2022). 
EPA believes this limitation is appropriate. Early introduction of 
``zero evap'' technology should be encouraged, but not necessarily at 
the expense of its widespread use across the various vehicle categories 
as the phase-in progresses. The proposed allowances are designed 
primarily to facilitate manufacturer transition during the program 
phase-in. As such, we propose that they could not be traded between 
manufacturers and unused allowances would expire after the 2022 MY.
    An example here may be helpful in demonstrating how the proposed 
concept would work. Take a hypothetical manufacturer who earned 10,000 
allowances in 2015 and 2016 and sells 100,000 units per year. In 2018, 
the manufacturer would have a phase-in requirement of 60 percent or 
60,000 vehicles. For the primary phase-in option the manufacturer could 
use part or all of its allowances in 2018. For the alternative phase-in 
scheme the proposed regulations would limit the use of allowances to 10 
percentage points at the 60 percent. Without a multiplier this would 
require the use of all 10,000 allowances in 2018, but with the proposed 
multiplier only 2,000 allowances would be needed to reach the 10 
percentage point maximum. Using a similar calculus, the manufacturer 
could use another 10 percentage points in 2019, but it would require 
2,500 allowances since the multiplier is 4. The number of allowances to 
reach 10 percentage points would increase each year as the multiplier 
decreased.
    For the MY 2017, manufacturers choosing EPA's proposed 
``percentage'' option (see Section IV.C.2.a) could earn allowances for 
sales of LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the proposed Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards and other related requirements assuming 
their LDV, LDT1/2 sales meet the 40 percent requirement. Similarly, 
manufacturers choosing EPA's proposed ``PZEV zero evap only'' option 
could earn allowances in MY 2017 for LDT3/4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that 
meet the CARB Option 1 evaporative emission standards and related 
requirements. For both the ``percentage'' and ``PZEV zero evap only'' 
options for the 2017 model year, to avoid double counting, the 
allowances would be earned only for those vehicles sold outside of 
California and the states that have adopted CARB's LEV III/ZEV program 
requirements. Vehicles earning allowances could either be vehicles 
certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or vehicles 
certified using carryover data from the CARB PZEV zero evaporative 
emission requirements from the 2015 or 2016 MYs. Since credits and 
allowances serve primarily the same purpose and allowing for splits of 
allowances/credits greatly complicates program implementation, we are 
proposing that manufacturers could only earn allowances in MYs 2015-
2017 for any qualifying LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs since these 
vehicles are not covered by the proposed Tier 3 standards until the 
2018 MY. EPA asks for comment on whether this opportunity to earn 
allowances coupled with the aforementioned restriction on their use is 
the appropriate balance.
c. Evaporative Emissions ABT
    Throughout EPA's programs for mobile source emission controls, we 
have often included emission averaging programs for exhaust emissions. 
An emission averaging program is an important factor we take into 
consideration in setting emission standards under the Clean Air Act. An 
emission averaging program can reduce the cost and improve the 
technological feasibility of achieving standards, helping to ensure the 
standards achieve the greatest achievable reductions, considering cost 
and other relevant factors, in a time frame that is earlier than might 
otherwise be possible. Manufacturers gain flexibility in product 
planning and the opportunity for a more cost-effective introduction of 
product lines meeting a new standard. Emission averaging programs also 
create an incentive for the early introduction of new technology, which 
allows certain emission families to act as leaders for new technology. 
This can help provide valuable information to manufacturers on the 
technology before they apply the technology throughout their product 
line.

[[Page 29889]]

    These programs generally involve averaging and banking, and 
sometimes trading (ABT). Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one 
or more families at emission levels above the applicable emission 
standards as long as the increased emissions are offset by one or more 
families certified below the applicable standards. These are referred 
to as family emission limits (FELs). The over-complying families 
generate credits that are used by the under-complying families. 
Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions basis to account for 
differences in production volume, and on other factors as necessary. 
The average of all emissions for a particular manufacturer's production 
within category must be at or below the level of the applicable 
emission standards. Banking allows a manufacturer to generate emission 
credits and bank them for future use in its own averaging program in 
later years. Trading allows a manufacturer to sell credits or obtain 
credits from another manufacturer.
    EPA is proposing an emissions ABT program for the Tier 3 hot soak 
plus diurnal evaporative emissions standards. This would be the EPA's 
first averaging program for evaporative emissions from light-duty or 
heavy-duty vehicles. It would not apply to the high altitude standard, 
the canister bleed standard or the leak emission standard because it is 
the low altitude ``zero evap'' hot soak plus diurnal standard which 
will drive the fundamental technology used to comply with all of these 
requirements. EPA is proposing to include trading of emission credits 
between manufacturers, but in past similar programs there have been 
very few trades. Incorporating trading within the program adds a 
significant degree of complexity, so we are seeking comment on the need 
for and value of including trading.
    The evaporative emissions ABT program would start with the 2017 MY 
for the percentage option. The programs would continue for the 2018 MY 
and beyond and would not sunset, as does the allowance program. 
Vehicles generating averaging/banking credits in the 2017 MY or later 
would not be permitted to also generate allowances as this would be 
double counting.
    A key element of an averaging program is the identification of the 
averaging sets. This sets the criteria for which emission families can 
be averaged for purposes of compliance as well as credit and deficit 
determinations. We are proposing four averaging sets and the applicable 
emission standard for each of the averaging sets as shown in Table IV-
18. Except as noted in section d below, credit exchanges between 
averaging sets would not be permitted. Participation in averaging is 
voluntary since a manufacturer could elect to certify each family 
within the averaging set to its individual limit as if there was no 
averaging program.
    An evaporative emission ABT includes two very distinct steps. The 
first is the determination of the credit/deficit status of each family 
relative to its applicable standard from Table IV-18. The second is the 
role of ABT in the overall compliance demonstration which will be 
discussed in Section IV.C.2.d which follows.
    A manufacturer choosing to participate in the evaporative emissions 
ABT program would certify each emission family to an FEL. The FEL 
selected by the manufacturer becomes the emission standard for that 
emission family. As noted below, emission credits (or deficits) are 
based on the difference between the emission standard that applies (by 
vehicle category) and the FEL. The vehicles would have to meet the FEL 
for all emission testing.
    We are proposing that the FELs selected by the manufacturer would 
have to be selected at 0.025 g/test increments above or below the 
applicable Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for each vehicle 
category. FELs could not be set any higher than 0.500 g/test for LDVs, 
0.650 g/test for LDT1s and LDT2s, 0.900 g/test for LDT3s and LDT4s, 
1.000 g/test for MDPVs, 1.4 g/test for HDGVs at or below 14,000 lbs 
GVWR, and 1.9 g/test for those above 14,000 lbs GVWR, respectively. 
These FEL caps are the 3-day hot soak plus diurnal emission standards 
currently applicable under EPA's regulations. The vehicle groupings for 
defining these FEL caps differ somewhat from the groupings that apply 
for the standards; we request comment on the need to reconcile these 
different groupings.
    Evaporative emission credits under the proposed Tier 3 hot soak 
plus diurnal standards would be calculated differently in the 2017 
model year and the 2018 and later model years. For 2017 calculations 
would be based on sales in the U.S. excluding California and the 
section 177 states which have adopted the LEV III/ZEV programs. For 
2018 and later model years it would be based on all 50 states. 
Calculations would use the following equation: Credits = (fleet average 
standard - fleet average FEL) x ``U.S. sales''. The ``fleet average 
standard'' term here is the applicable Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal 
standard for the vehicle category from Table IV-18. The sales number 
used in the 2018 and later MY calculation would be the number of 
vehicles of the evaporative emission families in that category sold in 
the U.S. which are subject to the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards.\284\ Emission credits banked under the proposed evaporative 
emission ABT program would have a five year credit life and would not 
be discounted. This means the credits would maintain their full value 
through the fifth model year after the model year in which they are 
generated. At the beginning of the sixth model year after they are 
generated, the credits would expire and could not be used by the 
manufacturer. We are proposing to limit credit life so there is a 
reasonable overlap between credit generating and credit using vehicles. 
As mentioned above, for purposes of the compliance calculation, 
allowance vehicles would have an FEL equivalent to the EPA emission 
standard (Table IV-18) for their respective vehicle category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \284\ If EPA ultimately decided to continue the disaggregated 
approach to fleet compliance calculations, we could potentially base 
compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 
requirements on U.S. sales (i.e., non-California and non-section 177 
states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We request comment on all aspects of the ABT program. In 
particular, we request comment on the structure of the proposed 
evaporative emission ABT program and how the various provisions may 
affect manufacturers' ability to utilize ABT to achieve the desired 
evaporative emission-reductions in the most efficient and economical 
way. We also ask for comment on basing ABT calculations on nationwide 
sales in 2018 and later model years, even if there is a separate 
calculation for California and the section 177 states.
d. Compliance Demonstration
    Demonstration of compliance with the evaporative emissions 
standards would be done after the end of each model year. There are two 
steps. In the first step, manufacturers would have to show compliance 
with the phase-in percentages whether they used the primary phase-in 
scheme or an alternative phase-in scheme. It is sales from these 
families together with their respective FELs which would be used to 
make the demonstration of compliance with the emission standard on 
average within each vehicle averaging set. Compliant vehicles types for 
these purposes would be the same as described in Section IV.C.2.a above 
for projected sales. If the required sales percentages are not met by 
direct sales or allowances, non-Tier 3 vehicles would have to be 
identified to make up the shortfall. In the second step, using

[[Page 29890]]

the family emission limits, manufacturers would calculate the sales-
weighted average emission levels within each of the four vehicle 
categories using U.S. sales.\285\ Manufacturers would be allowed to use 
credits only within a defined averaging set. The averaging sets are: 
(1) LDVs and LDT1s, (2) LDT2s, (3) LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs, and (4) 
HDGVs. These sales-weighted calculated values would have to be at or 
below the emission standard for that vehicle category as proposed in 
Table IV-18, unless credits from ABT are used. If the difference 
between the standard and the sales-weighted average FEL is a positive 
value this could be a banked credit available for future use. If the 
difference between the standard and the sales-weighted average FEL is a 
negative value this would be a credit deficit. Credit deficits would be 
allowed to be carried forward. However, manufacturers would be required 
to make up the deficit within the next three model years with credits 
from vehicles in the same averaging set except as described below. As 
discussed above, manufacturers would be required to identify and 
include in the calculations vehicle families from each and any covered 
category (see Table IV-18) whose total annual nationwide sales in the 
given model year equals or exceeds the prescribed percentages. If the 
inclusion of non-Tier 3 vehicles results in an exceedance of the hot 
soak plus diurnal emission standard for that category of vehicles, the 
credit deficit would have to be made up in a subsequent model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \285\ The only exception here would be for vehicles not meeting 
Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022 MY as a result 
of the use of previously earned allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Allowances could also be used to demonstrate compliance with the 
percentage phase-in requirements and the vehicle category average 
emission standard. For purposes of the percentage phase-in requirements 
vehicles which have earned allowances are counted as compliant in the 
percentage calculation. For purposes of the calculations for compliance 
with the emission standard, allowance vehicles enters into the 
evaporative emissions ABT calculation as having an emission rate 
equivalent to the standard for that category of vehicle. Thus, 
allowance vehicles would help in demonstrating compliance with the 
percentage phase-in requirement (up to ten percentage points per model 
year) and would help in reducing deficits since their calculation value 
would be equivalent to the level of the standard. EPA asks for comment 
on whether allowances should be permitted to be used across vehicle 
categories during the transition years.
    As was discussed above, during the 2017-2019 model years EPA is 
allowing manufacturers to meet the percentage phase-in requirements 
using carryover certification data from vehicles certified to CARBs 
Option 1 standards in the 2015 or 2016 model years. These vehicles may 
have CARB Option 1 certification values slightly higher than those 
proposed for EPA's Tier 3 program for the given vehicle and vehicle 
category. Since the emission standard values in Tables IV-18 and IV-19 
are very similar for any given vehicle category, for purposes of 
simplification during the phase in, EPA proposes that any CARB Option 1 
vehicles used in the 2017-2019 MY emission standard compliance 
determination be entered into the calculation with the emission level 
equivalent to the Tier 3 vehicle category in which the vehicle model 
would otherwise fit. Furthermore, we are proposing not allowing 
manufacturers to generate emission credits for families certified with 
EPA based on carryover CARB PZEV evaporative emissions data using CARB 
Option 1 as in Table IV-19. We are proposing not to include these 
vehicles in the ABT program since the programs are not directly 
comparable, and the structure of the current CARB ZEV program, which is 
the genesis of most PZEV offerings, allows for a different number of 
PZEV sales as a function of manufacturer size.
    As mentioned above, we are proposing to limit use of credits only 
within a defined averaging set. Cost effective technology is available 
to meet the proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standards on 
average within each of the vehicle categories in the averaging sets, 
especially since the proposed standards are designed to accommodate 
nonfuel hydrocarbon background emissions. Thus, further flexibility is 
not needed. Moreover, we are proposing to constrain averaging to within 
these sets because of equity issues for the manufacturers. We are 
concerned that the four or five manufacturers with a wide variety of 
product offerings in most or all of these categories would have a 
competitive advantage over the majority of manufacturers which have 
more limited product lines. This effect could be even more pronounced 
if the number of evaporative families was considered, since larger more 
diverse manufacturers have more models and thus more evaporative 
families. EPA asks for comment on issues related to averaging sets.
    Manufacturer use of credits from different averaging sets to 
demonstrate compliance would be permitted in limited cases. As noted 
above, if a manufacturer has a credit deficit at the end of a model 
year in a given averaging set, they would have to use credits from the 
same averaging set during the next three years to make up the deficit. 
However, if a deficit still exists at the end of the third year, we 
propose that the manufacturer could use credits from a different 
averaging set to cover the remaining deficit with the following 
limitations. Manufacturers would be able to use credits from the LDV 
and LDT1 averaging set to address remaining deficits in the LDT2 
averaging set, and vice versa. We also are proposing that manufacturers 
be permitted to use credits from the LDT3, LDT4, and MDPV averaging set 
to address remaining deficits in the HDGV averaging set, and vice 
versa. No other use of credit exchanges across different averaging sets 
would be allowed. These restrictions are being proposed because of 
equity concerns caused by the different nature and size of various 
manufacturer product lines.
    During the program phase in there will be a declining percentage of 
vehicles not yet covered by the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 
requirements and thus covered by the current EPA requirements in 40 CFR 
86.1811-09 and 86.008-10. These vehicles would need to be certified to 
current EPA requirements or seek EPA certificates based on LEV II or 
LEVIII emission data, subject to the certification fuel requirements 
discussed below.
    For both the percentage phase-in and sales-weighted average 
calculation steps above, we are proposing to base the calculation on 
nationwide sales (excluding California and the section 177 states in 
the 2017 MY) and annual nationwide sales beginning in the 2018 MY. We 
believe this approach is consistent with the manufacturers' plans for 
50-state vehicles. A program design which would enable a nationwide 
program has been an important premise of this proposal. Furthermore, 
this is simpler for the manufacturers and for EPA since it relieves the 
need to project future model year sales or track past model year sales 
at a disaggregated level. We recognize that decisions by manufacturers 
on a national fleet versus a bifurcated approach such as exists today 
(California and section 177-states separate from the rest of U.S. 
sales) have

[[Page 29891]]

not yet been made.\286\ The CARB LEV III and EPA phase-in requirements 
are identical beginning in 2018, so EPA sees little need for concern 
that a nationwide-based accounting approach could lead to 
disproportionate state by state impacts or the encouragement of 
practices which would lead to any particular state or area not 
receiving the anticipated emission reductions with this nationwide 
approach to the calculation. However, for evaporative emissions for the 
2017 MY we are proposing that percentage phase-in and sales be done on 
a disaggregated level (i.e., California and section 177 states and the 
remainder of the country) since at the present time the anti-
backsliding provisions of the LEV III evaporative emissions program 
stays in place through the 2017 MY. This is being done differently for 
the calculations for the early allowance program because these ``zero 
evap'' vehicles are already counted in the pre-existing ARB program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \286\ If the decision is ultimately made to continue the 
disaggregated approach to fleet compliance calculations, the 
compliance with the proposed Tier 3 requirements would be based on 
U.S. sales (non-California, non-section 177 states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As was discussed above, manufacturers not meeting the percentage 
phase-in requirements would need to include non-Tier 3 vehicles in the 
count and include their emissions in the overall calculation of 
compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal standard and resolve 
shortfalls in compliance with the emission standard with future 
reductions, earned allowances, or credits. Resolving this sales 
percentage shortfall problem becomes a bit more complicated for the 
2017 MY 20 percent option upon which EPA is seeking comment, because it 
would require that 20 percent of vehicles meet the proposed Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements and that 20 percent meet the proposed 
leak emission standard. These may or may not be the same vehicles, 
(e.g., non-Tier 3 vehicles could end up in the end of year calculation 
and we are seeking comment on whether to allow the two 20 percent 
requirements to be allowed to be met on different vehicles). As a means 
to resolve this potential problem, EPA asks comment on a provision 
which would require that any shortfall of either of the 20 percent 
values (Tier 3 evaporative or leak emission standard) for the 2017 MY 
be covered by future sales of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission requirements in excess of the evaporative emission percentage 
sales requirement for that MY or some combination of MYs. For example, 
if a manufacturer were 5 percentage points short in the 2017 MY, then 
it would have to accelerate sales of vehicles meeting Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements in the 2018-2021 MYs to cover the 5 
percentage points (e.g., 65 percent in 2018 instead of 60 percent or 63 
percent in 2018 MY and 62 percent in the 2019 MY, etc.).
e. Small Volume Manufacturers
    As another flexibility, we are proposing that small volume 
manufacturers, those with average annual nationwide sales of 5,000 
units or less, be permitted to delay meeting the proposed Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards, including the requirement to use EPA 
certification test fuel, until the 2022 MY (see Section IV.E.5 below 
for a discussion of our proposed 5,000 vehicle threshold). This would 
include the hot soak plus diurnal standards, the canister bleed 
emission standard, and the leak emission standard. In the interim, 
these vehicles would have to meet the current evaporative and refueling 
emission standards. The initial determination of whether a manufacturer 
is under the 5,000 unit threshold would be based on the three year 
average of actual nationwide sales for MYs 2012-2014. This allowance 
would not be affected if a qualifying manufacturer's nationwide sales 
later exceeded that value before 2022. Similarly, new market entrants 
(not in the market in the 2012 MY) with projected sales of less than 
5,000 units could be covered by the small volume manufacturer 
provisions. However, in this case if actual running average nationwide 
sales exceeded 5,000 units per year in any three consecutive model 
years they would have to meet the Tier 3 evaporative requirements in 
the third model year thereafter. For example, if a new market entrant 
in 2015 projected nationwide production of 4,000 units per year and the 
average of actual values in 2015-2017 exceeded 5,000 units per year 
they would have to meet Tier 3 evaporative requirements by the 2020 MY.
f. High-Altitude Requirements
    We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission standards 
in 2007.\287\ These newest standards apply only to testing under low-
altitude conditions.\288\ In that rule, we decided to continue to apply 
the previous ``Tier 2'' standards for testing under high-altitude 
conditions. This was necessary to achieve an equivalent level of 
overall stringency for high-altitude testing. This was intended to 
account for the various effects of altitude and lower atmospheric 
pressure on vapor generation rates, canister loading and purging 
dynamics, and other aspects of controlling evaporative emissions due 
primarily to lower air and vapor concentrations in air. While it is 
important for vehicles to have effective emission controls at high 
altitudes, we do not want the high-altitude standards and test 
procedures to dictate the fundamental design of the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission control systems since the high altitude vehicle population is 
only about five percent of the national total. Therefore, we believe it 
is appropriate to address this goal by applying the current EPA 2-day 
low altitude evaporative emission standards and requirements for high-
altitude testing. The vehicle categories for the high altitude 
standards in this proposed rule are the same as for the low altitude 
standards. The proposed standards are presented below in Table IV-20. 
This would both reduce emissions at high altitude and again create a 
requirement to confirm that emission controls function effectively at 
high altitude without forcing manufacturers to apply altitude-specific 
technologies. Furthermore, the leak emission standard proposed in 
Section IV.C.5.b below would apply equally at low and high altitude 
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \287\ 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).
    \288\ High-altitude conditions means a test altitude of 1,620 
meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude 
less than 549 meters (1,800 feet).

    Table IV-20 Proposed High-Altitude Evaporative Emission Standards
                                [g/test]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Highest hot soak +
                                                   diurnal level (over
                Vehicle category                   both 2-day and 3-day
                                                     tests) (g/test)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1......................................                     0.65
LDT2...........................................                     0.85
LDT3, LDT4.....................................                     1.15
MDPV...........................................                     1.25
HDGVs <= 14,000 lbs GVWR.......................                     1.75
HDGVs > 14,000 lbs GVWR........................                      2.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few additional points should be noted about our proposed Tier 3 
high altitude evaporative emissions control program. First, by 
proposing to apply the current low altitude evaporative emission 
standards and requirements by category for high-altitude, we are 
proposing not to include the canister bleed test and emission standard. 
These vehicles would have to meet the canister bleed emission standard 
at low altitude and any adjustment to meet the

[[Page 29892]]

standard at high altitude to account for canister adsorption and 
desorption effects of higher altitudes would result in fundamentally 
the same technology and increase the testing burden, but not 
necessarily lead to more emissions control. Therefore, we believe the 
low-altitude canister bleed test is sufficient for achieving the 
proposed level of emission control for operation in both low-altitude 
and high-altitude conditions. Second, for vehicles certified with FELs 
above or below the applicable standard for testing at low altitude, we 
propose that the same differential apply to the FELs for high-altitude. 
For example, if an LDV was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g instead of 
the 0.300 g standard, the high-altitude FEL would be 0.75 g (0.65g + 
0.10g). This high-altitude FEL would not be used for any emission-
credit calculations, but it would be used as the emission standard for 
compliance purposes. Third, gasoline RVP for certification test fuel 
would be set at 7.8 RVP with 15 percent ethanol, as specified in 
Section IV.D. Finally, we are proposing a minor adjustment to the high 
altitude test procedures. Today, the 2- and 3-day test procedures apply 
equally at low and high altitude. We are proposing to keep that 
requirement but to allow for an adjustment of 5[emsp14][deg]F in the 
temperatures related to the running loss test within the 3-day test 
cycle. Thus, the applicable fuel and ambient temperatures at Sec.  
86.134-96 (f) and (g) would 90  5[emsp14][deg]F instead of 
95  5[emsp14][deg]F for high altitude testing. EPA believes 
this is appropriate given the differences in atmospheric conditions at 
low versus high altitude and will still result in equivalent control of 
running loss emissions at higher altitudes. We request comment on the 
alternative approach of keeping test temperatures the same, but 
omitting the 3-day test cycle for testing at high altitude. This would 
effectively establish the 2-day test cycle as a sufficient means of 
demonstrating that emission control systems continue to operate 
properly at high altitude.
    As mentioned above, emission data from vehicles meeting the current 
CARB zero evap and useful life requirements could be used to qualify 
that vehicle to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations for 
the 2017-2019 MYs. To qualify for a federal certificate, the vehicle 
would also have to meet the Tier 3 high altitude evaporative emission 
requirements. While CARB requires vehicles to meet EPA high altitude 
requirements, we ask for comment on the need for and value of an 
interim option which would permit manufacturers to gain such 
certification by an engineering demonstration that the vehicle would 
comply at any altitude rather than by performing additional testing.
g. Technological Feasibility
    The basic technology for controlling evaporative emissions was 
first introduced in the 1970s. Manufacturers routed fuel tank and 
carburetor vapors to a canister filled with activated carbon, where 
vapors were stored until engine operation allowed for purge air to be 
drawn through the canister to extract the vapors for delivery to the 
engine intake. Over the past 30 years, evaporative emission standards 
have changed several times, most notably in the mid-1990s when enhanced 
evaporative controls were required to address 2- and 3-day diurnal 
emissions and running losses. Refueling emission controls were added 
with phase-in beginning in the 1998 MY. Almost universally 
manufacturers elected to integrate evaporative and refueling emission 
control systems. In the mid-2000s more stringent evaporative emission 
standards with E10 durability gasoline led to the development and 
adoption of technology to identify and eliminate permeation of fuel 
through fuel tanks, fuel lines, and other fuel-system components.
i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal
    The current baseline technology for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs is a 
properly designed and assembled fuel/evaporative system for controlling 
emissions over the 2- and 3-day test sequences to meet the current 
standard of 0.650 grams/test. This involves activated carbon canisters 
which capture gasoline vapors, with engine calibrations designed to 
maximize canister purge over the test sequence. Fuel systems generally 
include widespread use of various grades of permeation-resistant 
materials.
    The anticipated control technologies to comply with the proposed 
hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standards include an 
improved carbon canister designs to even better capture vapor emissions 
from the canister, air intake designs to prevent the escape of unburned 
fuel from the engine's crankcase, various upgrades to further limit 
potential micro-sized leaks, and further steps to reduce permeation 
rates. Applying these new or improved technologies will allow 
manufacturers to meet the proposed 300 mg standard for LDVs/LDT1s. The 
proposed evaporative emission standards are slightly higher for larger 
vehicles to account for potentially higher background emissions and in 
some cases larger surface area components, but the baseline and 
anticipated control technologies follow a very similar path. These 
baseline and control technologies are described further in the rest of 
this section.
    Current evaporative canisters use high working-capacity activated 
carbon, usually with multiple compartments, to optimize vapor loading 
and purging behavior. These canisters sometimes employ carbons of 
different working capacities within each chamber. Testing indicates 
that the total canister adsorption capacity in grams of gasoline vapor 
is generally dictated by the requirements of the refueling emission 
test and standard rather than the evaporative emission test (either the 
2- or 3-day sequence).
    Manufacturers have identified the engine's intake system as another 
source of evaporative emissions. These result from crankcase vapors and 
from unburned fuel from injectors, or sometimes from an injection event 
that occurred shortly before engine shutdown. We estimate a typical 
emission rate of about 40 mg associated with each engine shutdown 
event; however, since the actual emission rates depend on timing of 
individual injection events and cylinder position at shutdown, baseline 
emission rates can vary significantly. These vapors must follow a 
contorted path before reaching the ambient air, which would generally 
cause these emissions to show up during the first day of the diurnal 
test rather than the hot soak test. One way to prevent these emissions 
is to add activated carbon to the air intake downstream of the air 
filter, typically in the form of reticulated foam coated with activated 
carbon. This device would have only a few grams of working capacity and 
would be designed to purge easily to ensure that the vapor storage is 
available at engine shutdown. This carbon insert would almost 
completely eliminate any vapor emissions from the air intake system.
    Manufacturers wanting to avoid adding any specialized emission 
control component to control evaporative emissions from the air intake 
could pursue alternative approaches. First, it is possible to allow the 
engine to continue rotating for 2-3 revolutions after engine shutdown 
to sweep any hydrocarbon vapors from the intake system into or through 
the cylinder. These vapors could be burned in the cylinder, oxidized at 
the catalyst, or stored until the engine starts again. This may still 
allow for a small amount of residual vapor release, but this should be 
a very small quantity. Vehicle owners

[[Page 29893]]

would be unlikely to notice this amount of engine operation after 
shutdown. Second, to the extent that manufacturers use direct 
injection, there should be no fuel vapor coming from the intake system. 
Any unburned fuel coming from the injectors would be preserved in the 
cylinder or released to the exhaust system and the catalyst. A small 
amount of crankcase vapor might remain, but this would likely not be 
enough to justify adding carbon to the intake system.
    Fuel tanks are designed to limit permeation emissions. Fuel tanks 
are typically made of high-density polyethylene with an embedded 
barrier layer of ethyl vinyl alcohol (EvOH) representing about 1.8 
percent of the average wall thickness. The EvOH layer is effective for 
reducing permeation emissions. Recent developments in production 
processes have led to improved barrier coverage around the ends of the 
tank where the molded plastic is pinch-welded to form a closed vessel. 
We are expecting manufacturers to increase the EvOH barrier thickness 
to about 3 percent of the average wall thickness to provide a more 
uniform barrier layer, to provide better protection with ethanol-based 
fuels, and to improve permeation resistance generally. These changes 
are expected to decrease emission rates over the diurnal test from 
about 40 mg per day to 15 mg per day from the fuel tank assembly or 
less.
    Fuel lines are also already designed for low permeation rates. The 
biggest portion of fuel and vapor lines are made of metal, but that may 
still leave several feet of nonmetal fuel line. There may be 
development of new materials to further reduce permeation rates, but it 
is more likely that manufacturers will adjust the mix of existing types 
of plastic fuel lines to achieve the desired performance at the lowest 
possible price.
    The bigger area of expected development with respect to fuel lines 
is to re-engineer fuel systems to further reduce the number of 
connections between fuel-system components and other fuel-line 
segments. Today these systems may involve more than the optimum number 
of connections and segments due to assembly and production 
considerations or other factors. Designing the fuel system more 
carefully to minimize connection points will limit possible paths for 
fuel vapors to escape. This would reduce emission rates and it should 
also improve system durability by eliminating potential failure points. 
A broader approach to addressing this source of emissions is to 
integrate designs and to move fuel-system components inside the fuel 
tank, which eliminates the concern for vapor emissions and permeation 
from those components and connections.
    A remaining area of potential evaporative emissions is the 
connection between the fill neck and the fuel tank. Manufacturers can 
reduce emissions by perhaps 10 mg per day by making this connection 
permeation-resistant. The challenge is to design a low-cost solution 
that is easily assembled and works for the demanding performance needs 
related to stiffness/flexibility. The best approach is likely either to 
use mating parts made from low-permeation materials, or to use 
conventional materials but cover this joint with material that acts as 
a barrier layer.
    Purge rates are currently designed to flow relatively large volumes 
of outside air through the canister when the purge solenoid is 
activated. This involves using available manifold vacuum to create 
purge flow, with limits in place to avoid drawing too much unmetered 
fuel vapor from the canister. Tightening the evaporative emission 
standard would lead manufacturers to address remaining emission sources 
from micro-size leak points, permeation, and diffusion, as noted above. 
Since the amount of additional vapor being captured by the carbon 
canister is small and the test procedure is not changing, we do not 
expect the change in standards to drive changes in purge strategy, 
rates, or canister capacity. Nonetheless, vehicle system and engine 
changes to improve fuel economy could impact future purge strategies. 
Thus, as part of this approach, manufacturers may incorporate designs 
to reduce vapor volume/mass directed to the canister and thus 
potentially reduce the purge air volume requirements. In addition, 
canister designs can be optimized to increase the effectiveness of a 
given volume of purge air. This could involve selecting different 
combinations of carbon characteristics and canister architecture types 
and by adding features to add heat (or preserve heat) in the canister 
during a purge event. It is also possible that fuel economy strategies 
which impact purge volume may lead some manufacturers to add vacuum 
pumps to supplement engine-based purge on some vehicle models in the 
future.
    It is worth noting that there may be some models where 
manufacturers incorporate hardware or another control technique that 
may not be widely used across by all manufacturers or across all 
models. This is especially true for this set of proposed emission 
control requirements since we are considering such a wide array of 
basic vehicle and engine designs. Also, future vehicle/engine systems 
such as hybrids may have more unique challenges in areas such as the 
diurnal fuel tank vapor load sent to the activated carbon canister and 
subsequent purging of those vapors. In response to this challenge, 
manufacturers may employ techniques to reduce fuel tank vapor 
generation and/or to enhance purge efficiency. Hardware such as a vapor 
blocking valve or other techniques to enhance purge efficiency from the 
canister through heating may be employed to a limited degree.
    The technologies discussed above are in use to varying degrees on 
many of the CARB PZEV zero evap vehicles mentioned above. Taken 
together, we believe these technologies provide manufacturers with 
effective tools for reducing emissions sufficiently to meet the 
proposed evaporative emission standards.
ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard
    More stringent evaporative emission standards have led to more 
careful measurements, which led manufacturers to discover that 80 mg or 
more of fuel vapor would diffuse from the canister vent as a result of 
the normal redistribution of vapors within the activated carbon while 
the vehicle is at rest. The emission rate depends on the tank volume, 
its fill quantity, and the size and architecture of the canister and 
the characteristics of the carbon itself. While the biggest effect of 
this vapor distribution is a uniform concentration within the canister, 
it can also cause vapors to escape through the canister vent even 
without continued canister loading that would result from fuel tank 
heating. These are referred to as canister bleed emissions. These 
emissions occur to some degree during the 2- and 3-day evaporative 
emissions test, but a separate standard is needed if the goal of near 
zero fuel vapor emissions is to be achieved.
    The design to address this concern is a supplemental ``scrubber'' 
canister (or canister compartment) with a very low working capacity 
carbon. Adding 100 or 200 ml of this type of carbon near the canister 
vent provides a margin of ``reserve capacity'' to capture diffusion 
losses from the canister. Since this extra carbon has low working 
capacity and it purges readily, it is typically cleared of hydrocarbon 
vapors and ready to perform its function after any amount of engine 
operation or even with natural back purge which occurs when the fuel in 
the tank cools. This scrubber element is expected to eliminate all but 
5-10 mg of emissions from the evaporative canister over the measurement 
procedure.

[[Page 29894]]

iii. Leak Emission Standard
    Vapor leaks in the vehicle fuel/evaporative system can arise from 
micro-cracks or other flaws in various fuel/evaporative system 
component structures or welds, problems with component installations, 
and more generally from connections between components and fuel lines 
and vapor lines. Because these emissions from these areas would occur 
in the 2-3 day evaporative emissions test if the problems were present, 
manufacturers have taken steps to address these potential problem areas 
as part of their overall evaporative emissions control strategy. Since 
the 2- and 3-day hot soak plus diurnal standards are proposed to become 
more stringent and leak emissions occur during the evaporative 
emissions test, we expect manufacturers to take the measures described 
above in Section IV.C.2.g.i. These include reducing connections, 
improving the quality of fuel and vapor line connections, use of 
improved component materials and revised installation practices. 
Manufacturers could also review their OBD leak warranty data and 
related information from OBD queries to help inform their strategies. 
One of the key reasons for proposing a leak emission standard is to 
promote the continuing development of designs, part production 
techniques, and assembly practices which will yield less in-use 
emissions deterioration and improved in-use emissions performance. EPA 
believes this focus on in-use durability is important because a vehicle 
with even a small leak, e.g., the size of the 0.020-0.040 inch orifice 
diameter monitored by OBD systems would likely emit above the proposed 
hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standard in use.
3. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements
a. Overview of the Proposal for HDGVs
    As presented above, EPA is proposing to include HDGVs within the 
Tier 3 evaporative emissions program. The proposed hot soak plus 
diurnal and canister bleed test emission standards that would apply to 
these HDGVs are as presented in Table IV-18 and the high altitude 
standard is presented in Table IV-20. These vehicles would be included 
in the averaging calculation beginning in the 2018 MY and would be 
eligible for creating and using allowances and credits as discussed 
above. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed below, EPA is proposing 
that HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs GVWR be required to meet 
the refueling emission standard by the 2018 MY.
b. Background on the HDGV Sector
    HDGVs are generally gasoline-powered vehicles with either a GVWR of 
greater than 8,500 lbs, or a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 
lbs, or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet.\289\ 
HDGVs are predominantly but not exclusively commercial vehicles, mostly 
trucks and other work type vehicles built on truck chassis. EPA often 
discusses HDGVs in three basic categories for regulatory purposes 
according to their GVWR class. These include Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lbs 
GVWR), Class 3 (10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR), and Class 4 and above (over 
14,000 lbs GVWR). These are further sub-categorized into complete and 
incomplete vehicles.\290\ Class 2b HDGVs are mostly produced by the 
manufacturers as complete vehicles and are very similar to lower GVWR 
LDTs of the same basic model sold by the manufacturers. Class 3 HDGVs 
are also built from LDT chassis with fuel system designs that are 
similar to their Class 2b and LDT counterparts, but these are on some 
occasions sent to secondary manufacturers as incomplete vehicles to 
attach a load carrying device or container. EPA estimates that more 
than 95 percent of Class 2b/3 vehicles are complete when they leave the 
original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Class 4 and above HDGVs are 
built on a more traditional heavy-truck chassis and in most cases leave 
the OEM as an incomplete vehicle. For Class 2b/3 vehicles, it is common 
to certify the vehicle for emissions purposes (exhaust, evaporative, 
etc) as a full chassis, while for Class 4 and above the vehicle is 
certified as a chassis for evaporative emissions while the engine is 
dynamometer certified for exhaust emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \289\ MDPVs also meet the definition of HDVs, but they are 
classified separately for evaporative and refueling emission 
purposes. See 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
    \290\ Vehicles may be complete or incomplete vehicles. A 
complete HDGV is one that has the primary load carrying device or 
container (or equivalent equipment) attached, normally by the 
vehicle OEM. An incomplete vehicle is one that does not have the 
primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment) 
attached when it is first sold. This may include vehicles sold to 
secondary vehicle manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For LDVs and LDTs, the current EPA evaporative and refueling 
emission test procedures are the same for all vehicle categories and 
the emission standards are of a similar but not always identical 
stringency, within the subclasses. However, this is not true for HDGVs. 
For HDGVs, the level of the evaporative emission standards and the test 
procedures vary by category and the refueling emission control 
requirements are also different. There are several reasons for these 
differences, including variations in the size, design, and other 
properties of the basic fuel system, the dimensions of the vehicles, 
and the potential for actions of secondary manufacturers to impact the 
fuel system. There are many fuel system similarities between Class 2b/3 
HDGVs and heavy LDTs, but fewer similarities between heavy LDTs and 
HDGVs in Class 4 and above.
    Over the past 15 to 20 years, there have been several notable 
changes in HDGV products and market that have influenced the 
application of evaporative and refueling emission control requirements 
and may impact potential new or revised requirements going forward. 
Most noteworthy among these are the increased use of diesel engines 
across all weight classes and the emergence of better defined market 
segments for primary OEMs and secondary manufacturers.
    The increased use of diesel engines has reduced overall HDGV sales 
and brought about a consolidation of manufacturer HDGV product 
offerings. For Class 2b/3 HDGVs, these are now all derived from LDT 
chassis and have the same basic fuel system and engine characteristics. 
This has led EPA to extend the light-duty evaporative and refueling 
test procedures and emission standards to the Class 2b/3 HDGVs, when 
applicable. In a rule promulgated in 2000, EPA required manufacturers 
to certify these HDGVs using light-duty test procedures. Also, in this 
same rule, EPA extended the vehicle refueling emission standards to 
complete Class 2b vehicles. These actions were technically appropriate 
because of the similarities between the LDT and Class 2b HDGVs and fuel 
systems and the large fraction of complete Class 2b HDGVs produced by 
the vehicle manufacturers. Today, fuel systems for Class 3 HDGVs are 
comparable those for Class 2b HDGVs, so it is reasonable and 
technically feasible to extend the Class 2b refueling emission 
requirements to Class 3 HDGVs.
    Class 4 and heavier HDGVs still play a small but important role in 
the traditional truck and heavy-duty vehicle markets. These vehicles 
are sometimes distinctly different from Class 2b/3 vehicles in terms of 
testing, chassis designs, and fuel system characteristics; secondary 
manufacturers also play a larger role in the overall completion of the 
vehicle. For these vehicles, the engines are certified for emissions on 
an engine dynamometer while the evaporative emissions are certified 
separately on the vehicle chassis. Furthermore, these vehicles are 
larger

[[Page 29895]]

dimensionally (which often means longer fuel and vapor lines) and have 
larger volume fuel tanks (sometimes two), which may be mounted on the 
underbody or side-rail. It is common for a secondary manufacturer to 
complete the vehicle by adding the cargo container or other working 
equipment box or package (e.g., small cargo truck or tow truck) and in 
some cases to reconfigure components. While the extrapolation of 
refueling emission control technology is conceptually straightforward, 
in some cases there may be unique technical issues related to 
implementing refueling emission controls for these heavier HDGVs 
relative to Class 2b/3 HDGVs and LDTs.
    Based on these considerations, EPA is proposing that the refueling 
emission standards in Sec.  86.1816-05 to apply to Class 3 HDGVs as 
well. This is appropriate because the fuel and evaporative control 
systems on these vehicles are very similar to those on their slightly 
lighter-weight Class 2b counterparts, and in some cases Class 3 HDGVs 
are already designed to meet this proposed requirement. EPA is 
proposing that this requirement be met beginning in the 2018 MY. EPA is 
also proposing that manufacturers be permitted to comply as early as 
the 2015 MY to earn on a one-to-one basis allowances which could be 
used to phase-in the Class 3 refueling emission control requirement or 
as an allowance under the Tier 3 evaporative emission program. EPA 
believes this is appropriate since the expected daily average reduction 
in vehicle refueling emissions for this class of vehicles is large 
relative to the reduction in evaporative emissions expected under Tier 
3. Any certifications, including those done early, must use EPA Tier 3 
test procedures and certification test fuels.
c. Other Potential Program Elements for HDGVs
    EPA is seeking comments on several other programmatic elements 
related to the Tier 3 evaporative and refueling emission control 
proposal.
    First, even if we do not revise the current evaporative emission 
standards for these vehicles and they are not required to control 
refueling emissions, we are seeking comment on requiring manufacturers 
to certify their evaporative emissions using Tier 3 certification test 
fuel. Tier 3 certification test fuel would provide equivalent or better 
emissions control as compared to current certification test fuel in 
terms of the fuel quality impact on emission control system designs to 
meet the existing evaporative emission standards and would provide 
equivalent or better in-use performance. Requiring this new 
certification test fuel has the potential to add efficiency to the 
certification process since manufacturers could certify one system for 
EPA and CARB for each evaporative family. Since incomplete vehicles and 
those over 14,000 lbs GVWR often do not use the same test vehicle/
engine for evaporative and exhaust emission testing, we seek comment on 
whether a requirement for vehicle evaporative and/or refueling emission 
certification on Tier 3 test fuel would technically necessitate engine 
exhaust emission certification on Tier 3 test fuel.
    Second, as mentioned in Section IV. B., EPA is also seeking comment 
on requiring the use of Tier 3 certification test fuel for HDGVs which 
are engine-dynamometer certified, not chassis-certified, for exhaust 
emissions. This would potentially include all engine families certified 
for use in HDGVs above 8,500 lbs. GVWR. We are seeking comment on this 
change because we believe it may be the best and most representative 
technical approach for the future in the context of the engine/emission 
control system/fuel system design and performance and fuel quality. 
Overall, we believe this change to the certification test fuel for 
HDGVs would provide equivalent or better emissions control for the 
regulated pollutants as compared to current certification test fuel, in 
terms of the impact of fuel quality on emission control system designs 
and in-use performance, and may also simplify manufacturers' testing 
operations by providing for a single test fuel. We are also seeking 
comment on putting this requirement in place in the 2020-2022 MY time 
frame. Consistent with the approach proposed in Section IV.D.4 for 
light- and heavy-duty vehicles, we are committed to the principle of 
ensuring that any change in test fuel for heavy-duty engines would not 
affect the stringency of either the fuel consumption or GHG emissions 
standards. As part of the separate rulemaking discussed in Section 
IV.D.4, we would expect to establish the appropriate test procedure 
adjustment for HD engine fuel consumption standards and to determine 
the need for any test procedure adjustment for GHG emissions standards 
based on the change in certification test fuels.
    Third, to simplify the evaporative emission regulations for HDGVs 
and to bring them more in line with the current structure of the 
product offerings in this sector, we are proposing to permit 
evaporative emissions certification by engineering analysis for 
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR (instead of above 26,000 lbs GVWR as is 
permitted in the current regulations). These HDGVs would remain subject 
to the emission standards when tested using the specified procedures. 
This is the same cut point allowed by CARB and would allow for one 
certification method. Furthermore, for HDGVs over 14,000 lbs GVWR, we 
request comment on taking an additional step to rely even further on 
design parameters and engineering analysis. Under this approach, 
manufacturers would need to demonstrate that the design of their purge 
strategy, canister capacity, and overall control system would control 
emissions to the same degree as similar (or comparable) Class 2b or 
Class 3 vehicles that meet emission standards when tested over the 
established measurement procedures. The standard would be a performance 
standard in that the manufacturer could use any design that met the 
criteria of controlling emissions to the same degree that occurs in 
vehicles that meet the emissions standard. However, unlike the proposed 
approach, compliance with the standard would be based solely on an 
engineering review of the design. Compliance would not be determined by 
measuring performance on the emissions test. This would take into 
account the limitations in managing any significant degree of testing 
with these over-size vehicles. In particular, we request comment on the 
enforceability of taking the approach of a design standard.
    Fourth, we are proposing a revised description of evaporative 
emission families that does not reference sealing methods for 
carburetors or air cleaners as this technology is now obsolete for 
heavy-duty gasoline engines.
    Fifth, we also seek comment on the implications on these 
evaporative emission standards were we to require the certification 
test fuel to be 10 psi RVP E10 as discussed below in Section IV.D.1.
    Sixth, we are proposing to clarify how evaporative emission 
standards affect engine manufacturers and proposing more descriptive 
provisions related to certifying vehicles above 26,000 lbs GVWR using 
engineering analysis. These improved descriptive provisions would apply 
to vehicles above 14,000 GVWR lbs if the proposed change in GVWR cut 
point for engineering analysis certification is finalized.
    Finally, EPA is asking for comment on several other provisions 
related to the heavier HDGVs (over 14,000 lbs GVWR). First, if we do 
not include these heavier HDGVs in the Tier 3 final rule requirements, 
we are asking comment on whether manufacturers should be

[[Page 29896]]

able to voluntarily certify any HDGVs not covered by the rule to the 
same requirements as being proposed for Class 2b/3 HDGVs, and through 
this action earn allowances and credits for use within the Tier 3 
program as discussed above for other vehicles. This would include both 
evaporative and refueling emissions standards. Second, EPA also asks 
comment on whether there should be a provision to permit HDGVs over 
14,000 lbs GVWR to be grouped with those between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs 
GVWR for purposes of complying with evaporative and refueling emission 
control standards and related provisions. In these cases, we would 
expect these HDGVs to meet all the requirements applicable to the group 
in which they are being included (e.g., useful life, OBD, etc.).
4. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel
a. Review and Update of Testing Requirements
    EPA adopted the current test requirements for controlling 
evaporative emissions in 1993.\291\ Those changes included: (1) Diurnal 
testing based on heating and cooling the ambient air in the SHED \292\ 
instead of forcing fuel temperatures through a specified temperature 
excursion; (2) repeated 24-hour diurnal measurements to capture both 
permeation and diurnal emissions; (3) high-temperature hot soak 
testing; (4) high-temperature running-loss measurements with a separate 
standard, including controlled fuel temperatures according to a fuel-
temperature profile developed for the vehicle; and (5) canister 
preconditioning to ensure that vehicles could effectively create 
canister capacity to prepare for several days of non-driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993).
    \292\ SHED is the Federal Register acronym for sealed housing 
for evaporative determination. The SHED is the enclosure in which 
the evaporative emissions are captured before measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These test procedures are generally referred to as ``enhanced 
evap'' testing. EPA adopted these ``enhanced evap'' test procedures in 
coordination with CARB. The test requirements include two separate test 
sequences to demonstrate the effectiveness of evaporative emission 
controls. The ``two-diurnal sequence'' involves canister loading to 
two-gram breakthrough, followed by driving for the exhaust test (about 
31 minutes), a hot soak test, and two days of cycled ambient 
temperatures. The ``three-day sequence'' involves canister loading with 
50 percent more vapor than needed to reach breakthrough, followed by 
driving for the exhaust test, driving for the running loss test (about 
97 minutes total), a high-temperature hot-soak test, and three days of 
cycled ambient temperature.
    The 2-day sequence was intended primarily to insure a purge 
strategy which would create enough canister capacity to capture two 
days of diurnal emissions after limited driving. The two-day 
measurement period was effective for requiring control of permeation 
and other fugitive emissions. The 3-day sequence was intended to 
establish a design benchmark for achieving adequate canister storage 
capacity to allow for several days of parking on hot summer days, in 
addition to requiring vehicle designs that prevent emissions during 
high-temperature driving and shutdown conditions.
    After adopting these evaporative test procedures, we set new 
standards for refueling emissions control which called for onboard 
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR).\293\ Manufacturers have typically 
designed their ORVR systems to be integrated with their evaporative 
controls, using a single canister and purge strategy to manage all fuel 
vapors vented from the fuel tank. Due to the magnitude of the refueling 
emission load and the manner in which the load rates affect activated 
carbon capture efficiency, it has become clear that ORVR testing with 
these integrated systems serves as the benchmark for achieving adequate 
canister storage capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the nearly 20 years since adopting these test procedures, 
manufacturers have made great strides in developing designs and 
technologies to manage canister loading and purging and to reduce 
permeation emissions. Except as discussed below, we are not proposing 
to change the test procedures for demonstrating compliance with the 
proposed Tier 3 emission standards.
    As described above, we are proposing to adopt a new standard based 
on measured values over a ``canister bleed test,'' which is intended to 
measure only fuel vapors which diffuse from the evaporative canister. 
CARB developed this procedure as a means of setting a standard that 
would not be affected by nonfuel background emissions. This procedure 
is a variation of the established two-day test sequence. The canister 
is preconditioned by purging and loading to breakthrough, then attached 
to an appropriate test vehicle for driving over the duty cycle for the 
exhaust test. The canister is then attached to a fuel tank for 
measurement. After a stabilization period, the tank and canister 
undergo two days of temperature cycling. Canister emissions are 
measured using a flame ionization detector (FID), either using a 
conventional SHED approach or by collecting emissions in a bag and 
measuring the mass. Rather than repeating CARB's regulations, we are 
proposing to incorporate those regulations by reference into the CFR. 
This will avoid the possibility of complications related to minor 
differences that may occur with separate test procedures.
    CARB also adopted a fuel system ``rig test'' as an optional 
approach to demonstrate control of evaporative emissions without the 
effects of the nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions that are seen in testing 
the whole vehicle in the SHED. We generally expect manufacturers to 
comply with the proposed EPA requirements which include the canister 
bleed test and emission standard instead of CARB Option 1 which 
includes the rig test and emission standard. However, since we are 
proposing to accept CARB Option 1 certifications for the 2017 through 
2019 model years, we are also proposing to incorporate by reference 
CARB's rig test into the CFR to accommodate those manufacturers that do 
in fact rely on this approach.
    Also, as discussed further below, we are proposing to adopt a new 
leak test procedure which would be used to measure leak rates for the 
proposed leak emission standard. The leak test standard test procedure 
is contained in the proposed regulatory text. Further detail can be 
found in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (Appendix to Chapter 1).
    Manufacturers have raised a pair of related concerns regarding the 
current test procedures. First, hybrid vehicles and new engine designs 
for meeting fuel economy standards and CO2 emission 
standards increase the challenge of maintaining an adequate purge 
volume to prepare vehicles for the diurnal test. For hybrid vehicles 
this is related to the amount of time the engine is running. For other 
technologies this is related to the trend toward decreasing available 
vacuum in the intake manifold, which is the principal means of drawing 
purge air through the canister. Second, preconditioning the canister by 
loading to breakthrough serves as a disincentive for some control 
strategies that might otherwise be effective at reducing emissions, 
such as designs involving greater canister capacity or better 
containment of fuel vapors inside the fuel tank. In addition, we have 
learned from studying in-use emissions and in-

[[Page 29897]]

use driving behaviors and usage patterns that it is not uncommon for 
vehicles to go for an extended period with little or no opportunity to 
purge the canister.
    We request comment on an optional adjustment to the test procedure 
intended to address these three concerns. In this alternative, for 
designs involving pressurized tanks, manufacturers would determine an 
alternative vapor load to precondition the canister before the exhaust 
test. If, for example, a fuel system is designed to stay sealed up to 1 
psi and to vent vapors to the canister if rising temperatures trigger a 
pressure-relief valve, the manufacturer could quantify the actual vapor 
load to the canister during three consecutive days of cycling through 
diurnal test temperatures. This three-day vapor load would be the 
amount of fuel vapor used to precondition the canister (loaded at the 
established rate of 15 grams per hour). This canister loading may also 
involve butane instead of fuel vapor, but we would likely require a 
greater mass of butane to account for the fact that it is easier to 
remove the butane from the activated carbon in the canister. This 
approach would be flexible to accommodate any design target for 
pressurizing fuel tanks. Canister preconditioning for the ORVR test 
(for integrated and nonintegrated systems) would remain unchanged.
b. Test Fuel
    EPA is proposing to change the certification test fuel 
specifications as described in Section IV.D. Here we discuss some 
implications for evaporative and refueling emissions testing. We are 
proposing to revise the certification test fuel specification 
(including durability fuel) in conjunction with the proposed Tier 3 
standards, principally to include ethanol and reduce sulfur such that 
the test fuel better aligns with the current and projected in-use fuel. 
Any Tier 3 evaporative emission certification would have to use Tier 3 
certification test fuel and test procedures. This could be done as 
early as the 2015 MY and would be required for all vehicle models by 
the 2020 MY. We are further proposing to apply the new test fuel at the 
same time to ORVR testing. Therefore, beginning in the 2017 MY if 
manufacturers do any new testing to demonstrate compliance with the 
proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, they would need to 
submit test data to demonstrate compliance with the refueling emission 
standards using the new certification test fuel as well as the leak 
(when applicable), refueling, canister bleed, and high altitude testing 
requirements and emission standards. We are also proposing that any 
family that is not yet captured within the Tier 3 phase-in percentage 
may remain on current certification fuel or, as discussed below, 
California certification test fuel and test procedures through the 2019 
MY. By the 2020 MY all evaporative and refueling emission 
certifications would have to be on EPA test procedures and 
certification fuels. It is useful to clarify that any confirmatory or 
in-use testing for these families would be done on the fuel on which 
they were originally certified. However, by the 2020 MY all vehicles 
must be certified with Tier 3 certification test fuel and that test 
fuel would have to be used in confirmatory and in-use testing.
    Finally, we are proposing that any vehicle certified to the 
refueling spit back standard separately (mostly incomplete HDGVs) may 
continue to do so using current certification fuel until the 2022 MY 
even if it's evaporative and/or refueling emissions are certified on 
Tier 3 certification fuel. This is reasonable since the fill quality of 
the vehicle and eliminating spit back are not necessarily related to 
the ethanol or sulfur content of the gasoline.
    There are two main fuel properties that influence evaporative 
emissions: Ethanol content and vapor pressure. Current requirements 
specify an emission test fuel with no ethanol for emissions testing; 
however, the current regulation specifies that manufacturers must 
perform service accumulation (durability) using fuel with, at a 
minimum, the highest concentration of ethanol permissible under federal 
law for in-use gasoline and that is commercially available in at least 
one state. In this case, this provision has the effect of insuring that 
manufacturers would design their fuel systems to account for the effect 
of ethanol on permeation emissions. Even without ethanol in the test 
fuel, the extended operation with gasoline-ethanol blends for service 
accumulation would effectively force the manufacturers to design 
systems which effectively control emissions from the blended fuel. By 
regulation manufacturers must use a 10 percent ethanol fuel in current 
evaporative emissions durability work. As a result, adding ethanol to 
the test fuel for Tier 3 evaporative and refueling emission testing 
should pose no new or greater challenge for manufacturers. A second 
issue related to adding ethanol to the certification test fuel relates 
to the emission measurement in the SHED. Emissions are detected by 
flame ionization detectors (FID), which are less responsive to ethanol 
than gasoline. This effect causes under-reporting from the ethanol 
portion of the fuel vapor. Fuel-related emissions from the vehicle may 
be slightly more weighted toward ethanol than gasoline, depending on 
how the different fuel constituents permeate through various fuel-
system materials, how they evaporate from the bulk fuel in the tank at 
varying temperatures, and how they adsorb onto and desorb from the 
activated carbon in the canister. We are proposing to address this 
issue by the use of a prescribed scaling factor. Under this approach 
manufacturers would simply multiply their SHED measurement results by a 
fixed value to adjust upward for the difference in the FID response to 
ethanol. Data available to EPA suggest that a scaling value of 
approximately 1.1 would be appropriate for E15.\294\ This means that 
the value measured in the SHED would be multiplied by 1.10 to account 
for a difference in the FID response. This was determined using data 
which indicates that from a near worst case perspective the term within 
the bracket { {time}  below equals 1.1.

    \294\ Moulis, C. (2012, January). SHED FID Responses for 
Ethanol. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MHC adj = [(PBVn/T)-
(.000297)(ppmCfid)*{1 + ((1-ra) 
(reth))/ 1 + ((reth)(ra)){time} ]

    This adjustment would apply to hot soak plus diurnal, refueling, 
canister bleed, and spitback emission standards testing. For higher 
ethanol blends (such as E85), the regulation already specifies 
measurement and calculation procedures to adjust for this effect. We 
are not proposing any changes to these procedures.
c. Vehicle Preconditioning for Nonfuel Hydrocarbon Emissions for the 
Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
    The proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal, leak, and canister bleed 
emission standards taken together are expected to bring about the 
widespread use of technology which effectively eliminates fuel vapor 
emissions. The canister bleed and leak emission standards are not 
influenced by non fuel hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle. Nonfuel 
hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle are measured as part of SHED 
emission testing, and are indistinguishable for fuel hydrocarbons when 
a FID is used to measure the concentration. The level of these nonfuel 
hydrocarbon emissions vary by vehicle and component design and 
material. These emissions arise from paint, adhesives, plastics, fuel/
vapor lines, tires, and other rubber or polymer components and are 
generally greater

[[Page 29898]]

with larger size vehicles. These nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions are 
usually highest with newly manufactured vehicles and decrease 
relatively quickly over time.
    Currently, manufacturers often conduct some preconditioning to 
reduce or eliminate the effects of these nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions 
on evaporative emissions measurements in the SHED. In the past, this 
practice has not been addressed through regulatory provisions. However, 
given the stringent level of the proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal 
evaporative emission standards, and that nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions 
are expected to be a significant portion of the hydrocarbon emissions 
measured in the SHED, EPA believes that some sort of preconditioning 
before certification testing is appropriate and that a regulatory 
provision addressing this practice may be warranted. Providing some 
recognition of and allowance for this practice would help to create the 
proper balance between necessary and proper preconditioning to address 
high nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions and excessive preconditioning which 
could undermine the intent of the proposed hot soak plus diurnal 
emission standard (~ 50 mg or less of fuel evaporative emissions). EPA 
believes the goal of evaporative emissions preconditioning should be to 
get nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions to what we call vehicle background 
levels. A working definition of vehicle background level might be the 
level which would occur naturally twelve months after production. A 
provision in the regulations which addresses preconditioning reduces 
ambiguity for the manufacturers and could reduce or eliminate any 
uncertainty in the true meaning of certification test results.
    Manufacturer activity with regard to preconditioning often involves 
two practices. First, manufacturers in some cases ``bake'' their test 
vehicles at temperatures of 50 [deg]C or higher for periods of up to 
ten or more days to accelerate the off-gassing of these nonfuel 
hydrocarbon emissions before testing is conducted. While this practice 
is common, there is no standardized method or protocol for this 
preconditioning prior to new vehicle certification testing. For 
example, some manufacturers bake for a set period of time in a climate 
chamber while others bake in the climate chamber and periodically 
measure nonfuel background in a SHED until an acceptable or stable 
level of nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions is achieved. Second, 
manufacturers often remove, modify, or clean certain components which 
are the largest source of nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions. 
Preconditioning could also include measures to eliminate minor fuel 
drips, spills, or other fuel remnants which occur as a result of 
vehicle preparation for testing.
    We are not proposing to specify standardized preconditioning 
practices or protocols with regard to addressing nonfuel hydrocarbon 
emissions before evaporative emission certification testing. However, 
we are proposing general provisions in four areas. First, we would 
specify in the regulations that preconditioning for the purpose of 
addressing nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions is permitted. Second, we would 
specify that any preconditioning is voluntary. Third, we would specify 
that if preconditioning is conducted, the details must be specified to 
EPA before certification testing, (i.e., at the time of the pre-
certification planning meeting). The goal of this preconditioning 
should be to get nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions to what we would term 
vehicle background levels as discussed above. The specifics to be 
discussed with EPA could include details on vehicle baking practices 
such the temperature and time duration in the climate chamber and 
practices conducted as an alternative or complement to vehicle baking 
such as installing used tires (drive and spare) on certification 
vehicles, and allowing the windshield washer tank to be filled only 
with water. In seeking to understand this issue, we ask for comment on 
which components are the largest sources of these nonfuel hydrocarbons 
and of these which are practical to modify or remove for the 
evaporative emissions test.
    Fourth, as part of these considerations we would specifically 
propose that no preconditioning be permitted for testing of any vehicle 
aged more than twelve months from its date of manufacture. The only 
exception we would consider is the use of an aged spare tire in lieu of 
the spare tire on the test vehicle. For these vehicles, nonfuel 
hydrocarbon emissions would presumably be reduced to a stable level due 
to natural off gassing which begins after the vehicle is manufactured. 
Emissions from any replacement parts or other vehicle maintenance would 
presumably be encompassed within the margin below the standard created 
by this natural off-gassing. EPA asks comment on how to address testing 
of vehicles with relatively new drive tires and whether used drive 
tires should be allowed in these circumstances. Data available to EPA 
indicates that the background emission rate stabilizes to about two-
thirds of the level of the standard after about twelve months. These 
levels are adequately below the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards so that nonfuel background would not unduly influence test 
pass/fail outcomes and are within the range of values EPA expects to be 
accommodated within the proposed evaporative emission standard. This 
proposed restriction for vehicles older than 12 months would include 
certification, confirmatory and in-use testing for any vehicle 
certified to the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. We 
request manufacturer data related to the change in nonfuel hydrocarbon 
emission rates over time and on the best method to consider these 
emissions as part of preconditioning before evaporative emission 
testing.
d. Reciprocity With CARB
    Over the past 15 years EPA's ``enhanced evap'' test procedures have 
been based on testing with 9 pound per square inch (psi) RVP gasoline 
with test temperatures representing a summer day with peak temperatures 
of about 96[emsp14][deg]F. CARB adopted the same basic procedures, but 
specified that testing should occur with 7 psi RVP gasoline at 
temperatures of up to 105[emsp14][deg]F. EPA and CARB agreed that 
certification could be based on testing with either EPA or CARB 
conditions and that these provided equivalent stringency for purposes 
of evaporative control system design. However, the provision allowing 
for this equivalence of test data preserved EPA's ability to also test 
with either EPA or CARB temperature conditions. CARB always specified 
EPA test conditions for refueling as they were deemed worst case. CARB 
recently moved to change their certification test fuel to a 7 RVP 
gasoline with 10 percent ethanol and as discussed in Section IV.D, we 
are now proposing to change the Federal certification test fuel 
specification to a 9 RVP gasoline with 15 percent ethanol.
    During the development of this proposal we carefully considered the 
practice of CARB/EPA reciprocity with regard to certification test 
fuels, hot soak plus diurnal test procedures, and emission test results 
when it comes to evaporative emissions certification. With this notice 
we are proposing a revised approach to the CARB/EPA reciprocity with 
regard to evaporative and refueling emissions. A uniform national 
certification test fuel is important to the design of fuel/evaporative 
systems which will operate effectively across the U.S. Consistent with 
our desire to have a national program with vehicles designed for E15 as 
discussed in Section IV.D, and

[[Page 29899]]

consistent with our treatment of exhaust emission standards, we are 
proposing a 9 RVP test fuel with 15 percent ethanol for all evaporative 
(hot soak plus diurnal, canister bleed, and leak emission standards) 
and refueling emissions testing. Thus, after the evaporative emissions 
fuel phase-in discussed above (ending after the 2019 MY), EPA will no 
longer accept test data on CARB test fuel and diurnal test 
temperatures. However, CARB has agreed to accept emission test data on 
EPA test fuel and temperature conditions for certification such that a 
uniform national program could still exist. This approach applies to 
all evaporative and refueling emission standards.
    Generally, any vehicle family counted in the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission standards phase-in must be certified on Tier 3 certification 
test fuel using EPA test procedures. However, EPA recognizes that the 
California and federal evaporative emission standard programs would be 
starting from different bases and that the transition provisions are 
different in some ways. For example, the proposed EPA program starts in 
the 2017 MY but after that has the same basic program construct as CARB 
in 2018. However, prior to the 2017 MY, CARB has a ZEV program 
provision which will continue to bring zero evap technology into the 
fleet before 2017. To capitalize on this technology and to facilitate 
transition, we are proposing that any CARB evaporative emission test 
data from MYs 2015 and 2016 certifications could be used in federal 
certification for those evaporative/refueling families through the 2019 
MY. Assuming these vehicle families meet Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards and they are sold nationwide they could be included in the 
percentage phase-in calculations as Tier 3 vehicles. A good example of 
these would be vehicles meeting CARB Option 1 standards discussed 
above. If the vehicles do not meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
requirements manufacturers could potentially sell them nationwide, but 
they would not be included as compliant vehicles in the percentage 
phase-in calculation. EPA proposes a similar provision for a 
manufacturer which elects to use the CARB test procedures and test 
fuels to meet the refueling emission standard. That is, if a 
manufacturer uses evaporative emission test data from 2015 or 2016 
model year CARB certifications to meet the Federal requirements in 
2017-2019 model years, it may also use CARB refueling emission test 
data from model year 2015 and 2016 certifications for federal 
certification for the refueling requirements for those evaporative/
refueling families through the 2019 MY. Any in-use testing on vehicle 
families certified on this data would be conducted using the CARB 
temperature conditions and test fuel and the CARB ethanol SHED 
adjustment value of 1.08 for 10 percent ethanol. However, by the 2020 
MY all vehicles would have to be certified using EPA certification test 
fuel and test procedures. In the interim, the equivalency and 
acceptance by EPA of certification on California test fuels is 
dependent on our proposed 9 psi RVP level for the certification test 
fuel. Were we to require the more stringent level of 10 psi RVP more 
typical of E10 as discussed in section IV.D.1, testing using California 
test fuels and conditions would no longer be equivalent.
e. Evaporative and Refueling Emission Standards for Various Fuels
    The evaporative and refueling emission standards today apply in 
different ways to different fuels. In the case of gasoline, all the 
standards apply and testing is required for certifying all vehicles. 
Evaporative emission standards do not apply for diesel-fueled vehicles; 
the refueling standards apply to diesel-fueled vehicles, but 
manufacturers can get EPA approval to omit testing for certification. 
For other fuels, there is a mix of standards applying or not applying, 
and if standards apply, testing is either required or not required. The 
statutory provisions in this regard are straightforward: Clean Air Act 
section 202(k) specifies that gasoline-fueled vehicles must be 
certified to evaporative emission standards, and section 202(a)(6) 
specifies that all motor vehicles be certified to refueling emission 
standards. This raises two questions. First, we request comment on 
using this rulemaking as the proper context for applying the refueling 
standards to vehicles powered by every kind of fuel. Where standards do 
not apply today (natural gas, fuel cells, electric, etc.), we would 
expect to waive test requirements for certification, so this would not 
be any substantial burden. Dedicated ethanol-fueled vehicles would face 
a new requirement, but we are not aware that there are any such 
vehicles today.
    Second, we have the discretion to apply evaporative emission 
standards to vehicles powered by fuels other than gasoline. The 
standards expressly do not apply for diesel fuel. By omission, the 
standards do not apply for dedicated ethanol-fueled vehicles, fuel-cell 
vehicles, and electric vehicles. The standards apply for natural gas 
and liquefied petroleum gas even though these are sealed systems with 
no emission control systems for controlling evaporative emissions. We 
request comment on adjusting the regulations such that evaporative 
emission standards apply only to volatile liquid fuels, which is the 
approach we have taken for nonroad applications (see, for example, 40 
CFR 1060.801). Under this approach, diesel fuel would continue to be 
excluded from standards because it is nonvolatile. This approach would 
also exclude natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas because they are 
not liquid fuels at atmospheric pressure.
5. Improvements to In-Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control Systems
a. Background on Data Related to In-Use Performance
    As part of the Compliance Assistance Program (CAP 2000) in-use 
verification program (IUVP) \295\ the manufacturers began testing the 
evaporative emissions performance of small samples of in-use vehicles 
owned and used by the public. These regulations can be found at 40 CFR 
86 1845-01, and 1845-04. In 2000, EPA extended this requirement to 
cover chassis-certified HDVs, which for these purposes are basically 
all HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.\296\ The in-use testing for 
evaporative emissions started in 2004 for 2001 MY LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs 
and in 2008 for 2007 MY chassis certified HDGVs. Current IUVP data for 
evaporative emissions covers about 1800 vehicle tests. This data shows 
that when evaluated in the laboratory using certification test 
procedures, the vast majority (over 95 percent) of the vehicles pass 
the evaporative emission standards to which they were certified. While 
this information is indicative of good in-use performance, it has 
limitations. First, the test results are for small sample sizes. For 
the approximately 150 million LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and chassis-certified 
HDGVs produced between 2001 (the start of the IUVP program) and 2010 
(latest available data), only about 0.001 percent of vehicles were 
tested. Second, the IUVP regulations place limits on the age/mileage 
for vehicle testing. Each model year is tested in two ``batches,'' 
nominally at the one and four year age points. One year old vehicles 
must have at least 10,000 miles and four year old vehicles must have at 
least 50,000 miles with at least one within the higher mileage group 
having

[[Page 29900]]

an odometer reading of at least 75 percent of useful life (90,000 miles 
for most Tier 2 vehicles). The useful life period for LDVs and LDT1s/
LDT2s is 10 years/120,000 miles, for LDT3s/LDT4s/MDPVs and complete 
HDGVs it is 11 years/120,000 miles. Thus, few firm conclusions can be 
drawn about full useful life emissions performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ 64 FR 23906 (May 4, 1999).
    \296\ 65 FR 59922-59924 (October 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent evaporative emission testing conducted by EPA and others 
evaluated in-use LDVs and LDTs certified to meet the enhanced 
evaporative emission standards implemented for 1996 and later model 
years \297\ as well as Tier 2 standards implemented for 2004 and later 
model year vehicles. Three Coordinating Research Council (CRC) programs 
(E-77-2/2b/2c), tested evaporative emission levels of vehicles with 
varying amounts of ethanol and levels of RVP in the gasoline test 
fuel.\298\ These programs were unique in that a subset of the vehicle 
SHED tests were of vehicles with implanted leaks at the nominal minimal 
level of detection for OBD systems (0.020 inch) in three different 
locations in the fuel/evaporative control system. These tests showed 
hydrocarbon emission rates 2-10 times greater than for the same 
vehicles tested in the SHED without the leaks and showed an order of 
magnitude of difference depending on where the leak was introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \297\ 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993).
    \298\ CRC E-77 reports: Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2008). Vehicle 
Evaporative Emission Mechanisms: A Pilot Study, CRC Project E-77; 
Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010). Enhanced Evaporative Emission 
Vehicles (CRC E-77-2); Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010). Evaporative 
Emissions from In-Use Vehicles: Test Fleet Expansion (CRC E-77-2b); 
Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010). Study to Determine Evaporative 
Emission Breakdown, Including Permeation Effects and Diurnal 
Emissions Using E20 Fuels on Aging Enhanced Evaporative Emissions 
Certified Vehicles, CRC E-77-2c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the CRC E-77-2 evaporative emissions test programs 
which looked at permeation in aged vehicles meeting EPA's enhanced 
evaporative emission control standards, introduced a new Static Test 
Procedure which pressurized the vapor space and activated the fuel pump 
during different portions of the SHED test, while the vent from the 
vehicle canister was routed to a trap canister outside of the SHED. By 
pressurizing the vapor space it was possible to determine if there was 
a vapor leak in the system by looking for a slope change in the vapor 
concentration in the SHED over time relative to permeation alone. 
Similarly, by activating the fuel pump it was possible to determine if 
there was a liquid leak in the system by looking for a slope change in 
the vapor concentration in the SHED over time relative to permeation 
alone. Out of the 15 randomly recruited vehicles in the program, seven 
of them displayed vapor and/or liquid leaks on one or more fuel 
ethanol/RVP combination (4 of these 7 were Tier 2 vehicles). A closer 
look at the data indicates that over the course of the study, which 
covered a two to four year period depending on the vehicle, the 
magnitude of the leaks increased with time.
    These studies taken together were of concern to EPA with regard to 
the in-use performance of evaporative emission control systems because 
they indicated that leaks could be a large portion of the evaporative 
emissions inventory if they occurred in even a relatively small 
fraction of the in-use fleet. The key missing piece of information was 
how often the leaks of 0.020 inches or larger occur in the fleet.
    To help us better understand this concern, EPA partnered with the 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and with 
CRC as an advisor for a pilot field study in Denver in the summer of 
2008 to assess the frequency of high evaporative emissions vehicles in 
the fleet. The project identified high evaporative emission emitters 
through an innovative screening tool known as a remote sensing device 
(RSD). The vehicles were identified at the entrance to the Inspection 
and Maintenance (I/M) station as high evaporative emission emitters. 
The operators of these vehicles were asked to participate in further 
evaluation using a Portable Sealed Housing for Evaporative 
Determination (PSHED) in addition to a modified California method test 
procedure to locate the source of the high emissions indicated by the 
PSHED level.\299\ The CDPHE continued to collect the same type of data 
in different locations in the Denver area for the next two summers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ DeFries, T., Lindner, J., Kishan, S., Palacios, C. (2011). 
Investigation of Techniques for High Evaporative Emissions Vehicle 
Detection: Denver Summer 2008 Pilot Study at Lipan Street Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 5,830 vehicles which came through the Ken Caryl I/M station 
in 2009, 601 were identified as potentially high evaporative emitters 
using the RSD tool.\300\ Of these, 84 vehicle owners agreed to be 
included in the PSHED evaluation that summer. Furthermore, 110 
additional vehicles were recruited which were potentially low to 
marginally high evaporative emitters.\301\ The study was structured to 
recruit higher evaporative emitting vehicles more heavily than lower 
emitting vehicles. Afterwards the percentages were adjusted to 
represent the actual mix in the fleet of light duty vehicles. Thus, it 
was determined that 10 percent of the fleet had evaporative emissions 
which exceeded a cut point reflecting an in-use evaporative emission 
rate of about 1 gram of total HC over 15 minutes (see Table 5-9 in the 
2012 DeFries report referenced above). This value is approximately the 
emission rate that would be expected from a leak of 0.020 inches which 
is the detection standard for OBD II systems.\302\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \300\ DeFries, T; Palacios, C., Kishan, S. (2012), Estimated 
Summer Hot Soak Distributions for the Denver's Ken Caryl I/M Station 
Fleet.
    \301\ A selection bin structure was used based on indicated 
evaporative emissions levels recruitment heavier at the higher 
emission end. Thus, there was a gradation even in the lower level 
bins where many of the vehicles would be considered marginal and not 
passing the evaporative emission standard even if they were not 
considered higher than the 1 g/15 minutes which our study found to 
be the lower range detectable by the RSD from the 2010 Ken Caryl 
report cited above.
    \302\ Compare the first 15 minutes of hot soak data from the 
field studies with implanted leaks in E-77-2 studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An examination of the test data reveals two additional significant 
points. First, the data indicates a trend for greater frequency of 
leaks in older vehicles. This is not unexpected given the manner in 
which factors such as vibration, fuel quality, weather elements, 
corrosion, maintenance, and other operating conditions affect the 
durability of system components, fittings, and connections over time. 
Second, there were relatively few newer model year vehicles in the 
population surveyed. This is expected and almost unavoidable since the 
Colorado I/M program generally exempts vehicles which are four years 
old or newer. While it is reasonable to expect there to be a lower 
prevalence of leaks in newer vehicles, the lack of data for newer 
vehicles does not necessarily indicate that no problems exist in newer 
model year vehicles or that problems will not occur in the future with 
Tier 3 vehicles.
    Since many of the vehicles in the sample group met OBD requirements 
for evaporative system leak monitoring, it was deemed useful to examine 
whether the OBD system identified the leak. As mentioned above, 
approximately 10 percent of the vehicles in the ``adjusted fleet'' had 
vapor leaks which were of the magnitude expected from a 0.020 inch or 
larger leak. Over the three years of study, there were a total of 180 
SHED tests (either PSHED or laboratory SHED) on vehicles with OBD data 
collected in the I/M program. Of these 180 vehicles, 171 had the 
evaporative OBD monitors ready. Of these, 171 vehicles, 20 were found 
to have emission rates of 1 g/15 min in the PSHED (the emission rate 
linked to a 0.020'' leak). Of these 20 vehicles only 3 came into the I/
M test

[[Page 29901]]

with an OBD diagnostic trouble code (DTC) set indicating an evaporative 
system problem.303 304 A closer look, including field 
inspection comments, of the 20 vehicles shows that half were not 
expected to diagnose the problem because it was outside of the OBD 
system design capabilities. Of the vehicles which potentially should 
have set an evaporative DTC, at least 50 percent and perhaps as much as 
70 percent of codes were not set on high evap emissions vehicles. The 
lack of codes being set for these vehicles may reflect OBD performance 
issues or allowances (known as enable criteria) in the OBD regulations 
regarding when the OBD evaporative emission leak monitoring system is 
not required to operate or situations when the monitor is otherwise not 
ready for what may be allowable reasons such as an allowable 
deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ In the E-77-2 programs the 0.02 inch leaks implanted near 
the top of the tank and at the canister connection had hot soak 
measurements which averaged approximately 1 g/15 minutes PSHED 
measurement. This also happens to be the lower end of the detectable 
range of evaporative emissions by the RSD. Since the OBD monitor is 
expected to detect a .020'' leak wherever it is located, the DTC 
should be set.
    \304\ Palacios, C., Weatherby, M., DeFries, T., Lindner, J., 
Kishan, S. (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of On-Board 
Diagnostic (OBD) Systems in Identifying Fuel Vapor Losses from 
Light-Duty Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To better understand this issue EPA has examined evaporative 
emission system DTC and monitor ready information from I/M programs 
from Texas and California.\305\ Since the data was gathered by the 
states under different protocols and time periods, the content of the 
data sets are not identical. To provide some degree of uniformity in 
our analysis, we examined the data for five MY (2000-2004) but within 
each state we only looked at calendar years of data beginning after the 
initial state I/M exemption period (2-4 calendar years depending on the 
state) had passed. Thus the analysis focused on I/M OBD information for 
calendar years 2004-2010. Examined together, the data generally 
indicates the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \305\ Fulper, C. (2013, February). Preliminary Analysis of OBD 
Evaporative System Information from I/M Stations--California and 
Texas, Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Depending on age, 0.3-2.5 percent of vehicles with 
evaporative monitors ready came into the I/M stations with evaporative 
related MIL or DTCs set.
     The percent of vehicles with evaporative emission related 
MILs set increased by a factor of 2-4 over about 5 years.
     Evaporative emission monitors were not ready for 3-16 
percent of vehicles when arriving at the I/M station.
     The percent of vehicles with monitors ready at the I/M 
station generally decreased by 3 to 7 percentage points over about 5-6 
years; decrease was less for model year vehicles less than five years 
old.
     While it varies by age, 60-80 percent of evaporative 
system DTCs are leak related.
    There is no question of the value of OBD leak monitoring for 
evaporative systems, especially when owners complete needed repairs. 
Undoubtedly these percentages and thus in-use leak values would be 
higher without OBD evaporative system leak monitoring. However, this 
data suggests that EPA OBD regulations in place for 2000-2004 MY 
vehicles would not alone be sufficient to address concerns regarding 
the emission effects of vapor leaks from the fuel and evaporative 
control systems.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \306\ For further information see CARB reports ``Technical 
Status and Proposed Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic System 
Requirements for 1994 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, 
Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II)'' 
October, 1994 and ``Technical Status and Revisions to Malfunction 
and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model 
Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and 
Engines (OBD II) March 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, information gathered from evaporative emissions testing 
conducted in the IUVP program indicates that relatively low mileage/
newer vehicles perform well when evaluated under laboratory conditions. 
However, data gathered from in-use testing conducted by EPA, Colorado, 
and others indicates that as vehicles age some vehicles have a 
propensity to develop leaks in the fuel/evaporative system and that 
these leaks increase in size as the vehicles age. Beyond this, a review 
of OBD evaporative system leak monitor data from the I/M programs of 
two states revealed four important trends: (1) even when the OBD system 
identifies leaks owners do not always respond by getting the needed 
repair completed, (2) the fraction of vehicles with leaks identified by 
OBD increases as vehicles age, (3) vehicles sometimes are operating in 
conditions in which the OBD leak monitor is not ready to identify a 
potential problem, and (4) evaporative system leaks are the dominant 
DTC for vehicles with monitors ready and evaporative system DTC set.
    The propensity for leaks in the vehicle fleet has the potential to 
reduce the benefits of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards 
substantially. If on any given day, as few as five percent of Tier 3 
vehicles had a leak(s) of 0.020 inches or greater this would cause in-
use emissions equivalent to all of the projected emission reductions 
from the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards on that 
day.\307\ Thus, EPA is proposing three measures to address this issue: 
(1) An emission standard focused on reducing fuel/evaporative system 
vapor leaks over the vehicle useful life, (2) an upgrade to OBD 
emissions monitoring requirements to improve their role in identifying 
problems and improving in-use emissions performance, and (3) additions 
to the IUVP program focused on testing a broader sample of fuel/
evaporative system leaks in IUVP than is done for evaporative emission 
standards alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ This is based on five percent of vehicles and 4-5 trips 
(hot soaks) per day at 1 g/hot soak. Five percent is a reasonable 
value for this illustration since as mentioned above 0.3-2.5 percent 
of vehicles come in to I/M stations with evaporative system MILs or 
DTCs and 60-80 percent of these were leak-related DTCs. Thus, it is 
reasonable to project that the fleet average is higher since vehicle 
repair just before I/M is common, evaporative emission monitors were 
not ready on 3-16 percent of vehicles, and 18 states do not have any 
form of I/M at all and repair rates in response to a MIL may be 
lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Proposed Leak Emission Standard
    The evaporative emission standards in this proposal will help to 
promote widespread use of improved technology and materials which will 
reduce evaporative emissions in-use. The proposed new requirement for a 
leak emission standard and procedure will help to ensure the durability 
of Tier 3 evaporative emission control systems nationwide.
    Based on the information described above concerning evaporative 
emissions in-use, we believe a leak emission standard is necessary to 
meet our goal that vehicles meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission 
requirements not have fuel/evaporative system vapor leaks. Toward that 
end, we are proposing a leak emission standard that would have to be 
met both at new vehicle certification and in use. The leak emission 
standard would apply beginning in the 2018 MY to any vehicle certified 
to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or a CARB carryover 
vehicle counted toward the sales percentage phase-in requirements, 
including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. 
The emission standard would be applicable for the same useful life 
period as for the evaporative emission standards that apply to the 
vehicle. The standard would apply to vehicles using volatile fuel 
(e.g., gasoline, FFV, and methanol

[[Page 29902]]

fuel vehicles, but not diesel or CNG vehicles).
    To be compatible with CARB OBD requirements being met by most 
manufacturers and the OBD requirements included in this notice, we are 
proposing that the leak emission standard be expressed in the form of a 
cumulative equivalent orifice diameter. We are proposing a value of 
0.02 inches.\308\ The standard basically requires that the cumulative 
equivalent diameter of any orifices or ``leaks'' in the system not 
exceed 0.02 inches. This is consistent with California OBD requirements 
(and those being proposed in this rule as well) that the OBD system be 
capable of identifying leaks in the fuel/evaporative system of a 
cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.020 inches EPA believes an emission 
standard at this level is feasible since earlier testing programs 
identified vehicles with essentially no leaks and it is essentially 
equivalent to that required for CARB OBD evaporative system leak 
monitoring. As discussed in the technological feasibility section 
above, the actions manufacturers will have to take to meet the proposed 
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards are expected to do more to 
address potential leak points and thus in a broader sense to improve 
in-use durability for evaporative control systems compared to vehicles 
meeting earlier or current evaporative emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ Current OBD regulations specify that if the fuel tank 
volume exceeds 25 gallons then the manufacturer may seek a larger 
leak detection orifice value. If a manufacturer seeks and is granted 
a larger value for OBD leak detection purposes, then that same 
numerical value becomes the leak emission standard value. We would 
not expect this value to exceed 0.040 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed leak emission standard would provide added assurance 
that as the manufacturers design for ``zero evap'' standards they also 
design the systems to avoid leaks over the full useful life. We are 
proposing a leak emission standard of 0.02 inches which with rounding 
is a bit less stringent than the 0.020 inch OBD fuel/evaporative system 
leak monitoring requirement. EPA believes this level of precision is 
sufficient to accomplish the air quality objective and yet provides 
some compliance margin between the emission standard and the monitor 
requirement which is reflected through multipliers for the exhaust 
emission standards monitored through OBD. EPA asks for comment and 
rationale on setting the standard at 0.02 inches equivalent diameter or 
the more stringent 0.020 inch equivalent diameter specified for OBD 
evaporative system leak monitoring. If finalized as proposed, the 
emission standard would be specified to one significant digit (e.g., 
0.02 inches) but would have to be measured and reported to at least two 
significant digits.
    The proposed leak emission standard would apply at the time of 
certification as well as during confirmatory and in-use verification 
program testing. We do not expect that new vehicles being certified 
would have a leak problem, and since a vehicle with a leak would likely 
fail the evaporative emissions SHED test, there is little value in 
mandating a leak test at certification. Thus, EPA proposes to allow 
manufacturers to attest to compliance with the leak emission standard 
at certification.
    To implement the proposed leak emission standard within the current 
regulatory structure a few minor changes are needed. First, current EPA 
regulations such as those at Sec.  86.098-24, specify criteria for 
evaporative/refueling emission families. EPA believes this basic 
structure is appropriate for the leak emission standard, with the 
additional criteria that vehicles in the same evaporative/refueling 
family must use the same basic approach to OBD leak detection. 
Significantly different volume fuel tanks would likely also be a family 
determinant, but we believe this is already covered by the evaporative/
refueling family criteria. Second, since the leak emission standard is 
a pass/fail requirement and not an emission rate, there is no 
requirement for the application of a deterioration factor. Third, EPA 
proposes to require that the manufacturers recommend one or more leak 
entry test points for each family. This point should be outside of the 
gas cap/fillpipe area, since our experience indicates that testing 
could always be done through that point of entry to the fuel/
evaporative system.
    EPA asks for comment on the timing, form and level of the proposed 
emission standard. EPA believes that linking the timing of the proposed 
leak emission standard to the implementation of proposed Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards in 2018 provides adequate lead time and 
is consistent with the technical rationale supporting the feasibility 
of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standard.
c. Proposed Leak Emission Standard Test Procedure
    In order to implement a new leak emission standard, a leak test 
procedure is required. The fundamental concepts underlying fuel/
evaporative system leak test are not new to the manufacturers. There is 
already a simple leak check in 40 CFR 86.608-98(a)(xii)(A) and in the 
past at least three states included a fuel/evaporative system pressure 
leak test in I/M programs. More importantly, all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs and 
HDGVs manufactured today have the onboard capability to run a pressure 
or vacuum leak based check on the vehicle's evaporative emission system 
as part of OBD evaporative system leak monitoring. These systems employ 
either positive or negative pressure leak detection pumps or operate 
based on natural vacuum for negative pressure leak detection. EPA is 
proposing a test based on a similar concept of placing the system under 
a slight positive pressure (but from an external source), measuring the 
flow needed to maintain that pressure in the fuel/evaporative control 
system, and converting that flow rate to an equivalent orifice 
diameter. With regards to the test procedure we will first discuss 
where the leak test could occur in the FTP test sequence. We will then 
discuss how the test is proposed to be conducted.
    First with regard to when the test would be conducted within the 
current FTP sequence we are proposing that it be inserted immediately 
following the first two preconditioning steps within the FTP sequence 
(see Figure B96-10 in 40 CFR 86.130-96). Thus, the vehicle 
preconditioning steps for the leak test would be: (1) fill the vehicle 
fuel tank to 40 percent of capacity using the appropriate certification 
test fuel and then (2) let the vehicle soak for a minimum of a six hour 
period at a temperature in the range of 68-86[emsp14][deg]F. EPA 
proposes that the test be conducted with 9 RVP E15 test fuel for both 
certification and IUVP. This is the same preconditioning that is called 
for today in 40 CFR part 86 subpart B for exhaust, evaporative, and 
refueling emissions testing. After preconditioning is complete, the 
leak test would be conducted and the test sequence could then proceed 
as prescribed in subpart B or testing terminated if the purpose was 
only to conduct leak testing. EPA believes this modest level of 
preconditioning is sufficient to create standard conditions which 
enable repeatable and reliable measurement results. Preconditioning 
could not include any prescreening for leaks nor would any tightening 
of fittings or connections be permitted.
    After preconditioning is complete, manufacturers would then run the 
leak test. Each complete test would involve running the test procedure 
at one entry point in the system. Presumably this would be either near 
the back of the fuel system (perhaps near the gas cap) or near the 
front of the fuel system on the

[[Page 29903]]

pressure side of the locations near where the system is sealed (perhaps 
at the canister vent). If the fuel/evaporative system has an imbedded 
evaporative system test port then that point could be used. 
Alternatively, manufacturers could also develop a test rig such as a 
``fill pipe extension'' which would screw into the fill pipe opening 
using cap threads at one end and on the other end have threads to screw 
the fill pipe vehicle cap in place. Within this extension there would 
be an access port for the leak test equipment to be attached. Thus, the 
full system could be tested without any direct intrusion or the need 
for a separate gas cap assessment. The manufacturer would have to 
specify the test point at the time of the pre-certification meeting. If 
the manufacturer selected an entry point which required the fuel cap to 
be removed, then the cap would have to undergo a separate test as is 
now done in many I/M stations.\309\ In this case, tests from both 
points combined must pass the proposed emission standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ For related information see ``IM240 & Evap Technical 
Guidance'', EPA 420-R-00-007, April, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The procedure would be conducted as follows:
     Calibrate the testing apparatus and otherwise verify 
testing apparatus is ready and able to complete the procedure
     Seal fuel system so as to pressure test entire system 
(purge valve, cap, etc.)
     Attach test apparatus to vehicle's fuel system at selected 
test point
     Pressurize fuel system with nitrogen or another inert gas 
to at least 2.4 kilopascals (kPa)
     Allow flow and pressure to stabilize in accordance with 
specification provided in the proposed regulatory text
     Calculate effective leak orifice diameter from measured 
output flow rate and temperature and pressure data or use apparatus 
with built in computer providing an equivalent digital readout. 
Calculate to the nearest 0.01 inch.
     Calculated effective orifice diameter must be less than or 
equal to the standard
     If leak test is conducted at the fuel cap then 
manufacturer must also show evidence that the vehicle's fuel cap is 
performing properly.\310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ Such tests are done routinely in I/M stations using a 
commercially available apparatus. The gas cap leak rate may be 
determined by pressure loss measurement, direct flow measurement, or 
flow comparison methods and shall be compared to a pass/fail flow 
rate standard of 60 cubic centimeters per minute of air at 30 inches 
of water column. The flow rate methods are referenced to standard 
conditions of 70[emsp14][deg]F and 1 atm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EPA is seeking comment on requiring two separate test 
points one near the evaporative canister and the other near the fuel 
cap. Furthermore, we are specifically proposing that in some cases two 
separate test points in the locations mentioned above would be 
required. This would especially be important if the fuel cap/fill neck 
area is isolated from the rest of the fuel/evaporative system as a 
result of the 40 percent fill or if dual tanks are not otherwise 
connected through vapor lines. Of course, dual tank, dual canister 
systems would have to be evaluated as separate systems. Tests could be 
void if the test apparatus fails, becomes disconnected, fails to 
maintain a stable flow rate or pressure, or the test was stopped before 
completion due to safety considerations or some other relevant vehicle 
issue.
    The test procedure presented above is based on current fuel system 
designs. In the future, it is reasonable to expect changes in designs 
of the fuel systems such that the procedure above may need adjustment. 
EPA would, of course, monitor these fuel system changes and modify the 
test procedure provisions as needed. Furthermore, current EPA 
regulations (see Sec.  1065.10(c)) contain provisions which provide the 
opportunity for manufacturers to seek approval for special or alternate 
test procedures if from a practical perspective their systems cannot be 
evaluated under EPA requirements or they have an approach deemed 
equivalent or better. EPA would make such provisions for the leak 
emission standard testing requirement. Any such special or alternative 
procedures would have to be reported under Sec.  86.004-21(b)(9).\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ For example, MAHLE Powertrain has piece of equipment known 
as a Mahle Leak Tester which is now used in assembly plants and may 
be adaptable to this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Proposed Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System Regulation Changes
    EPA has its own OBD regulations which are similar but not identical 
to CARB's. EPA first adopted OBD requirements for 1994 and later model 
year LDVs and LDTs. While EPA has extended its requirements from LDVs 
and LDTs to larger and heavier vehicles,\312\ EPA's last broad upgrade 
to its basic OBD regulation was in the 2005 timeframe. Since that time, 
CARB has adopted and the manufacturers have implemented a number of 
provisions to enhance the effectiveness of their OBD programs. These 
provisions include new requirements for OBD evaporative system leak 
detection as well as provisions to help insure that systems are built 
and operate as designed over their full useful life, give reliable 
results (find and signal only true deficiencies), and operate 
frequently during in use operation. It is permitted in current EPA 
regulations and common practice for the industry to certify their OBD 
systems with CARB and for EPA to accept CARB OBD certifications as 
satisfying EPA requirements. EPA is proposing to continue that practice 
but to upgrade our regulations to be consistent with the latest CARB 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ EPA's OBD regulations for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, are found 
at 40 CFR 86.1806-05. EPA has also adopted OBD requirements for 
incompletes and heavier vehicles (greater than 14,000 lbs GVWR) (see 
74 FR 8324, February 24, 2009 and 40 CFR 86.010-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the current CARB regulatory requirements related 
to OBD (see California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sec.  1968.2 dated May 
18, 2010) and, as discussed below we are proposing to adopt most of 
these provisions with the Tier 3 program. We are proposing this for two 
basic reasons. First, this is consistent with the goal of a national 
program and one vehicle technology for all 50 states. Second, 
implementation of these requirements is now demonstrated technology and 
compliance with these requirements is common within the industry today. 
Thus, the added burden is minimal. Furthermore, OBD has the advantage 
of running frequently on in-use vehicles to identify potential exhaust 
and evaporative system performance problems, so adopting these 
provisions would create the opportunity for OBD to serve a more 
prominent role in ensuring the proposed Tier 3 emission standards are 
met in-use.
    There is an important link between OBD provisions related to 
evaporative emission control system leak monitoring and the proposed 
leak test emission standard. They each provide an important incentive 
to design fuel/evaporative systems with fewer propensities to develop 
leaks in use but each addresses the issue from a different perspective. 
The distinction is that the proposed leak emission standards prohibits 
leaks of greater than 0.02 inches cumulative equivalent diameter, while 
the proposed OBD evaporative system leak monitoring provision would 
require that the OBD system find leaks larger than 0.020 inches 
cumulative equivalent orifice diameter and notify the owner, but with 
no inherent obligation to repair the problem. Thus adopting a 0.020 
inch cumulative equivalent orifice diameter would align these two 
programs and, as will be discussed below, creates the potential for an 
optional leak detection test procedure for in-use testing.
    To be more specific, we are proposing to update our OBD regulations 
to be

[[Page 29904]]

consistent with current California OBD requirements add two new 
requirements and retain three minor exceptions. These changes would be 
fully effective in the 2017MY, but EPA asks comment on whether the 
requirement should be linked to be effective with certification to any 
of the Tier 3 emission standards (either exhaust or evaporative) or 
phased in for the 2017 model year for LDVs and LLDTs and the 2018 MY 
for the HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.\313\ EPA would 
continue to accept certifications with CARB OBD requirements as 
satisfying EPA OBD requirements. We are proposing to incorporate by 
reference section 1968.2 of the California Code of Regulations as 
discussed below. This would include paragraphs (c) through (j) in their 
entirety. These paragraphs are entitled: (c) Definitions, (d) General 
requirements, (e) Monitoring requirements for gasoline/spark ignited 
engines, (f) Monitoring requirements for diesel/compression ignition 
engines, (g) Standardization requirements, (h) Monitoring system 
demonstration requirements for certification, (i) Certification 
documentation, (j) Production vehicle evaluation testing. The substance 
of many of these provisions is already contained in current EPA OBD 
requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs less than 14,000 
lbs GVWR.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ We are not proposing to change the requirement for 
incompletes and vehicles with a GVWR above 14,000 lbs.
    \314\ MDVs in the CARB regulations basically incorporate MDPVs 
and complete HDGV less than 14,000 lbs GVWR as defined by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most noteworthy changes we are proposing are summarized below. 
The CCR below is the California Code of Regulations cite for each 
pertinent provision.
     EPA proposes to add a 0.020 inches leak detection 
monitoring threshold upstream of the purge valve for all 4 vehicle 
categories LDV, LDT, MDPV, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR 
except for those with fuel tanks larger than 25 gallons capacity (see 
CCR 1968.2(e)). OBD leak monitoring systems would have to identify, 
store, and if required signal any leak(s) equal to or greater than 
0.020 inches cumulative equivalent diameter. This would thus include 
diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, P0456, and 
P0457.
     EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the full array of 
rate based monitoring requirements (see CCR1968.2 (d)). Meeting the 
rate based monitoring requirements will help to insure that, even with 
enable criteria, the exhaust and evaporative system monitors run 
frequently enough that on average a problem would be identified and 
signaled to the owner in operation within two weeks. This will help to 
improve the fraction of time monitors are ready to find a potential 
problem.
     EPA proposes to incorporate by reference provisions 
regarding monitoring system demonstration requirements for 
certification. We are proposing to incorporate by reference CARB 
provisions in this area and to accept submissions to CARB for purposes 
of compliance demonstration (see CCR 1968.2(h)). Adopting current CARB 
monitoring system demonstration requirements assures that monitoring 
systems operate as designed when installed on certification vehicles.
    We also propose that this certification include a requirement for 
manufacturers to demonstrate the ability of the OBD leak monitoring 
system to detect a 0.020 inch leak. Current CARB protocols do not 
require that manufacturers demonstrate that the certification vehicle 
can find a vapor leak in the fuel/evaporative system. We are proposing 
to add a requirement that manufacturers must demonstrate for 
certification that the OBD system can find and report the implanted 
leak would help to ensure the OBD system's capability to function as 
designed and for the OBD-based leak based evaporative system leak to be 
used as an optional test procedure for in-use testing for the proposed 
leak emission standard. We are proposing that this be added for the 
same vehicles now required for monitoring system demonstration 
requirements for certification under CARB OBD regulations. Since the 
CARB regulation requires only a relative few vehicle models each year 
per manufacturer, we propose that manufacturers be given the option to 
either test the remainder for an implanted leak in the fuel/evaporative 
system or certify by attestation that each of their remaining families 
meets the requirement based on development and other information.
     EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the CARB 
production vehicle evaluation data program. This program requires 
manufacturers to demonstrate that the OBD system functions as designed 
and certified when installed on production vehicles. (see CCR 
1968.2(j))
     For the OBD evaporative system leak monitoring 
requirement, EPA proposes a scan readable function (a new PID in 
Service $01 of SAE J1979) which could be used to indicate or ascertain 
the distance traveled since the OBD leak monitoring diagnostic was last 
completed successfully and if the system passed or failed (identified 
any leak above 0.020 inches) during that monitoring event (unless it is 
otherwise already required in other OBD system modes). Updating this 
PID this would be based on SAE J1979 mode 6 ($06) test results: 
``Request On-board Monitoring Test Results for Specific Monitored 
Systems.'' With this proposed requirement, the PID distance would be 
initialized to maximum range of NV RAM initialization (such as battery 
disconnect or controller reprogramming) and code clear. As a result, in 
the event that a vehicle had a memory clear event in the past, but has 
not had sufficient operation for the evaporative system to be 
evaluated, the scan readable mileage function would indicate that the 
system had not completed a full leak detection of the evaporative 
control system within the last 750 miles (1200km). OBD systems already 
maintain information for active, pending, historic and permanent codes. 
This would be a modest upgrade to this requirement which would enable 
the use of the OBD-based evaporative system leak monitor with the IUVP 
program as discussed below. See CCR 1968.2 (g) for information related 
to code storage. EPA seeks comment on alternative equivalent approaches 
(e.g., a scan readable mileage stamp or flag traceable to mileage 
indicating when the full OBD leak monitoring protocol was last 
completed successfully and the result (p/f)) which accomplish the same 
objective and whether this capability should be optional for the 2017 
MY since this requirement is designed to enable the use of OBD in leak 
emission standard testing and that standard is proposed to begin in the 
2018 MY.
     The minor exceptions which are contained in EPA's current 
OBD regulations are proposed to be continued. Compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering protection is not required. 
Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) would not be 
adopted. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of 
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, would apply only 
to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. For all model years, 
the deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of the current regulations 
apply only to alternative fuel vehicle/engine manufacturers selecting 
this paragraph for demonstrating compliance.
    If adopted, these proposed changes, taken together would improve 
the performance, reliability, general utility, and effectiveness of OBD 
systems for Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission controls. 
Furthermore, if adopted, these

[[Page 29905]]

changes create the opportunity for OBD evaporative system leak 
monitoring systems to serve a more prominent role in ensuring 
compliance with the leak emission standard. EPA believes that they 
could be implemented for minimal cost since most manufacturers are 
meeting them today and will have to for LEV III vehicles. However, EPA 
requests comment on applying the proposed new OBD requirements to small 
business vehicle manufacturers and independent commercial importers.
    As discussed below, the proposed OBD requirements would apply to 
small entities and independent commercial importers (ICI) in the 2022 
MY. Small alternative fuel converters would still be able to meet the 
OBD requirements using the provisions of 40 CFR part 85 subpart F. 
Finally, it should be noted that as CARB updates its OBD regulations in 
the future EPA would consider these changes and propose to adopt them 
or incorporate them by reference, if appropriate. In fact, CARB is 
currently proposing some changes to its OBD program in response to the 
LEV III program exhaust emission standards.\315\ We request comment on 
incorporating these changes into this rule or other rules in the 
future. We also would generally expect to continue the current practice 
allowed by EPA regulations which is for EPA to accept CARB OBD 
certifications as satisfying EPA requirements provided that they 
include at least all of the requirements covered by the EPA 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \315\ CARB has recently proposed some minor OBD program 
modifications in their recent LEVIII ISOR, and EPA asks for comment 
on including those provisions within the proposed EPA OBD program. 
See pages 61-72 of the CARB Staff Report at https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf and pages A11-A125 of the 
regulatory text at https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levappa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) Requirements for the Leak 
Emission Standard
i. Introduction
    We believe it is important to identify leaks since vehicles with 
leaks would be expected to have daily emission rates above the proposed 
Tier 3 evaporative emissions standards and the Colorado data suggests a 
propensity for the diameter of vehicle leak orifice to get larger over 
time and thus to have even higher emissions. This is also important 
because evaporative leak emissions occur virtually every day whether 
the vehicle is driven or not. Thus identifying potential leak problems 
will be important to capturing the emission benefits of the proposed 
evaporative emission requirements.
    Toward that end, EPA is proposing to include assessment of 
compliance with the leak emission standard within the IUVP program. We 
considered expanding the evaporative emission testing portion of the 
IUVP program as a means to assess leaks, but we decided to focus on the 
leak emission standard because it is less burdensome and is cost 
effective for accomplishing the objective. EPA believes adding a leak 
test requirement does not create an unreasonable burden. The draft test 
procedure described above is simple to run, inexpensive to conduct in 
terms of equipment and labor, and can be completed relatively quickly 
compared to an evaporative emissions test. However, we are retaining 
the evaporative emissions testing requirements currently in IUVP to 
monitor broader evaporative control system effectiveness (e.g., purge, 
canister control efficiency, permeation).
ii. IUVP Test Requirements
    We are proposing that the leak emission test be conducted for each 
and every vehicle assessed in IUVP for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR 
86.1845.04. This would begin for 2018 MY certifications for vehicle 
families meeting the proposed new leak emission standard. This would 
include the low and high mileage tests for any exhaust vehicle 
evaluated for exhaust emissions plus a requirement that there be at 
least one representative of each evaporative/refueling/leak family 
evaluated at each year point. We are proposing this approach to 
implementing IUVP for the leak emission standard in lieu of creating a 
new set of requirements which would require yet another set of vehicles 
to be procured for testing. We are not proposing to include the leak 
test with any evaporative emissions test in IUVP, since a leak would be 
evident in the results of the evaporative emissions test.
    The current IUVP regulations at Sec.  86.1845-04, Table S04-07, 
call for test sample sizes on a sliding scale based on annual vehicle 
sales by test group. This can vary from zero for very small sales test 
groups to six vehicles for test groups with sales exceeding 250,000. 
There are more exhaust emission test groups than there are evaporative/
refueling/leak test families and exhaust emission test groups may cover 
one or more of the same evaporative/refueling/leak families, so we 
would expect to receive multiple leak emission test results for most 
evaporative/refueling/leak families. This will expand the amount of 
IUVP data we receive in this important area and improve our ability to 
assess the overall leak performance for a given evaporative/refueling/
leak family and the fleet as a whole.
    As discussed above, EPA believes that the fuel and evaporative 
control system leaks are heavily influenced by age as well as design 
and other factors. EPA would consider extending the age point for leak 
emission testing for IUVP beyond the four year point to better assess 
this effect. However, in the past, manufacturers have expressed concern 
about the implications of testing older vehicles and about finding 
vehicles still within their warranty and recall liability periods. EPA 
asks comment on the viability of extending leak emission IUVP testing 
beyond the nominal four year point (e.g., six to eight years). We 
recognize that there are cost and vehicle procurement issues, but the 
Colorado data strongly suggests a relationship between vehicle age and 
the propensity for the development of leaks.
iii. Assessment of IUVP Leak Emission Standard Test Results
    The current regulations contain provisions addressing follow-on 
testing requirements for exhaust emissions for vehicles which fail to 
meet various performance thresholds within IUVP (see 40 CFR 86.1846-
01). As mentioned above, we expect that it will be common to get more 
than one leak emission test result over the course of each model year's 
mileage testing point for each evaporative/refueling/leak family as a 
result of the requirement to assess leaks with each exhaust IUVP test. 
However, the proposed leak emission standard is basically pass/fail at 
0.02 inches and it is difficult to establish a threshold criteria for a 
pass/fail standard such as has been done for exhaust emissions where 
there is a multiplier applied to the level of the individual exhaust 
emission standard.
    Given the importance of the leak emission standard in assuring in-
use evaporative emissions control, we are proposing a set of criteria 
for assessing leak emission standard results from IUVP. These criteria 
can be summarized as follows for each low and high mileage test point 
for each model year tested:
     lf 50 percent or more of all vehicles evaluated in an 
evaporative/refueling/leak emission family for any given model year 
pass the leak emission standard, testing is complete. This applies to 
cumulative testing for that family throughout the model year for that 
mileage group. This is consistent with the exhaust emission 
requirements for IUVP and EPA believes it is reasonable since vehicles 
are tested in the ``as received'' condition from consumers.

[[Page 29906]]

     If only one representative of the evaporative/refueling/
leak family is tested in a mileage group for that model year's vehicles 
and it passes the leak emission standard testing is complete. If that 
vehicle does not pass the leak emission standard a manufacturer may 
test an additional vehicle to achieve the 50 percent rate.
     If an evaporative/refueling/leak emission family fails to 
achieve the 50 percent rate, it is presumed that the family will enter 
into In-Use Confirmatory Testing Program (IUCP).
    Before IUCP begins, the manufacturer may ask for engineering 
analysis discussions with EPA to evaluate and understand the technical 
reasons for the testing outcomes and the implications for the broader 
fleet. Technical information for these discussions could include but 
would not be limited to detailed system design, calibration, and 
operating information, technical explanations as to why the individual 
vehicles tested failed the leak emission standard, and comparisons to 
other similar families from the same manufacturer. Relevant information 
from the manufacturer such as data or other information on owner 
complaints, technical service bulletins, service campaigns, special 
policy warranty programs, warranty repair data, state I/M data, and 
data available from other manufacturer specific programs or initiatives 
could help inform understanding of implications for the broader fleet. 
As part of this process a manufacturer could elect to provide 
evaporative emissions SHED test data on the individual vehicle(s) that 
did not pass the leak emission standard during IUVP. With an adequate 
technical basis, the outcome of this engineering analysis discussion 
could result in an EPA decision not to require IUCP testing.
    We would propose to operate within the basic structure of the IUCP 
program in the current regulations. Prior to commencing IUCP testing 
the manufacturer, after consultation with EPA submits a written plan 
describing the details of the vehicle procurement, maintenance, and 
testing procedures. This plan could include inclusion of a hot soak 
plus diurnal SHED test to supplement leak emission test results. We 
propose that EPA must approve this plan before testing begins. As 
prescribed now in the IUCP regulations for exhaust, if five vehicles 
were tested and all passed the leak emission standard then testing 
would be complete. If all five vehicles did not pass, then five more 
would be tested. More vehicles could be tested at the manufacturer's 
discretion but all testing would have to be completed within the time 
period specified in the regulations today. EPA and the manufacturer 
would then enter into discussions regarding interpretation, technical 
understanding, and compliance/enforcement implications of the test 
results, if any.
iv. Proposed Optional Test Procedure Approach for IUVP/IUCP
    Assuming implementation of the OBD regulation changes proposed in 
Section IV.C.5.d, above, EPA is proposing an optional approach to a 
portion of the leak emission test procedure discussed in Section 
IV.C.5.c. This optional testing approach would be included in the 
proposed IUVP/IUCP testing program for the leak emission standard, but 
would not be used for certification testing for the leak emission 
standard. It would be considered an approach which could be used by the 
manufacturers to assess compliance with the leak emission standard. EPA 
could also use this procedure for conducting assessments and asks for 
comment on using this procedure for compliance purposes with a 0.02 
inch cumulative equivalent diameter orifice standard.
    Under this optional approach manufacturers would be able to rely 
upon the operation of their OBD evaporative system leak detection 
hardware and operating protocols in lieu of running the stand alone in-
use leak test to check for the presence of a 0.02 inch leak in the 
fuel/evaporative system. This approach relies on the leak emission 
standard equivalent orifice diameter being established at the same 
level as proposed for OBD (0.020 inches). Thus, the IUVP/IUCP protocol 
would be modified and simplified to expedite completion of testing and 
reduce costs.
    Quite simply, if a vehicle is brought in for IUVP or IUCP testing 
and a scan tool query of the onboard computer indicates that the 
vehicle had successfully completed a full OBD-based evaporative system 
leak monitoring check within the last 750 miles and no evaporative 
system leak problems for any diameter above 0.020 inches was indicated 
(diagnostic trouble codes P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, P0456, and 
P0457), the vehicle would be been deemed to have met and passed the 
leak emission standard test requirement. However, if the system had not 
successfully completed a full OBD-based evaporative system leak check 
within 750 miles with no problem indicated then the manufacturer would 
have the option to run its OBD-based evaporative system leak check in 
the laboratory after prescribed preconditioning. This OBD-based 
approach is sometimes used in auto manufacturer dealerships and repair 
facilities to diagnose and fix evaporative system leaks found by the 
OBD system. If the vehicle completes the full OBD-based leak test in 
the laboratory then the vehicle's pass/fail results for the 0.02 inch 
cumulative equivalent diameter orifice would be based on the OBD test 
result. This optional protocol could apply to every leak emission 
standard test after certification unless not approved by EPA for IUCP 
under 40 CFR 1846.01(i). Replicate tests would not be required or 
allowed but void tests could be repeated.
    Furthermore, EPA proposes to allow the manufacturer to run the 
stand alone EPA leak test in several situations. First, manufacturers 
could conduct the stand alone test to confirm that a problem identified 
by the OBD-based evaporative system monitoring leak check was a leak 
and not a problem with the OBD leak monitor itself. Second, a 
manufacturer could run the stand alone EPA leak test to confirm that 
the leak value identified by the OBD system was truly above the level 
of the proposed leak emission standard. Third, it could be used for 
vehicles which had not successfully completed a full OBD-based 
evaporative system leak monitoring check within the last 750 miles. 
Fourth, it could be used to confirm that a DTC set within the last 750 
miles actually indicated the presence of a leak(s) greater than the 
proposed standard. However, if a manufacturer elected to use only OBD-
based evaporative system leak based monitoring in its IUVP testing; 
these results would be the basis for decisions regarding IUCP. As is 
required in the current IUVP regulations, all test data whether OBD 
based or based on EPA's stand alone test procedure would have to be 
reported to EPA.
    There could be some advantages to this option since it employs a 
pressure/vacuum approach manufacturers understand and creates positive/
negative pressures manufacturers have accommodated within their fuel/
evaporative system. One potential downside is that under current 
designs vehicle engines would have to be operating to create the 
pressure or vacuum and because the engine is operating this would 
require the OBD-based leak test to be stand alone after the 
preconditioning sequence is complete. This would be more challenging 
for natural vacuum leak detection systems unless extended driving was 
involved to create the fuel system heat needed for a natural vacuum 
event or this was done through a climate chamber or SHED based diurnal 
heat build.

[[Page 29907]]

    Allowing for this approach raises at least two implementation 
questions. The first is related to the value of conducting the OBD-
based test for a vehicle with an active or pending leak DTC already set 
in the computer and/or an MIL indicated. In this case, EPA would permit 
the manufacturer to run the OBD-based leak test and/or the stand alone 
EPA leak test or concede that the vehicle would not pass the leak 
emission standard and count the result. Second is the question of gas 
caps. This is among the most common codes found in OBD records and is 
often related to operator error such as not tightening the gas cap 
properly. Codes of this nature have no value in this leak emission 
assessment, so a manufacturer would be permitted to correct the problem 
before testing and clear this OBD code before testing or run the stand 
alone EPA leak test.
6. Other Initiatives
    This proposal includes consideration of several amendments or 
clarifications to existing requirements related to evaporative 
emissions. As part of this process, the following provisions warrant 
adjustment, clarification, or correction:
     Even though the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR 
part 86 apply to the same engines and vehicles that must meet exhaust 
emission standards, we require a separate certificate for complying 
with evaporative and refueling emission standards. An important related 
point to note is that the evaporative and refueling emission standards 
always apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust emission standards may 
apply to either the engine or the vehicle. Since we plan to apply 
evaporative/refueling/leak emission standards and the recently adopted 
greenhouse gas standards to vehicle manufacturers, we believe it would 
be advantageous to have the regulations related to their certification 
requirements written together as much as possible to reduce burden and 
increase efficiency. We are therefore proposing to move the emission 
standards and certification requirements from 40 CFR part 86 to the new 
40 CFR part 1037, which was originally used for greenhouse gas 
standards for heavy-duty highway vehicles. This is not intended to 
change the requirements that apply to these vehicles, except as noted 
in this section. We propose to make the provisions in part 1037 
effective with model year 2014.
     As described in Section VI.C.3, we are proposing to allow 
for certifying vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR based on an engineering 
analysis instead of new testing (as is currently allowed for vehicles 
at or above 26,000 lbs GVWR). We are also proposing to clarify the 
provisions describing how the certification process plays out for these 
vehicles.
     Section 86.1810-01 contains specifications addressing 
whether diesel fuel vehicles can be waived from demonstrating 
compliance with the refueling emission standard through testing. In the 
current regulation the potential for a waiver from testing depends on 
the diesel fuel having an RVP equal to or less than 1 psi and the fuel 
tank having a temperature which does not exceed 130[emsp14][deg]F. We 
have examined this provision and are proposing to withdraw the fuel 
temperature limit specification. Short of fuel spillage in the SHED, 
EPA sees no likelihood that a diesel fueled vehicle with RVP less than 
1 psi could fail the refueling emission standard even at fuel tank 
temperatures above 130[emsp14][deg]F. This is due to the inherently low 
vapor pressure of diesel at these temperatures and the likelihood that 
vapor shrinkage conditions will occur in the fuel tank during refueling 
since the dispensed fuel will be cooler than the tank fuel.
     When adopting the most recent evaporative emission change 
we did not carry through the changes to the regulatory text applying 
evaporative emission standards for methanol-fueled compression-ignition 
engines. The proposed regulations correct this oversight.
     We are proposing provisions to address which standards 
apply when an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed in a motor 
vehicle, which is currently not directly addressed in the highway 
regulation. The proposed approach would require testing complete 
vehicles with any auxiliary engines (and the corresponding fuel-system 
components). Incomplete vehicles would be tested without the auxiliary 
engines, but any such engines and the corresponding fuel-system 
components would need to meet the standards that apply under our 
nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR part 1060.
     We are proposing to remove the option for secondary 
vehicle manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank capacity than is 
specified by the certifying manufacturer without re-certifying the 
vehicle. Secondary vehicle manufacturers needing a greater fuel tank 
capacity would need to either work with the certifying manufacturer to 
include the larger tank, or go through the effort to re-certify the 
vehicle itself. Our understanding is that this provision has not been 
used and would be better handled as part of certification rather than 
managing a separate process. We are proposing corresponding changes to 
the emission control information label.
     Since we adopted evaporative emission standards for 
gaseous-fuel vehicles, we have developed new approaches for design-
based certification (see, for example, 40 CFR 1060.240). We request 
comment on changing the requirements related to certifying gaseous-fuel 
vehicles to design-based certification. This would allow for a simpler 
assessment for certifying these vehicles without changing the standards 
that apply.
     With regard to OBD, we note also that under Sec.  86.1806-
01(b)(4) OBD systems must have the ability to detect absence of purge 
air flow from a complete evaporative emission control system. This is 
clearly important because the proper operation of an integrated 
evaporative/refueling emission control system depends on purge. 
Similarly, evaporative/refueling system operation depends on the 
presence, proper adsorption/desorption performance, and sustained 
working capacity of the activated carbon canister. It is thus curious 
to observe that the current OBD provisions do not directly address the 
activated carbon canister in any way. The absence of the canister would 
likely be noted as a gross leak and/or a problem with purge. 
Nonetheless, we are seeking comment on a provision which would require 
the OBD system to sense for evidence of ongoing adsorption and 
desorption of hydrocarbon vapors. These could both be sensed by changes 
in canister carbon bed temperature or perhaps for the presence of vapor 
in the fuel going to the intake manifold after a cold start or 
refueling event. In some cases, EPA believes these parameters could be 
monitored by hardware and sensors now on most vehicles and thus this 
might be primarily an OBD software change. Similarly, we are seeking 
comment on whether the operation of a vacuum pump or similar device 
used to assist or supplement vehicle engine vacuum purge or any device 
otherwise used to enhance or control purge flows, rates, or schedules 
should be required to be monitored as part of OBD.
     With future technology, we anticipate a trend toward the 
implementation of fuel tanks with higher operating pressures and in 
some cases fuel tanks which are sealed to the atmosphere during normal 
operation. Data available to EPA indicates that a leak in such a system 
will result in substantial emissions relative to very low pressure 
systems which employ running loss control strategies and an activated 
carbon canister as part of the

[[Page 29908]]

methodology to control vapor emissions.\316\ Based on this concern, we 
are seeking comment on the feasibility and cost of requiring the OBD 
leak detection monitoring system to detect and signal the presence of a 
smaller diameter orifice than proposed for non-pressurized systems (~ 
0.010 inch) upstream of the purge valve for all 4 vehicle categories 
LDV, LDT, MDPV, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. This would 
apply to any vehicle with a designed in-use operating pressure in 
excess of 0.36 psi (10 inches water). As a means to prevent a sealed 
fuel tank from venting leaks directly to atmosphere, we ask for comment 
on an added requirement that the fuel vapor vent valve be set to the 
open position at key off (and vent to the canister) if the OBD system 
detected a leak and triggered an MIL related to any leak greater than a 
pre-established threshold. The vent open at key off concept for 
pressurized fuel systems would not be intended to disenable the OBD 
system from conducting its normal evaporative system check during 
operation. Furthermore, as discussed above, we are proposing a 0.020'' 
leak detection threshold for all systems. However, we are asking for 
comment on setting the threshold in the 0.010''-0.015'' range for 
pressurized systems. In the context of this request for comment, we ask 
for input regarding the feasibility of the smaller threshold, the 
effects of the vent valve open requirement on ORVR, and the 
repairability of leaks of less than 0.020''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \316\ Passavant, G. (February 2013). Presentation on Evaporative 
Emission System Leaks for a Fuel Tank Under Pressure. Memorandum to 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Emissions Test Fuel

1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel
    In-use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA's fuel 
specifications for emissions testing of light- and heavy-duty gasoline 
vehicles were first set and last revised. Gasoline sulfur and benzene 
have been reduced and, perhaps most importantly, gasoline containing 10 
percent ethanol by volume (E10) has replaced clear gasoline (E0) across 
the country. This has had second-order effects on other gasoline 
properties. In-use fuel is projected to continue to change with the 
implementation of the RFS2 program (e.g., the expansion of the number 
of retailers that offer E15) as well as today's proposed Tier 3 
gasoline sulfur program. As a result, we are proposing to update our 
federal emission test fuel specifications not only to better match 
today's in-use fuel but also to be forward looking with respect to 
future ethanol and sulfur content.\317\ The revised test fuel 
specifications would apply for exhaust emissions testing, fuel economy/
greenhouse gas testing, and emissions testing for non-exhaust emissions 
(evaporative, refueling, and leak detection testing). The proposed 
gasoline specifications, found at Sec.  1065.710, would apply to 
emissions testing of light-duty cars and trucks as well as heavy-duty 
gasoline vehicles certified on the chassis test, those subject to the 
proposed Tier 3 standards.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ EPA's motor vehicle emissions standards typically require 
a level of performance over a specified test procedure, with 
emissions measured while the engine or the vehicle is operated using 
the specified test fuel and operated in a specified manner. The test 
fuel specifications typically apply for all emissions testing used 
to determine compliance with the standard, including emissions 
testing to obtain a certificate of conformity, as well as compliance 
testing for newly produced or in-use engines or vehicles. While this 
test fuel is commonly referred to as ``certification fuel,'' the 
test fuel specifications proposed today are not limited to 
certification related emissions testing, but also apply to 
compliance related emissions testing after the certificate of 
conformity has been issued. The certification process also typically 
involves a process to ensure that the emissions controls system is 
durable over the regulatory useful life of the vehicle or engine. 
This can involve long-term or accelerated aging of a vehicle or 
engine prior to emissions testing. The fuel used for such aging is 
commonly referred to as service accumulation or durability fuel, and 
in many cases is specified as commercial gasoline that will be 
generally available through retail outlets (Sec.  86.113-04(a)(3)), 
or in some cases may be specified as gasoline which contains ethanol 
in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline 
under federal law and that is commercially available in any state in 
the United States, such as for durability aging of evaporative 
emissions system (Sec.  86.1824-08(f)). EPA is not proposing changes 
to the specifications for fuel used during durability related aging 
that is part of the certification process. The proposed changes only 
apply to the test fuel used during emissions testing, both for 
purposes of certification and for later compliance related testing.
    \318\ As discussed in Section IV.C, we are also seeking comment 
on requiring the proposed Tier 3 test fuel in conducting exhaust, 
evaporative, and refueling emissions testing of heavy-duty gasoline 
engines certified on an engine dynamometer. These could include 
engines installed in incomplete Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles and 
engines used in vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not proposing changes to the exhaust or evaporative 
durability fuel requirements outlined in the provisions of Sec.  
86.113-04(a)(3), except to remove the minimum sulfur content (15 ppm) 
currently specified at Sec.  86.113-04(a)(3)(i). Those provisions 
require that ``Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, unleaded 
gasoline representative of commercial gasoline that will be generally 
available through retail outlets must be used in service 
accumulation.'' We would expect that manufacturers would use service 
accumulation fuels which are generally representative of the national 
average in-use fuels (or worst case for durability) during the model 
year which is being certified, including, for example, the ethanol 
content (for exhaust emissions), sulfur level, and fuel additive 
package. For exhaust emission bench aging durability programs as 
allowed under the provisions of Sec.  86.1823-08(d) and (e), the bench 
aging program should be designed using good engineering judgment to 
account for the effects of in-use fuels on exhaust emissions, including 
the effects of future in-use fuels on catalytic converters, oxygen 
sensors, fuel injectors, and other emission-related components.
    For evaporative emissions, durability fuel requirements are the 
same as for exhaust emissions (as outlined above), plus an additional 
requirement in the provisions of Sec.  86.1824-08(f), that the service 
accumulation fuel ``contains ethanol in, at least, the highest 
concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is 
commercially available in any state in the United States. Unless 
otherwise approved by the Administrator, the manufacturer must 
determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the 
highest legal concentration commercially available during the calendar 
year before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage 
accumulation.'' Thus, as E15 in-use fuel becomes progressively more 
available, we would expect that E15 service accumulation fuel would be 
used for whole vehicle evaporative durability programs. Similarly, 
evaporative bench aging durability programs allowed under the 
provisions of Sec.  86.1824-08(d) and (e), should be designed using 
good engineering judgment to account for the durability effects of in-
use fuels on evaporative emissions, bleed emissions, and leakage 
emissions.
    Where possible, we are proposing changes consistent with the CARB's 
planned LEV III gasoline test fuel specifications.\319\ Below is an 
overview of some of the key changes. A summary of the proposed test 
fuel specifications is provided in Table IV-21. For more information on 
how we arrived at the proposed test fuel property ranges and ASTM test 
methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ The LEV III program as approved by the California Air 
Resources Board, January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ethanol--adding a 15 volume percent ethanol specification 
to be forward-looking with respect to the maximum gasoline ethanol 
concentration Tier 3 vehicles could expect to encounter. EPA recently 
issued a waiver under section 211(f)(4) of the CAA permitting E15 to be

[[Page 29909]]

introduced into commerce for use in MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 
vehicles.\320\ While E15 is only commercially available at a limited 
number of fuel retailers, EPA believes it could become a major gasoline 
blend over the next 10-15 years given instability in crude oil pricing 
and growing RFS2 renewable fuel requirements. The use of E15 as the 
emission test fuel will help ensure that all future vehicles are 
capable of meeting Tier 3 emission standards while operating on E15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \320\ On Nov. 4, 2010, EPA issued a partial waiver for MY2007 
and newer light-duty motor vehicles (75 FR 68094). On January 26, 
2011, EPA extended the waiver to MY 2001-2006 light-duty motor 
vehicles (76 FR 4662).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Octane--lowering gasoline octane to around 87 (R+M)/2 to 
be representative of in-use fuel, i.e., regular-grade gasoline. 
Manufacturers could continue to use high-octane gasoline for testing of 
premium-required \321\ vehicles and engines as well as for testing 
unrelated to exhaust emissions. Historically, the high octane rating of 
test fuel has not had any real emissions implications. However, as 
manufacturers begin introducing new advanced vehicle technologies 
(e.g., turbocharged downsized), this may no longer be the case. For 
those vehicles where operation on high-octane gasoline is required by 
the manufacturer, we would allow the manufacturer to test on a fuel 
with a minimum octane rating of 91 (R+M)/2 (in lieu of the proposed 87 
(R+M)/2 general test fuel). According to the proposed regulations found 
at Sec.  1065.710(d), vehicles or engines are considered to require 
premium fuel if they are designed specifically for operation on high-
octane fuel and the manufacturer requires the use of premium gasoline 
as part of their warranty as indicated in the owner's manual. Cases 
where premium gasoline is not required but is recommended to improve 
performance would not qualify as a vehicle or engine that requires the 
use of premium fuel. For qualifying vehicles and engines, all emission 
tests must use the specified high-octane fuel. For vehicles and engines 
certified on high-octane gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in-use 
testing would also be conducted on high-octane gasoline. All other test 
fuel specifications would be the same as those proposed in Table IV-21. 
We seek comment on the need for limiting the maximum octane of gasoline 
used in the certification of premium-required engines and vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \321\ Premium-required defined at Sec.  1065.710(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Distillation Temperatures--adjusting gasoline distillation 
temperatures to better reflect today's in-use gasoline/E10. This 
includes minor T10, T90 and FBP adjustments based on AAM in-use fuel 
surveys and refinery batch test data, with additional adjustments to 
reflect future E15 performance (significantly lower T50 range). We seek 
comment on the appropriateness of the proposed distillation 
temperatures including the proposed 170-190[emsp14][deg]F T50 range for 
an E15 fuel. For more information on how we arrived at the proposed 
distillation temperatures in Table IV-21, refer to Chapter 3 of the 
draft RIA.
     Sulfur--lowering the sulfur content of test fuel to 8-11 
ppm to be consistent with our proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 
standards. The proposed 10-ppm annual average sulfur standard is 
expected to result in two-thirds less sulfur nationwide so it is 
appropriate to lower the gasoline test fuel specification in concert.
     Benzene--setting a benzene test fuel specification of 0.6-
0.8 volume percent to represent in-use fuel under our new MSAT2 
regulations.\322\ The MSAT2 standards, which took effect January 1, 
2011, limit the gasoline pool to 0.62 volume percent benzene on 
average. Beginning July 1, 2012, no refinery may produce gasoline above 
1.3 volume percent benzene on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Total Aromatics--lowering the aromatics content of test 
fuel to better match today's in-use gasoline/E10 and accommodate E15. 
According to AAM fuel surveys, the average aromatics content in 
gasoline has dropped 16 percent over the past decade due to ethanol 
blending.\323\ Additional ethanol blending to produce E15 is expected 
to result in even greater aromatics reductions. Accordingly, we believe 
the proposed 19.5-24.5 volume percent test fuel specification is 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ For more information on current aromatics levels, refer to 
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Distribution of Aromatics--in addition to total aromatics 
and benzene, we are proposing regulations that would require a 
distribution of aromatics (i.e., a certain amount of C7, C8, C9, and 
C10+ hydrocarbons) to ensure that test fuel is more representative of 
in-use gasoline. Heavier aromatics in gasoline are believed to 
contribute to vehicle PM emissions, so it is important that vehicles 
are designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 emission standards on fuel 
with a distribution of aromatic compounds representative of in-use 
gasoline. We also seek comment on the need for a multi-substituted 
alkyl aromatics (MSAA) specification, as has been proposed by CARB. For 
more information on our proposed aromatics specifications, refer to 
Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.
     Olefins--adjusting the olefins specification to better 
match today's in-use gasoline/E10 according to AAM fuel surveys. Not 
only is the proposed 4.5-11.5 mass percent range (approximately 4-6 
volume percent) more representative of in-use fuel, the narrower test 
fuel range would result in more consistent vehicle test results.
     Other Specifications--adding distillation residue, total 
content of oxygenates other than ethanol, copper corrosion, solvent-
washed gum, and oxidation stability specifications to better control 
other performance properties of test fuel. These proposed 
specifications are consistent with ASTM's D4814 gasoline specifications 
and CARB's LEV III test fuel requirements.
     Updates to Gasoline Test Methods--updating some of the 
gasoline test methods currently specified in Sec.  86.113 with more 
appropriate, easier to use, or more precise test methods for ethanol-
blended gasoline. Key changes include replacement of ASTM D323 with 
ASTM D5191 for measuring vapor pressure; replacement of ASTM D1319 with 
ASTM D5769 for measuring aromatics and benzene; and replacement of ASTM 
D1266 with three alternative ASTM test methods (D2622, D5453 or D7039) 
for measuring sulfur. We request comment on the use of three different 
test methods for the measurement of sulfur content.
     Consolidation of Test Fuels--consolidation of all gasoline 
exhaust and evaporative emission test fuels into a single general test 
fuel. This would be used for all on-highway vehicle testing with the 
exception of cold CO vehicle testing (which would use higher volatility 
test fuel) and high-altitude testing (which would be permitted to use 
lower volatility fuel). As discussed above, commercial gasoline would 
continue to be used for service accumulation (durability fuel). This is 
consistent with CARB's LEV III approach and should help limit the total 
number of test fuels that automakers need to manage.

[[Page 29910]]



                                                   Table IV-21--Proposed Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Specification
                                                      -------------------------------------------------------------
            Property                      Unit                            Low-temperature                                 ASTM reference procedure
                                                        General testing       testing       High altitude testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antiknock Index (R+M)/2.........  ...................              87.0--88.4              87.0 Minimum...........  D2699-11 and D2700-11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,nSensitivity (R-M).............  ...................                          7.5 Minimum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent     kPa (psi)..........         60.0-63.4         77.2-81.4  52.4-55.2..............  D5191-10b.
 (DVPE).                                                      (8.7-9.2)       (11.2-11.8)  (7.6-8.0)..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation
    10% evaporated..............  [deg]C ([deg]F)....             49-60             43-54  49-60..................  D86-10a.
                                                              (120-140)         (110-130)  (120-140)..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ,n50% evaporated............  [deg]C ([deg]F)....                        77-88 (170-190)
    90% evaporated..............  [deg]C ([deg]F)....                       154-166 (310-330)
    Evaporated final boiling      [deg]C ([deg]F)....                       193-216 (380-420)
     point.
Residue.........................  Milliliter.........                          2.0 Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons.....  vol. %.............                           19.5-24.5                           D5769-10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ,nC6 Aromatics (benzene)....  vol. %.............                            0.6-0.8
    C7 Aromatics (toluene)......  vol. %.............                            4.4-5.5
    C8 Aromatics................  vol. %.............                            5.5-6.9
    C9 Aromatics................  vol. %.............                            5.0-6.2
    C10+ Aromatics..............  vol. %.............                            4.0-5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olefins.........................  mass %.............                            4.5-11.5                           D6550-10.
Ethanol.........................  vol. %.............                           14.6-15.0                           D5599-00 (Reapproved 2010).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,nTotal Content of Oxygenates     vol. %.............                          0.1 Maximum
 Other than Ethanol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur..........................  mg/kg..............                            8.0-11.0                           D2622-10, D5453-09 or D7039-07.
Lead............................  g/liter............                         0.0026 Maximum                        D3237-06.
Phosphorus......................  g/liter............                         0.0013 Maximum                        D3231-11.
Copper Corrosion................  ...................                         No. 1 Maximum                         D130-10.
Solvent-Washed Gum Content......  mg/100 ml..........                          3.0 Maximum                          D381-09.
Oxidation Stability.............  Minute.............                         1,000 Minimum                         D525-05.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA seeks comment on the appropriateness of the proposed forward-
looking E15 test fuel for light- and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. 
While we believe we have discretion under the statute to transition 
from E0 to E15 test fuel, we acknowledge that vehicle manufacturers 
will need to calibrate their vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 
standards on fuel containing 15 percent ethanol by volume. Our analysis 
of the proposed Tier 3 standards (emission control technology, 
feasibility, cost, etc.) assumes the use of the proposed E15 test fuel. 
We anticipate that vehicle electronic control systems will be fully 
capable of adjusting to maintain emission performance when operating on 
E10 (or any remaining E0), but if E15 were not to enter the gasoline 
pool in significant quantities, it may be more appropriate to require 
that vehicles be calibrated for and tested on E10.
    We are seeking comment on various alternative approaches, e.g., 
starting with E10 as the test fuel and transitioning to E15 as the 
market further transitions to E15 in use. This could include a market 
review in 2014 or 2015 followed by regulatory action to implement the 
change from E10 to E15 test fuel, if warranted. Or, it could include 
the establishment of a ``trigger point'' (e.g., 30 percent of gasoline 
is E15) in the Tier 3 final rule to prompt an automatic move to E15 
after a certain period of time, e.g., two or three years. Or, we could 
simply set a future date (e.g., 2020) with sufficient time for 
transitioning to E15 test fuel. These transition approaches would give 
vehicle manufacturers additional lead time to prepare for higher 
ethanol concentrations in test fuel. We seek comment on the various 
transition approaches, their timing, and the appropriate specifications 
for an E10 test fuel to be used in the interim.
    While the volatility (i.e., RVP) of CARB's E10 test fuel is 7.0 psi 
to be representative of in-use gasoline in California during summer 
months, conventional E10 in the rest of the country is currently around 
10 psi. Thus, should we finalize E10 instead of E15, in the absence of 
any standard to reduce the in-use RVP of E10 to 9.0 psi or lower, we 
would also have to consider raising the RVP of certification test fuel 
to 10 psi to reflect the RVP level of the current in-use fuel. Were we 
to raise the volatility to 10 psi RVP, EPA believes that the proposed 
evaporative emission standards would be feasible, but this would 
increase the stringency of the proposed evaporative emission standards 
(see Section IV.C). Changing certification test fuel to 10 psi RVP 
would increase vapor generation rates during the refueling test by 
about 10 percent and during the hot soak, diurnal, canister bleed, and 
running loss tests by as much as 25 percent in total. To the extent 
that the refueling test dictates the size of the canister, the 
increased vapor generation would necessitate increases in the volume of

[[Page 29911]]

activated carbon used in the vehicle's onboard canister by about 10 
percent. Perhaps more importantly, manufacturer's vehicle purge 
strategies and technologies would likely have to be modified to 
removing the larger vapor loads from the canister during vehicle 
operation. Some vehicles have adequate engine vacuum available to 
provide the increased purge, while others may require new or innovative 
approaches to increase purge volume or canister purge efficiency as 
discussed in the evaporative emissions technology discussion. While we 
have not performed a detailed analysis, EPA estimates that on average 
the evaporative standard compliance costs could be about $10-15 per 
vehicle higher at 10 psi RVP compared to 9 psi RVP for canister and 
purge upgrades. With respect to lead time, EPA's current proposal calls 
for either 40 percent of light-duty vehicles to meet the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards in 2017 MY (percentage option) or for a 
manufacturer to sell only zero evap PZEVs nationwide (PZEV only 
option). This basic approach for 2017 could still be feasible depending 
on the resolution of the test procedure issues and proposed 
flexibilities in phase-in schemes.
    Raising the certification test fuel to 10 psi RVP would also impact 
the equivalency of CARB and EPA refueling and hot soak plus diurnal 
evaporative emission test procedures. These potential impacts would 
have to be addressed to maintain CARB/EPA evaporative emissions test 
reciprocity. Furthermore, there may be test procedure options for 
minimizing the burden of changing certification test fuel RVP while 
maintaining the needed in-use control.
    EPA does not believe that a 10 psi certification test fuel would 
impact the feasibility or cost of the proposed leak emission standard 
or the proposed change in the OBD evaporative system leak detection 
requirements, since these are based on orifice diameter. Nor, do we 
believe that it would have any negative impact on permeation emissions 
or exhaust emissions.
    As mentioned above, EPA issued a waiver allowing E15 to be 
introduced into commerce for use in MY 2001 and newer light-duty motor 
vehicles. On July 25, 2011, EPA finalized regulations to mitigate the 
potential for misfueling of vehicles, engines, and equipment not 
covered by the E15 waiver, i.e., MY 2000 and older light-duty motor 
vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline vehicles and engines, motorcycles, 
and all gasoline-powered nonroad products (which includes boats).\324\ 
Two of the required mitigation measures are a label for fuel pumps that 
dispense E15 to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of 
the fuel and a prohibition on the use of E15 by consumers in vehicles 
not covered by the waiver, excluding flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs). If, 
as discussed in this proposed rule, any class of new heavy-duty 
gasoline vehicles or engines begin testing on E15 for certification, 
EPA would not need to issue a waiver under section 211(f)(4) to allow 
introduction of E15 into commerce for use in these vehicles certified 
on E15 test fuel. However, EPA acknowledges that changes to the 
gasoline pump label and prohibitions finalized in the E15 Misfueling 
Mitigation Measures Rule would have to be made before E15 could 
lawfully be sold for use in these heavy-duty vehicles. This would be 
addressed in a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \324\ 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in Sections IV.A.7.c (tailpipe emission testing) 
and IV.C.4.b (evaporative emission testing), we are proposing to 
require certification of all Tier 3 light-duty and chassis-certified 
heavy-duty gasoline vehicles on E15 test fuel. As described in those 
sections, we are proposing that EPA still accept testing for 
certification on CARB's E10 test fuel during the phase-in periods for 
the respective proposed Tier 3 vehicle tailpipe and evaporative 
emissions standards and, if certified on CARB's E10 test fuel, that EPA 
would not perform or require in-use exhaust or evaporative testing on 
E15 test fuel.
    As mentioned earlier, we plan to continue to allow manufacturers to 
test vehicles on premium-grade gasoline should the vehicles require it. 
Since we cannot predict all future changes in gasoline vehicle 
technologies and in-use fuels, we are proposing to allow vehicle 
manufacturers to specify an alternative test fuel under certain 
situations. Under this proposal, if manufacturers were to design 
vehicles that required operation on a higher octane, higher ethanol 
content gasoline (e.g., dedicated E30 vehicles or FFVs optimized to run 
on E30 or higher ethanol blends), under 40 CFR 1065.701(c), they could 
petition the Administrator for approval of a higher octane, higher 
ethanol content test fuel if they could demonstrate that such a fuel 
would be used by the operator and would be readily available 
nationwide, vehicles would not operate appropriately on other available 
fuels, and such a fuel would result in equivalent emissions 
performance. For vehicles certified on high-octane, high-ethanol 
gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in-use testing would also be 
conducted on high-octane, high-ethanol gasoline. This could help 
manufacturers who wish to raise compression ratios to improve vehicle 
efficiency as a step toward complying with the 2017 and later light-
duty greenhouse gas and CAFE standards. This in turn could help provide 
a market incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 and enhance the 
environmental performance of ethanol as a transportation fuel by using 
it to enable more fuel efficient engines. We seek comment on the 
appropriateness of the alternative test fuel provisions at Sec.  
1065.701(c) and the need to specify more precisely the makeup of such a 
fuel (ethanol content, as well as other fuel parameters) in the 
regulations at this time. We are also seeking comment on whether there 
are other aspects of today's proposed standards that might need to be 
modified to provide an incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the 
development of highly efficient vehicles optimized for use on higher 
level ethanol blends.
2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle Test Fuel
    While the Agency has for some time had testing requirements for 
flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) on E85 fuel blends, EPA currently has no 
regulatory specifications for the test fuel itself. Historically, our 
laboratory practice has been to blend indolene (E0) with neat ethanol 
and normal butane to produce an FFV test fuel with 83 volume percent 
ethanol and an RVP from 6.0 to 6.5 psi. However, the lack of E85 test 
fuel specifications has caused confusion and inconsistency among FFV 
manufacturers in carrying out their certification requirements.
    Similar to the previous discussion regarding gasoline test fuels, 
we believe it is important that the fuel used to test FFVs reflect the 
composition of actual in-use E85. This may become increasingly 
important if E85 usage in FFVs increases to help satisfy the growing 
RFS2 renewable fuel requirements.
    The term ``E85'' has historically been used to describe an ethanol 
blend with a maximum ethanol content of 83 volume percent and specified 
minimum ethanol content for use in FFVs. In the recently updated ASTM 
International specification, the minimum ethanol concentration was 
reduced from 68 to 51 volume percent.\325\ As part of the updated 
specification, ASTM retired the name E85 because it has caused

[[Page 29912]]

confusion regarding the necessary variability in the ethanol content of 
the blend depending upon seasonal climactic conditions. The official 
name in the new ASTM specification is ``ethanol fuel blends for 
flexible-fuel automotive spark-ignition engines.'' For the sake of 
brevity, we shall refer to this fuel as E51-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \325\ ASTM International D5798-11, ``Standard Specification for 
Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition 
Engines''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with our current policy regarding the formulation of FFV 
test fuel, we believe that the ethanol content should be at or near the 
maximum ethanol level on which the vehicles were designed to operate to 
ensure that the testing reflects the full range of in-use formulations 
and emissions performance. To provide adequate flexibility for test 
fuel manufacturers, we are proposing that the ethanol content must be 
from 80 to 83 volume percent. Rather than specify ranges for the other 
fuel parameters as we have done for gasoline test fuel in Table IV-21, 
we are proposing that the FFV test fuel would be defined based on the 
results from blending the proposed E15 standard gasoline test fuel with 
ethanol. We propose that denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that meets the 
proposed specifications would be used to increase the ethanol content 
to 80 to 83 volume percent.\326\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \326\ The proposed requirements for DFE are contained in Section 
V.C of today's preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to ensure that the volatility of FFV test fuel 
meets minimum volatility specifications to provide adequate 
startability and for safety reasons. The ASTM minimum RVP specification 
that conforms to the specified temperature at which FFV emission 
testing takes place (68 to 86[emsp14][deg]F) is 5.5 psi. EPA conducted 
discussions with vehicle and test fuel manufacturers to arrive at the 
current guidance that the RVP of the finished test fuel should be 
between 6.0 and 6.5 psi. We propose to formalize the current guidance 
in the regulatory requirements for FFV test fuel. We propose that 
commercial grade normal butane could be added to trim the RVP of the 
finished test fuel to meet the proposed specifications.\327\ A 6.0 to 
6.5 range in RVP has historically provided test fuel manufacturers 
adequate flexibility in formulating test fuels. Limiting the amount of 
butane that is added to formulate FFV test fuels is important because 
if excessive volumes of butane were used it could inappropriately 
reduce the stringency of emissions testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \327\ The specifications for commercial grade butane are 
contained in 40 CFR 80.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to the use of DFE to manufacture FFV test fuel, 
we propose that neat (undenatured) fuel grade ethanol could be used. We 
also propose that as an alternative to using a finished E15 standard 
gasoline test fuel in the manufacture of FFV test fuel that the 
gasoline blendstock used to produce a compliant E15 test fuel could be 
used to manufacture the FFV test fuel. This would allow ethanol to be 
blended only once to produce FFV test fuel. The test fuel manufacturer 
would be required to test a sample of the subject gasoline blendstock 
after the addition of ethanol to produce a finished standard E15 
gasoline test fuel and demonstrate that the blend meets all of the 
proposed requirements for standard gasoline test fuel described in 
Section IV.D.1.
    We propose that the above FFV emissions test fuel specifications 
would become applicable on the same schedule as the proposed E15 
standard gasoline test fuel specifications become applicable for light- 
and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (described below in Section IV.D.3). 
We believe that the proposed requirements would ensure that FFV test 
fuel reflects the composition of in-use ethanol fuel blends for 
flexible-fuel automotive spark-ignition engines while minimizing the 
burden on the industry with respect to test fuel formulation and the 
number of test fuel blend components that must be stored.
    Under the Tier 2 program, FFVs utilize a test fuel containing 10 
percent ethanol with an RVP of approximately 10 psi for evaporative 
emission testing. The proposed E15 certification fuel for non-FFVs is a 
9 psi E15 fuel. We seek comment on whether the new E15 evaporative 
emissions test fuel for FFVs should continue to have an RVP of 10 psi 
to maintain the level of performance established under the Tier 2 
program.
3. Proposed Implementation Schedule
    As described earlier in Section IV.C, we are proposing Tier 3 
exhaust and evaporative emission standards with today's notice. The 
proposed changes in the specifications for test fuel would apply to 
vehicles certified to these new standards. We are proposing to 
transition to the new test fuel during the first few years that the 
Tier 3 standards are phasing in. As described in Sections IV.A and 
IV.B, testing with the new fuel would start with light-duty vehicles 
certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 70, and heavy-duty 
vehicles certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 250 (for 
Class 2b) and Bin 300 (for Class 3). Starting with model years 2020 for 
light-duty and 2022 for heavy-duty, we would require that all 
manufacturers use the new test fuel for all exhaust emission testing 
(with the exception of Small Volume Manufacturers and small businesses, 
which could delay using the new test fuel until model year 2022). 
Manufacturers would also need to comply with cold temperature CO and 
NMHC standards using the new test fuel for any models that use E15 test 
fuel for meeting the light-duty Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. 
These same tests would also provide the basis for meeting GHG 
requirements under 40 CFR part 86 and fuel economy requirements under 
40 CFR part 600, as described in the following section.
    We are proposing to require evaporative emission testing with the 
new test fuel for any models that are certified to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards. To the extent that these models are 
different than those used for exhaust emission testing with the new 
test fuel, manufacturers would need to do additional testing to 
demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards. They may 
alternatively use the new test fuel earlier than the regulations 
specify to avoid additional testing. We further propose to require that 
manufacturers submit certification data based on the new test fuel to 
demonstrate compliance with refueling emission standards for any 
vehicles that are certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards.
4. Potential Implications on CAFE Standards, GHG Standards, and Fuel 
Economy Labels
    EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
recently finalized a joint greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate 
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for MY 2017-2025 light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.\328\ 
These GHG and CAFE standards build upon the National Program that was 
first announced by the President in May 2009 and which allows 
manufacturers to build a single fleet of light vehicles that can 
satisfy all federal and state requirements for GHG emissions and fuel 
economy. The first round of standards by EPA and NHTSA under the 
National Program cover MY 2012-2016.\329\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
    \329\ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recently finalized MY 2017-2025 GHG and CAFE standards affect 
essentially the same vehicle classes over the same timeframe as this 
proposal for non-GHG emissions standards and gasoline fuel quality. 
Accordingly, EPA believes it is important for the two rulemakings to be 
coordinated so that manufacturers can develop future

[[Page 29913]]

product development plans with a full understanding of the major 
regulatory requirements they would be facing over the MY 2017-2025 time 
frame.
    The Agency would like to highlight two important issues of overlap 
between these two rulemakings: Test fuel and useful life. As explained 
above, today's action proposes to update EPA's test fuel to better 
match in-use fuels, with the change in test fuel phased-in from MY 
2017-2020 for light-duty exhaust emission compliance. The proposal 
involves several changes to the emissions test fuel specifications, 
including, notably, a 15 percent by volume ethanol content. The current 
emissions test fuel contains zero ethanol. Regarding useful life, we 
are proposing a longer useful life for some vehicles, as described in 
Section IV.A.7.b, from the current 120,000 miles to 150,000 miles.
a. Test Fuel
    The proposed change in test fuel, if finalized, could have 
implications for both the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance programs, 
as well as the fuel economy labeling program. EPA is committed to the 
principle of ensuring that the proposed change in test fuel would not 
affect the stringency of either the CAFE or GHG emissions standards, 
and that the labeling calculations would be updated to reflect the 
change in test fuel.
    While NHTSA establishes the fuel economy standards for the CAFE 
program, EPA is responsible for vehicle testing and calculation of fuel 
economy values used by manufacturer for compliance with the CAFE 
standards. Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), 
limitations are placed on the test procedures used to measure fuel 
economy for passenger cars. For passenger automobiles, EPA has to use 
the same procedures used for model year 1975 automobiles, or procedures 
that give comparable results.\330\ When EPA has made changes to the FTP 
or HFET, we have evaluated whether it is appropriate to provide for an 
adjustment to the measured fuel economy results, to comply with the 
EPCA requirement for passenger cars that the test procedures produce 
results comparable to the 1975 test procedures. These adjustments are 
typically referred to as a CAFE or fuel economy test procedure 
adjustment or adjustment factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \330\ 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, i.e., 
fewer British thermal units (Btus) or joules per gallon,\331\ and fuel 
economy is defined in terms of miles per gallon of fuel, it is almost 
certain that the same vehicle tested on a test fuel with 15 percent 
ethanol content will yield a lower fuel economy value relative to the 
value if it were tested on the current test fuel with zero ethanol 
content. For CAFE purposes, the existing fuel economy equation for 
gasoline that has been in use for many years already contains an 
adjustment for the energy content of the test fuel to calculate fuel 
economy equivalent to what would have been determined using the 1975 
baseline test fuel.\332\ Therefore, it is not clear that any further 
action is necessary to account for the proposed change in certification 
test fuel. Within this equation, however, is a so-called ``R-factor'' 
to account for the fact that the change in fuel economy is not directly 
proportional to the change in energy content of the test fuel. Although 
an R-factor of 0.6 has been used since 1988, manufacturers have 
suggested that a higher value may be more appropriate. We discuss this 
issue in a memo to the docket.\333\ This is a technical issue with the 
fuel economy equation that has been raised in the context of the 
proposed certification test fuel change, but technically it is distinct 
from the proposed change in test fuel. EPA will continue to investigate 
this issue and if necessary address it as part of a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \331\ EPA estimates that, on average, E85 fuel contains 25-30 
percent less energy per gallon than gasoline with zero ethanol.
    \332\ 40 CFR 600.113-12(h)(1).
    \333\ Butler, A. (February 2013) Analysis of the Effects of 
Changing Fuel Properties on the EPA Fuel Economy Equation and R-
Factor. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also committed to retaining equivalent stringency for GHG 
emissions compliance associated with the proposed test fuel change. The 
proposed changes in test fuel properties in this rule do not have any 
appreciable impact on carbon dioxide grams per mile levels. This is 
supported by data from the EPAct study, which show that the change in 
the test fuel have both positive and negative impacts that offset each 
other and that there is no net impact on carbon dioxide grams per mile 
levels. This is discussed in a memo to the docket.\334\ We seek comment 
on the impact of this proposal on CO2 emissions. Should 
action to adjust the compliance calculation for the light-duty GHG 
standards become warranted, we would include such changes as a part of 
a future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \334\ Butler, A. (February 2013) Analysis of the Effects of 
Changing Fuel Properties on the EPA Fuel Economy Equation and R-
Factor. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA expects that there may be a potential impact on manufacturer's 
fuel economy and greenhouse gas testing burden during the Tier 3 phase-
in years. Currently, for example, manufacturers carry over a 
considerable amount of previous model year data in support of their 
Fuel Economy Labeling and CAFE/Greenhouse Gas programs. We are 
proposing that Tier 3 compliant vehicles would be required to test on 
E15 test fuel, and thus, manufacturers would normally not be allowed to 
carry over previous model year data from vehicles tested on E0 test 
fuel. EPA anticipates that such carryover requests could be handled 
during the Tier 3 phase-in years with modifications to EPA's current 
policy for the use of analytically derived data (see EPA's fuel 
economy, CO2, and carbon-related exhaust emissions testing 
regulations at 40 CFR 600.006-08(e) and EPA guidance letter CD-12-03 
(February 27, 2012) and CCD-04-06, (March 11, 2004 \335\)). EPA 
requests comments on whether there is a need for further reductions in 
fuel economy/greenhouse gas testing burden beyond that allowed by the 
above EPA guidance letters. Any comments supporting the need to reduce 
fuel economy/greenhouse gas testing burden (beyond that allowed by 
EPA's policy for the use of analytically derived data) should describe 
one or more specific methods of reducing such testing burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \335\ EPA Guidance Letters CD-12-03 (Analytically Derived 
CO2 and Carbon-Related Exhaust Emissions (CREE) for 
Light-Duty Vehicles) and CCD-04-06 (Updated Analytically Derived 
Fuel Economy (ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY and Later), March 11, 2004, 
is available through the EPA Transportation and Air Quality Document 
Index System at: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA will need to update the fuel economy labeling 
calculations in 40 CFR Part 600 to reflect the proposed E15 test fuel. 
The current methodology, which took effect with the 2008 model year, 
contains equations that, when applied to test results using current 
fuel (zero alcohol), adjust for an average national impact of ethanol 
in fuel on fuel economy. These equations would need to be revised such 
that the adjustment remains consistent with the actual national use of 
ethanol in fuel.
b. Useful Life for GHG Standards
    As stated above, EPA is committed to retaining equivalent 
stringency for GHG emissions compliance beginning in MY 2017. In 
contrast to the proposed Tier 3 test fuel, for which we are uncertain 
as to the effects on GHG emissions, we believe that certifying a 
vehicle to a longer useful life for any emission constituent would have 
only a

[[Page 29914]]

beneficial effect on emissions. To address potential concerns about 
changes in the stringency of the GHG standards resulting from a longer 
useful life, we are not proposing to require a longer useful life for 
GHG emission standards. As this approach may result in additional 
testing burden, we are proposing that manufacturers could optionally 
certify GHG emissions to a 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life.
5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Heavy-Duty Engine 
Emissions Test Fuel
    As described earlier in Section IV.D.1., we are proposing new 
specifications for the gasoline emissions test fuel used for testing 
highway vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards. In 
developing today's proposal, EPA also considered proposing the change 
in test fuel specifications for other categories of engines, vehicles, 
equipment, and fuel system components that use gasoline. This would 
include a wide range of applications, including small nonroad engines 
used in lawn and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as 
ATVs and snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, on-highway 
motorcycles, and larger heavy-duty gasoline engines. While engines in 
some of these categories employ advanced technologies similar to light-
duty vehicles and trucks, the vast majority of these engines employ 
much simpler designs, with many of the engines being carbureted with no 
electronic controls. Because of lower level of technology, emissions 
from these engines are potentially much more sensitive to changes in 
fuel quality.
    EPA is not proposing to apply the new emissions test fuel 
specifications to these other categories of engines, vehicles, 
equipment, and fuel system components. In discussing the potential 
change in test fuel specifications with the large number of businesses 
potentially impacted by such a change, many companies supported such a 
change. However, a number of manufacturers raised concerns about the 
level of ethanol in the new fuel, the cost of recertifying emission 
families on the new fuel, the impact on nationwide product offerings, 
and the cost impact of complying with the existing standards on the new 
test fuel. EPA believes it is important that the emissions test fuel 
for these other categories reflect real-world fuel qualities but has 
elected to defer moving forward now pending additional analysis of the 
impacts of changing the test fuel specifications for the wide range of 
engines, vehicles, equipment and fuel system components that could be 
impacted. These impacts include the impact on the emissions standards, 
as well as the other issues raised by the manufacturers. EPA plans to 
explore such a change in a separate future action. EPA requests comment 
on the implications of changing the test fuel for these other 
categories and whether a different test fuel would be more appropriate 
for these other categories.
6. Consideration of CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel
    There are currently no sulfur specifications for the test fuel used 
for certifying natural gas vehicles. There is also no sulfur 
specification in Sec.  86.113 for the test fuel used for certifying 
liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles. The corresponding LPG test fuel 
for heavy-duty highway engines and for nonroad engines in Sec.  
1065.720 includes an 80 ppm maximum sulfur specification.
    We request comment on the appropriateness of changing Sec.  86.113 
to reference 40 CFR part 1065 for both natural gas and LPG test fuels. 
We further request comment on amending these specifications to better 
reflect in-use fuel characteristics, and in particular on the 
appropriateness of aligning the sulfur specifications with those that 
apply for gasoline test fuel. Changing the sulfur specifications would 
depend on establishing that the new specification is consistent with 
the range of properties expected from in-use fuels.

E. Small-Business Provisions

    As in previous vehicle rulemakings, our justification for including 
provisions specific to small businesses is that these entities 
generally have a greater degree of difficulty in complying with the 
standards compared to other entities.
    In developing the proposed Tier 3 vehicle program, we evaluated the 
environmental need as well as the technical and financial ability of 
manufacturers and others to meet the standards as expeditiously as 
possible. We believe it is feasible and necessary for the vast majority 
of the program to be implemented in the established time frame to 
achieve the air quality benefits as soon as possible. Based on 
information available from small manufacturers and others, we believe 
that entities classified as small generally face unique circumstances 
with regard to compliance with environmental programs, compared to 
larger entities. Thus, as discussed below, we are proposing several 
flexibility provisions for small businesses in the vehicle industry to 
reduce the burden that this program could have on them. These proposed 
provisions are based on the recommendations of the Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel described in Section XIII.C of today's 
proposal and include a few additional provisions.
    Small entities generally lack the resources that are available to 
larger companies to carry out necessary research and development and to 
raise capital for investing in a new regulatory program. Small entities 
are also likely to have more difficulty in competing for any needed 
engineering and construction resources and lower production volume over 
which to spread their compliance costs. Small entities also tend to 
have limited product lines, which limits their ability to take 
advantage of the phase-in and ABT flexibility provisions in the 
proposal. As such, we are proposing regulatory flexibility provisions 
that would provide additional lead time and reduced testing burden for 
small entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards. This proposed 
approach would allow the overall program to begin as early as possible; 
achieving the air quality benefits of the program as soon as possible, 
while helping to ensure that small entities have adequate time to make 
any necessary modifications to their product lines. We believe that 
small business regulatory flexibilities could provide these entities 
with additional help and/or time to take advantage of technological 
developments by other parties and to accumulate capital internally or 
to secure capital financing from lenders, and could spread out the 
availability of any needed engineering resources. We believe these 
provisions will also reduce their overall compliance burden and allow 
them to more easily transition to the new standards in a way that 
matches their business practices.
    The provisions described below would be available to all small 
businesses subject to the Tier 3 emission standards. The types of 
companies subject to the Tier 3 emission standards include vehicle 
manufacturers, and two additional categories of businesses that are 
generally referred to as independent commercial importers (ICIs) and 
alternative fuel vehicle converters. As discussed below, the proposed 
set of flexibilities would also be available to manufacturers in these 
three business categories that sell less than 5,000 vehicles per year 
that are subject to the Tier 3 emission standards.

[[Page 29915]]

1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards
    As noted above, small businesses have limited resources available 
for developing new designs to comply with new emission standards. In 
addition, it is often necessary for these businesses to rely on vendor 
companies for technology. Moreover, percentage phase-in requirements 
and declining fleet average standards pose a dilemma for a small 
manufacturer that has a limited product line (e.g., the manufacturer 
certifies vehicles in only one or two test groups). Thus, similar to 
the flexibility provisions implemented in previous vehicle rules, the 
Panel recommended that EPA allow small businesses the following 
flexibility option for meeting the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards.
    EPA is proposing that small businesses (and small volume 
manufacturers, as discussed below) be given additional lead time to 
comply with the proposed Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission 
standards. Specifically, we propose to allow small manufacturers to 
postpone compliance with the standards and other Tier 3 requirements, 
including use of the proposed new certification test fuel, until model 
year 2022. For model year 2022 and later, small manufacturers would be 
subject to the same Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative requirements as 
other manufacturers, including moving to the declining FTP fleet 
average NMOG+NOX curve and complying with the fully phased-
in standard of 30 mg/mi, as well as certifying on E15 test fuel. (This 
approach is similar to that in the Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small 
manufacturers to wait until the end of the phase-in to comply with the 
Tier 2 standards.) As described earlier in this section, the proposed 
Tier 3 rule has several different phase-in schedules; with the final 
dates varying from model year 2021 for the new light-duty exhaust PM 
standards to model year 2025 for the new light-duty exhaust gaseous 
pollutant standards. Requiring all small businesses to comply with the 
full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model year 2022 should provide 
sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and implement the 
technology changes needed to comply with the Tier 3 standards.
    During the SBAR Panel process, one small entity representative 
(SER) recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust standards for small 
manufacturers. The SER noted that the exhaust emission averaging 
program being proposed by EPA would allow large manufacturers that have 
many engine families to certify their small, niche products at emission 
levels numerically higher than the standards. Small manufacturers that 
typically do not have more than one or two emission families generally 
cannot use averaging to the same extent because of their limited 
product offerings. The SER was concerned that the high-performance 
vehicles produced by large manufacturers which they compete against 
would be able to certify at numerically higher levels at less cost than 
the SER would incur. The SER-recommended relaxed NMOG+NOX 
standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 125 mg/mi in model 
year 2020 and 70 mg/mi in model year 2025. This is the same general 
approach that the CARB Board approved for small volume manufacturers in 
LEV III (a relaxed standard NMOG+NOX of 125 mg/mi followed 
by a fully phased-in standard of 70 mg/mi in model year 2025), except 
that the CARB program introduces the relaxed standard and the change in 
test fuel in model year 2022.
    As described above, although we are proposing a delay in the Tier 3 
requirements, EPA is not proposing to relax the fully phased-in 
standards for the small entities. We believe that these standards are 
technologically feasible and can be readily achieved with the 
additional lead time we are proposing as the technology would have 
already been demonstrated by other manufacturers, in some cases on the 
very same engines used by the small manufacturers. In addition, the 
compliance costs for many of these vehicles, even if higher on an 
absolute basis, may still be lower on a relative basis given the higher 
average cost of the vehicles. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to allow 
manufacturers to apply for hardship relief (discussed below) on a case-
by-case basis. EPA requests comment on our proposed approach and 
whether there is an additional need for the final rule to allow small 
manufacturers to meet relaxed NMOG+NOX exhaust emission 
standards on the FTP over the long term, as suggested by the SER and as 
reflected in action by CARB.
    In light of the CARB Board-approved implementation schedule for 
small manufacturers described above, we also request comment on an 
option that would not provide a permanent relaxed standard for small 
manufacturers, but would provide a temporary relaxed standard matching 
the California standard from model year 2022 through 2024. This option 
would apply to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards starting in 2022, 
except that a relaxed NMOG+NOX standard of 125 mg/mi would 
apply in model years 2020-2024 for FTP testing. For model years 2025 
and later, the standard would be the same as for all other 
manufacturers, or 30 mg/mi. Under this option, small manufacturers 
would have to take some action to reduce emissions in 2022 and could 
postpone meeting fully phased-in Tier 3 standards until 2025.
2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
    Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their 
vehicles comply with the emission standards throughout the ``useful 
life'' period. This is generally done by testing vehicles at low-
mileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission 
levels. The deterioration factors are determined by aging new emission 
control systems and then testing the aged systems again to determine 
how much deterioration in emissions has occurred. In order to reduce 
the testing burden in previous rulemaking, EPA has allowed small 
manufacturers to use deterioration factor values assigned by EPA 
instead of performing the extended testing. A manufacturer would apply 
the assigned deterioration factors to its low-mileage emission level to 
demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards.
    With today's proposal, EPA proposes that small businesses be 
allowed the option to use EPA-developed assigned deterioration factors 
in demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative 
emission standards. In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor 
data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned deterioration 
factors for small manufacturers. EPA would expect to follow a similar 
procedure to determine the assigned deterioration factors for the Tier 
3 standards once large manufacturers start certifying their Tier 3 
designs. Given that larger manufacturers would begin phasing in to the 
Tier 3 standards in model year 2017, EPA should have a significant set 
of emissions deterioration data upon which to base the assigned 
deterioration factors for small businesses within the first few years 
of the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that assigned deterioration 
factors need to be determined well in advance of model year 2022 in 
order to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether 
or not to use the assigned deterioration factors for certification 
purposes.
3. Reduced Testing Burden
    Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must perform in-use

[[Page 29916]]

testing on their vehicles and demonstrate their in-use vehicles comply 
with the emission standards. The current in-use testing regulations 
provide for reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers, 
including no testing in some cases. EPA is proposing to continue the 
reduced levels of testing for small businesses under the Tier 3 
program. Under the reduced testing provisions, manufacturers that sell 
less than 5,000 units per year would not be required to do any testing 
under the in-use program. Manufacturers that sell between 5,001 and 
15,000 units per year would be required to test two vehicles per test 
group, but only under the high-mileage conditions specified in the in-
use program.
    Under current regulations, manufacturers may waive testing for PM 
emissions for light-duty vehicles and trucks, except for diesel-fueled 
vehicles. Manufacturers are still subject to the standards and must 
make a statement of compliance with the PM standards. As described in 
Section IV.A, EPA is proposing new PM standards and will require 
manufacturers to test for PM emissions for all fuels. Because PM 
testing requires additional test equipment and facilities, the costs 
incurred for PM testing can be substantial, especially for a company 
selling small numbers of vehicles. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
continue the waiver for PM testing in the Tier 3 timeframe for small 
businesses. Small businesses will not be required to measure PM 
emissions when they certify to the Tier 3 emission standards. In lieu 
of testing, small businesses will be required to make a statement of 
compliance with the Tier 3 p.m. standards. We would retain the ability 
to determine the PM emissions results in confirmatory or in-use 
testing.
    As described in Section IV.C, EPA is proposing new OBD requirements 
for vehicles certifying to the Tier 3 standards. The proposed OBD 
requirements are the same as CARB's existing OBD requirements. The 
proposed OBD provisions require additional amounts of testing and 
information that can add significant cost for manufacturers if they are 
not already meeting the CARB OBD requirements. Small business vehicle 
manufacturers tend to comply with the CARB OBD requirements because 
they want to sell in the California market. On the other hand, 
alternative-fuel converters do not generally certify with CARB because 
of the significant cost burden of complying with the CARB OBD 
requirements. We are therefore proposing that small business 
alternative-fuel converters may continue to comply with EPA's existing 
OBD requirements (see 40 CFR 86.1806-05) when the Tier 3 standards 
become effective. However, the proposed upgraded OBD requirements would 
have to be met by small entities and ICI's by the 2022 MY.
    Alternative-fueled vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and HDVs do not have SFTP 
emissions requirements under the current regulations. As described in 
Section IV.A, EPA is proposing to apply the Tier 3 SFTP standards to 
all vehicles, including alternative-fueled vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and 
HDVs. Because SFTP testing includes emission measurement over the SC03 
test cycle, which requires additional test facilities beyond those 
needed to run the FTP, the costs incurred for SC03 testing can be 
substantial, especially for companies like alternative fuel converters 
that sell very low numbers of converted vehicles. We are proposing that 
for the categories of vehicles newly subject to the SFTP standards, 
including alternative-fueled vehicles, manufacturers have the option to 
substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissions results for 
purposes of compliance when calculating the SFTP emissions. However, we 
would retain the ability to determine the composite emissions using 
SC03 test results in confirmatory or in-use testing. Because the 
vehicles being converted to an alternative fuel will likely have been 
tested for SFTP compliance, we expect the SFTP emissions should be 
similarly low, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden is 
unnecessary.
    During the SBAR process, one SER requested that EPA eliminate some 
of the evaporative emission testing requirements for small businesses 
based on its belief that some of the tests may be duplicative. While 
EPA understands the reasons behind the SER's suggestion, we believe it 
may be premature to consider such an option in the Tier 3 rule given 
the potential impact of the CO2 emission standards on engine 
and fuel system development. Currently, it is generally understood that 
the 2-day diurnal test drives the purge characteristics of evaporative 
control systems, while the refueling test, and to a lesser degree the 
3-day test, drive the capacity requirement of evaporative canisters. 
Prospectively, due to expected changes in engine and fuel system 
designs in response to upcoming CO2 emission standard 
requirements, this may not be the case. Therefore, EPA believes it is 
appropriate to retain all of the evaporative test procedures. It can be 
noted that under current regulations, EPA does allow manufacturers to 
waive 2-day diurnal testing for certification purposes (see 40 CFR 
86.1829-01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2-day diurnal test as part 
of the in-use testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845-04(c)(5)(ii)). These 
provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program. In general, EPA is 
open to changes that reduce test burden while maintaining the 
environmental effectiveness of its programs and could consider changes 
like those suggested by the SER in the future as the impacts of the 
future regulations on engine and vehicle design become clearer. 
Therefore, EPA requests comment on streamlining the current test 
procedures for small businesses in ways that would still maintain the 
overall effectiveness of the tests.
4. Hardship
    EPA is proposing hardship provisions for small businesses subject 
to the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. Under the 
hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to apply for 
additional time to meet the 100 percent phase-in requirements for 
exhaust and evaporative emissions. All hardship requests would be 
subject to EPA review and approval. Appeals for such hardship relief 
would need to be made in writing and must be submitted well before the 
earliest date of potential noncompliance. The request would need to 
identify how much time is being requested. It must also include 
evidence that the noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's 
best efforts to comply, and must contain evidence that severe economic 
hardship would be faced by the company if the relief is not granted. 
The hardship provision should effectively provide the opportunity for 
small businesses to obtain more time to comply with the new Tier 3 
standards. The existing hardship provisions limit the extra time that 
can be requested to 1 year, but we are proposing that such a limit is 
not needed as part of the Tier 3 hardship provisions.
5. Applicability of Flexibilities
    Under EPA's Tier 2 regulations, EPA provides a number of 
flexibilities for small volume manufacturers (SVMs). The criteria for 
determining if a company is a ``small volume manufacturer'' is based on 
the annual production level of vehicles and is based on whether the 
company produces less than 15,000 vehicles per year. Unlike EPA's 
current small volume manufacturer criteria, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) defines which manufacturers are small businesses 
based on the number of employees for vehicle manufacturers and annual 
revenues for ICIs and

[[Page 29917]]

alternative fuel converters. For example, SBA defines a small business 
vehicle manufacturer as those who have less than 1,000 employees.
    With today's notice, EPA proposes that all small businesses that 
are subject to the Tier 3 standards and that meet the SBA criteria be 
eligible for the flexibilities described above. Unless otherwise noted, 
the proposed flexibilities would be available to all small business 
vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel converters subject to 
the Tier 3 standards. In addition, EPA is proposing that manufacturers 
subject to the Tier 3 standards which meet a specified sales-based 
criterion be eligible for the flexibilities described above. It is 
relatively easy for a manufacturer to project and ultimately determine 
sales. Determining the annual revenues or number of employees is less 
straightforward. In the recent rule setting the first light-duty 
vehicle and truck CO2 emission standards, EPA adopted 
provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000 
vehicles per year as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is 
used in the Tier 2 program. EPA proposes that the small volume 
manufacturer definition be based on the 5,000 vehicle per year level 
for the Tier 3 program. For purposes of the Tier 3 rule, the 5,000 
limit would be based on a running three-year average of the number of 
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, 
and complete heavy-duty trucks below 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA believes the 
5,000 unit cut-off for small volume manufacturers would include all of 
the vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel converters that 
currently meet the applicable SBA definition as well as a few 
additional companies that have similar concerns to small businesses.
    EPA requests comment on the issue of extending eligibility for the 
Tier 3 small volume manufacturer provisions to very small manufacturers 
that are owned by large manufacturers but are able to establish that 
they are operationally independent. EPA has established such a 
provision in the light-duty greenhouse gas (GHG) program.\336\ EPA 
requests comment specifically on whether a manufacturer who meets the 
criteria for establishing operational independence under 86.1838-01(d) 
for eligibility for SVM provisions under the GHG program should be 
considered to be operationally independent and similarly eligible for 
SVM provisions under the Tier 3 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \336\ See 77 FR 62793-62794 and 40 CFR 86.1838-01(d)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Compliance Provisions

1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures
    We are proposing technical amendments to 40 CFR part 1066 as part 
of the effort to migrate test requirements from 40 CFR part 86 for 
light-duty vehicles and measurement of criteria pollutants. The 
proposed procedures in part 1066 reference large portions of part 1065 
to align test specifications that apply equally to engine-based and 
vehicle-based testing, such as CVS and analyzer specifications, 
calibrations, test fuels, calculations, and definitions of many terms. 
The proposed part 1066, as amended, also incorporates most of the 
detailed part 86 procedures.
    Current testing requirements related to chassis dynamometers rely 
on a combination of regulatory provisions, EPA guidance documents, and 
extensive learning from industry experience that has led to a good 
understanding of best practices for operating a vehicle in the 
laboratory to measure emissions. This proposal attempts to capture this 
range of material, integrating and organizing these specifications and 
procedures to include a complete set of provisions to ensure that 
emission measurements are accurate and repeatable. We request comment 
on the range of proposed requirements related to these chassis test 
procedures.
    Proposed revisions to part 1066, and adjustments from part 86, 
include the following:
     Clarification of regulatory requirements.
     Correction of typographical errors.
     Migration of mass-based emission calculations from part 86 
to part 1066.
     Introduction of a new NMOG calculation.
     Revision of 40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, to increase the 
specificity with which part 1065 references are made as they pertain to 
testing equipment, test fluids, test gases, and calibration standards.
     Addition of coastdown procedures for light-duty vehicles.
     Reordering of the test sequence with respect to vehicle 
preparation and running a test.
     Specifying part 1065 procedures for PM measurement, 
including certain deviations from part 1065 for chassis testing.
     Insertion of detailed test specifications for vehicles 
certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
    We are proposing the use of part 1065 for PM measurement with 
slight adjustments to the dilution air temperature, minimum dilution 
ratio, and background measurement requirements. By controlling the 
parameters that affect PM formation (dilution air temperature, dilution 
factor, sample residence time, filter face temperature, and filter face 
velocity), the proposed procedures include improvements that will 
reduce lab-to-lab and test-to-test variability.
    We are proposing to eliminate separate sampling of Bag 2 of the FTP 
test cycle to allow for an increase in sampled PM mass. The proposed 
alternative approach is to sample Bags 1 and 2 of the FTP on a single 
filter, and sample Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP onto a second filter. This 
will generally involve simultaneous sampling of Phase 2 onto two 
separate filters. As an additional alternative, manufacturers may run 
cold and hot UDDSs without simultaneous sampling of the cold UDDS Phase 
2, or to sample Bag 1, Bag 2, and Bag 3 on a single filter. 
Manufacturers choosing any of these options must still run a separate 
three-bag test for evaporative emission testing. We request comment on 
continuing to allow sampling under the traditional FTP methodology of a 
bag or filter per test phase (3 phases in total) instead of these 
proposed new methods. We also request comment on the appropriate 
transition to using the new sampling and calculation methods.
    We are proposing to revise the chassis dynamometer specifications 
in part 1066 by removing the maximum roll diameter and by requiring 
speed and force measurements at a minimum frequency of 10 hertz (Hz). 
Some manufacturers may be interested in testing with nonstandard 
dynamometer configurations, such as new flat-track dynamometers or old 
twin-roll dynamometers. We may approve the use of these and other 
nonstandard dynamometer configurations as alternative procedures under 
40 CFR 1065.10(c)(7).
    Part 1066 relies extensively on calculations involving physical 
parameters to calculate emission rates and perform various calibrations 
and verifications. As reflected in the current version of part 1066, 
manufacturers have used a variety of units to perform these 
calculations. We would expect that dynamometers and other laboratory 
equipment are all capable of operating in SI units even if current 
practice in some laboratories is to use other units. Moving toward 
standardized units for calculations would allow us to more carefully 
and appropriately specify precision values for various measured and 
calculated parameters. This would also simplify calculations, 
facilitate review of results from different

[[Page 29918]]

laboratories, and help with communications regarding any round-robin 
testing that might occur. Note that we are not contemplating converting 
emission standards to SI units. We request comment on completing the 
migration toward SI units in part 1066. In particular, we request 
comment on adding vehicle speed specifications in meters per second in 
addition to the current specification in miles per hour (or kilometers 
per hour for motorcycles). Specifying vehicle speeds to the nearest 
0.01 m/s would allow for equivalent vehicle operation relative to 
current drive schedules. The cycle validation criteria would be based 
on a speed tolerance of 1.0 m/s rather than 2 
mph (or rather than the proposed change to a 2.0 mph 
tolerance). This is not a direct unit conversion, but is calculated 
based on the stated precision and rounding allowance to provide a 
comparable degree of variability in vehicle speeds.
    We are proposing to phase in the requirements to use part 1066 test 
procedures for certifying all sizes of chassis-tested vehicles. For 
this phase-in approach, all aspects of part 1066 related to PM testing 
must be met at the start of MY 2017 for vehicles certifying to the PM 
standards. All other aspects of part 1066 must be met starting with the 
certification of all MY 2022 vehicles.
    As described in Section IV.D, we are proposing new test fuel 
specifications for E15 gasoline test fuel in 40 CFR part 1065. The test 
fuels specified for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, while not 
used for very many engine families, are currently following different 
specifications under 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065. We request comment 
on further revising 40 CFR part 86 to refer to the test fuel 
specifications in part 1065 for natural gas and liquefied petroleum 
gas.
    The proposal also includes various technical amendments to 40 CFR 
part 1065. The proposed technical amendments have no effect on the 
stringency of the regulations. These revisions include several minor 
changes to clarify regulatory requirements, align with chassis-testing 
procedures where appropriate, and correct typographical errors.
2. Reduced Test Burden
    We are proposing to update the regulatory provisions that allow 
manufacturers to omit testing for certification, in-use testing, and 
selective enforcement audits in certain circumstances. Sections IV.A.3, 
IV.B.6, and IV.E.3 describe how this applies for demonstrating that 
vehicles meet the Tier 3 p.m. standards. We are also proposing to allow 
manufacturers to omit PM measurements for fuel economy and GHG 
emissions testing that goes beyond the testing needed for certifying 
vehicles to the Tier 3 standards. Requiring such measurement would add 
a significant burden with very limited additional assurance that 
vehicles adequately control PM. We are also proposing to allow 
manufacturers to ask us to omit PM and formaldehyde measurement for 
selective enforcement audits. If there is a concern that any type of 
vehicle would not meet the Tier 3 p.m. or formaldehyde standards, we 
would not approve a manufacturer's request to omit measurement of these 
emissions during a selective enforcement audit.
    The regulations currently allow for waived formaldehyde testing for 
gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles. The Tier 3 NMOG+NOX 
emission standards are stringent enough that it is unlikely that 
vehicles would comply with the NMOG+NOX standards while 
exceeding the formaldehyde standards. We are therefore proposing to 
continue this waiver practice, such that manufacturers of Tier 3 
vehicles do not need to submit formaldehyde data for certification.
    We are also requesting comment on rearranging the default testing 
specification for certifying vehicles to evaporative emission 
standards, as described in Section IV.C. This would involve requiring 
manufacturers to perform testing with the two-day test sequence, while 
making the three-day test sequence optional.
3. Miscellaneous Provisions
    The following additional certification and compliance provisions 
are included in the proposed rule:
     The certification practice for assigned deterioration 
factors which are available for both small volume manufacturers and 
small volume test groups has matured significantly since it was first 
adopted. We are proposing to revise Sec.  86.1826 to more carefully 
reflect the current practice. For example, the regulations specify that 
manufacturers with sales volumes between 300 and 15,000 units per year 
should propose their own deterioration factors based on engineering 
analysis of emission data from other families. We believe it is best 
for EPA to develop a set of assigned deterioration factors that can 
apply to all small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups.
     The regulations in 40 CFR part 86 rely on rounding 
procedures specified in ASTM E29. This standard is revised 
periodically. The newer versions are not likely to change in a way that 
affects the regulation, but the updates make it difficult to maintain a 
coordinated reference to the current protocol. We are proposing to 
address this by specifying that the rounding protocol described in 40 
CFR 1065.20(e) applies, unless specified otherwise. We are not 
proposing to change all the references in part 86; rather, we are 
proposing to define ``round'' in subparts A and S to have the meaning 
given in 40 CFR part 1065 so that all new regulatory text would rely on 
this new description. The rounding specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 
are intended to be identical to those in the latest versions of ASTM 
E29 and NIST SP811. For example, this now includes procedures for 
nonstandard rounding, such as rounding to the nearest 25 units, or the 
nearest 0.05, where that is appropriate.
     Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) are companies that 
import specialized vehicles into the U.S. and are subject to EPA 
requirements specified in Part 85, Subpart P. The standards which apply 
to the vehicles imported depend, in part, on the model year of the 
vehicle being imported. Therefore, vehicles imported by ICIs in the 
future could be subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards and the 
proposed regulations reflect the application of the Tier 3 standards to 
ICIs. Because all existing ICIs are small-volume manufacturers, the 
Tier 3 standards would not apply until 2022 at the earliest. In 
addition, the certification practices for ICIs have matured 
significantly since they were first adopted. EPA is proposing two 
changes to update the regulations affecting ICIs. First, the proposed 
provisions would require ICIs to use electric dynamometers when running 
exhaust emission tests. Electric dynamometers have been required for 
many years for vehicle manufacturers and EPA believes it is time to 
require such test equipment for ICIs in the future. In cases where an 
ICI can demonstrate that they will incur a substantial increase in 
compliance costs, the proposed regulations include a provision that 
allows EPA to approve requests, on a case-by-case basis, to allow 
testing on other types of dynamometers until the ICI is able to comply 
with the proposed electric dynamometer requirements. Second, we are 
proposing to incorporate into regulation that ICIs be allowed to use a 
specific set of reduced testing requirements for up to 300 units each 
year that have been modified to a U.S.-certified configuration. This 
has been allowed for ICIs since 1999 and was approved under EPA's 
authority to establish equivalent alternate test

[[Page 29919]]

procedures.\337\ Instead of running a full set of emission tests, the 
reduced testing requirements would allow ICIs to run an FTP for exhaust 
emissions, a highway fuel economy test, and a shortened one-hour 
evaporative emission tests for hot-soak and diurnal emissions that 
applied prior to the current enhanced evaporative emission test 
procedures. We do not believe the proposed changes should have any 
significant cost impacts on ICIs. Most of the ICIs have electric 
dynamometers or can upgrade them for a relatively small cost. The 
reduced testing burden provisions keep the cost of testing low, 
compared to the cost of running a full set of emission tests that 
otherwise could be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \337\ See 40 CFR 86.106-96(a) and Enclosure 2 to EPA Guidance 
letter CCD-02-04, February 6, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We are proposing to adopt CARB's onboard diagnostic 
requirements for all light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-
duty vehicles, as described in Section IV.C.5.d. We currently allow for 
this as an option, but almost all manufacturers do this already to 
avoid certifying multiple systems. Now that we are adopting evaporative 
provisions that depend on California's regulatory specifications and we 
are making efforts to adopt a single, national regulatory program, we 
believe this is an appropriate step. This proposal includes heavy-duty 
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR, though these vehicles would not need to 
meet the new requirements related to leak testing. These changes would 
apply starting in model year 2017 for vehicles subject to Tier 3 
standards. The changes apply directly for heavy-duty vehicles above 
14,000 lbs GVWR, since all those vehicles are already certified based 
on CARB's regulations. In the case of alternative fuel conversions, we 
are proposing to continue to apply the requirements of 40 CFR 86.1806-
05.
4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification Testing (IUVP) Requirements
    The fuel on which a vehicle will be operated in-use and tested is 
considered an integral part of the vehicle emission control system 
design. The Tier 2 program recognized that to achieve the desired 
emission reductions, vehicles must operate on the same fuel that the 
emission control system was originally designed to encounter in-use and 
during testing. In the Tier 2 program, we acknowledged that during the 
transition of the in-use fuel from sulfur levels of 300 ppm to the 
required 30 ppm average level, vehicles designed for 30 ppm could 
encounter in-use sulfur levels well above the level for which their 
emission control systems were designed. To address this issue, we 
allowed manufacturers, with agency approval, to perform specific 
preconditioning test procedures during the IUVP testing to ensure that 
potential exposure to high sulfur fuel in-use would not impact the 
emission test results. These procedures included specific drive cycles 
or maneuvers not regularly encountered during normal in-use operation 
that would result in removal of sulfur contamination from the emission 
control system.
    Consistent with the Tier 2 program, EPA continues to recognize the 
importance of the fuel to the emission control system design, 
particularly on Tier 3 vehicles designed to meet the most stringent 
emission levels of the program (i.e., Bin 70 and cleaner). Under EPA's 
proposal, in-use fuel would transition from an average sulfur level of 
30 ppm required by Tier 2 to a new average level of 10 ppm under Tier 
3. The proposed sulfur requirements would be average standards. Thus, 
even after the transition to the 10 p.m. average sulfur level, vehicles 
might still encounter sulfur levels during in-use operation above 10 
ppm and as high as the 95 ppm cap, which could adversely impact the 
emission control system. Tier 3 vehicles tested by manufacturers in 
IUVP that have been exposed to such sulfur levels could experience 
sulfur-related impacts, which in turn could cause the vehicle to 
temporarily exceed emission standards.
    To address the potential emission impact on Tier 3 vehicles from 
exposure to higher sulfur levels, we are proposing some modifications 
to the IUVP testing process based in part on what was allowed under the 
Tier 2 program. Tier 3 vehicles tested in the IUVP would be tested 
initially without allowing any sulfur cleanout procedure, such as a 
US06 test run prior to the FTP or Highway Fuel Economy (HFET) tests. If 
a vehicle failed the NMOG+NOX standard for the FTP or HFET 
cycle during the initial round of testing, manufacturers would be 
allowed to perform a sulfur cleanout procedure before repeating the FTP 
or HFET. For the sulfur cleanout, manufacturers would be allowed to 
perform up to two US06 cycles. The measured US06 cycle and a 
preconditioning US06 cycle, if performed as part of the initial 
measured tests would serve as the cleanout procedure and therefore no 
additional US06 cycles would be allowed. Alternative sulfur cleanout 
procedures would require approval by EPA. Following the sulfur cleanout 
procedure, the manufacturer would prep and soak the vehicles and then 
repeat the FTP and HFET tests. If a manufacturer chose to perform the 
sulfur cleanout procedure, it would be required to submit evidence that 
the vehicle encountered high sulfur levels in the fuel just prior to 
emission testing. This would include an analysis of a fuel sample from 
the vehicle fuel system as received from in-use operation just prior to 
testing. If the fuel sample indicated that the vehicle was operating on 
fuel containing 15 ppm or higher sulfur levels in the recent past, only 
the emission results of the tests following the cleanout procedure 
would be used for purposes of determining emission compliance and 
whether to enter the in-use compliance program (IUCP).
    The proposed rule includes the changes to the IUVP testing 
described above for light-duty vehicles and MDPVs. The changes to IUVP 
testing are not applicable to heavy-duty vehicles tested in the IUVP 
program. Also, as described in Section IV.D, we are proposing to 
incorporate leak testing into the IUVP test protocol. We are not 
proposing additional changes to the overall IUVP test program.

V. Proposed Fuel Program

    Under today's Tier 3 program, we are proposing reductions in 
gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. These standards would help prevent 
the significant impairment of the emission control systems expected to 
be used in Tier 3 technology, significantly improve the efficiency of 
emissions control systems currently in use, and continue prevention of 
the substantial adverse effects of sulfur levels on the performance of 
vehicle emissions control systems. Section V.A provides an overview of 
the fuel program and how we arrived at the proposed gasoline sulfur 
standards. Section V.B presents our assessment of the impacts the 
proposed fuel program would have on stationary source permitting and 
our conclusion that the proposed refinery lead time is adequate. 
Section V.C contains our proposed standards for denatured fuel ethanol. 
In Section V.D, we introduce and seek comment on possible options for 
regulating gasoline-ethanol blends intended for flexible fuel vehicles. 
Section V.E presents the proposed program flexibilities including the 
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program as well as small refiner 
and small volume refinery provisions. Section V.F lays out the 
compliance provisions for the proposed Tier 3 gasoline program. 
Finally, Section V.G presents our statutory authorities for lowering 
gasoline sulfur. As a result of these proposals, we have to amend 
certain existing provisions in the current Tier 2 requirements at 40 
CFR

[[Page 29920]]

part 80. We are not reopening Tier 2 and our proposed amendments should 
not be construed as a reopener.

A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards

1. Overview
a. History of Sulfur Control
    Sulfur is naturally occurring in crude oil. Crude oil containing 
higher concentrations of sulfur (i.e., greater than 0.5 percent) is 
called ``sour'' and crude containing lower sulfur concentrations (e.g., 
West Texas Intermediate) is referred to as ``sweet.'' Regardless of the 
concentration, because sulfur is naturally occurring in crude oil, it 
is also naturally occurring in gasoline. As discussed in Section 
IV.A.6, sulfur impairs the performance of today's vehicle emission 
control technologies (i.e., precious metal catalytic converters), 
reducing the emission benefits of current and advanced vehicles. As 
explained below, in 2000 EPA took action to reduce gasoline sulfur 
levels under what is known as the Tier 2 Program \338\ and is proposing 
to take further action under the proposed Tier 3 Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \338\ 67 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tier 2 was a major, comprehensive program designed to reduce 
emissions from passenger cars, light trucks, and large passenger 
vehicles (including sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick-up 
trucks) and the sulfur content of gasoline. Under this program, 
automakers were required to manufacture low-emission vehicles when 
operated on low-sulfur gasoline, and refiners were required to produce 
low-sulfur gasoline nationwide.
    Required reductions in gasoline sulfur began in 2004 with refinery 
and importer caps of 300 ppm and a corporate average cap of 120 ppm. 
For most refiners and importers, compliance with the final sulfur 
standards (30-ppm annual average and 80-ppm per gallon cap) was 
required beginning in 2006. Due to extensions provided for some 
refineries under the ultra-low sulfur diesel program, final compliance 
for all U.S. refineries was January 1, 2011. The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 
program also had an ABT program that allowed companies to generate 
credits for implementing the required changes earlier than required and 
allowed ongoing flexibility to meet the 30-ppm average sulfur standard.
    At full implementation, the Tier 2 program (treating vehicles and 
fuels as a system) required passenger vehicles to be over 77 percent 
cleaner and gasoline sulfur to be reduced by up to 90 percent from pre-
program levels.
b. Need for Additional Gasoline Sulfur Control
    We are proposing to lower today's gasoline sulfur standards under 
Clean Air Act section 211(c)(1). This is because emission products of 
gasoline with current levels of sulfur cause or contribute to air 
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare and impair to a significant degree the emissions control 
device or systems on the vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 
standards. For more on our legal authority to set gasoline sulfur 
standards, refer to Section V.G.
    As explained in Section IV.A.6, robust data from many sources shows 
that gasoline sulfur at current levels (i.e., around 30 ppm on average) 
continues to degrade vehicle catalytic converter performance during 
normal operation. The most significant problem is for NOX. 
Today's proposed NMOG+NOX vehicle emission standards, an 80 
percent reduction from current Tier 2 standards, would not be possible 
without the gasoline sulfur controls we are proposing today. Tier 3 
vehicles must achieve essentially zero warmed-up NOX 
emissions to comply and maintain this performance for up to 150,000 
miles. An increase in emissions of only a few milligrams per mile due 
to sulfur could make compliance impossible for some vehicles. The 
standards are projected to be especially challenging for larger SUVs 
and pick-up trucks.
    Reducing gasoline sulfur would also help reduce emissions of 
pollutants that endanger public health and welfare from vehicles 
already on the road today. For the Tier 2 rule, we had data that showed 
benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur, but little to no data existed for 
sulfur levels below 30 ppm that we could use to project continued 
emission reductions. Since then, we have tested a wide range of Tier 2 
vehicles to better understand the impact that even lower gasoline 
sulfur could have on emissions. Our test data showed significant 
NOX and VOC reductions when vehicles were tested on ultra-
low sulfur gasoline. As explained in more detail in Section III.B, 
lowering average gasoline sulfur from 30 to 10 ppm would result in 
approximately 280,000 less tons of NOX and 40,000 less tons 
of VOC. The projected in-use emission benefits would occur almost 
immediately in 2017 when the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards take 
effect.
c. Summary of Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Program
    Under today's Tier 3 fuel program, we are proposing that gasoline 
and any ethanol-gasoline blend contain no more than 10 ppm sulfur on an 
annual average basis beginning January 1, 2017. Similar to the Tier 2 
gasoline program, the proposed Tier 3 program would apply to gasoline 
in the United States and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands, excluding California. The program, when finalized, 
would result in gasoline that contains an average of two-thirds less 
sulfur than it does today. We are proposing a three-year delay for 
small refiners and small volume refineries. Eligible small refining 
entities, described in more detail in Section V.E.2, would have until 
January 1, 2020 to comply with the new sulfur standards.
    We are proposing an ABT program that would allow refiners to 
optimize their investment strategies to enable reduction in capital and 
compliance costs. Refiners and importers overcomplying with the 10-ppm 
standard beginning January 1, 2017 could generate standard credits that 
could be used internally, banked, or traded to other companies. We are 
also proposing an early credit program that would allow refiners and 
importers to spread out their investments over time to allow for an 
orderly transition. Starting January 1, 2014, refiners and importers 
taking steps to reduce gasoline sulfur below the current 30-ppm 
standard could generate early credits that could be used to postpone 
final investments for up to three years. For a more detailed discussion 
of the proposed ABT program, refer to Section V.E.1. As a result of the 
early credit program and notwithstanding the proposed delay offered to 
small refiners and small volume refineries, we anticipate considerable 
reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with final refinery 
steps to get to 10 ppm occurring on or before January 1, 2020.
    We are proposing to either maintain the current 80-ppm refinery 
gate per-gallon cap and 95-ppm downstream per-gallon cap or lower them 
to 50 and 65 ppm, respectively. We also evaluated and are seeking 
comment on the potential of lowering these caps to 20 ppm and 25 ppm, 
respectively. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with 
the various sulfur cap options (explained in more detail in Section 
V.A.3), but under all the proposed options, we believe that the 
stringency of the 10-ppm annual average

[[Page 29921]]

standard would result in reduced gasoline sulfur levels nationwide.
    A summary of the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards is 
presented below in Table V-1. Domestic refiners and gasoline importers 
would be subject to both the 10-ppm annual average sulfur standard and 
the refinery gate per-gallon cap, when finalized. Gasoline in the 
distribution system (i.e., at terminals, retail stations, etc.) would 
be subject to the downstream per-gallon cap. For more information on 
how we arrived at the proposed sulfur standards, refer to Sections 
V.A.2 and V.A.3.

                                                  Table V-1--Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cap Option 1                                              Cap Option 2
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Limit                    Effective                    Limit                        Effective
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refinery annual average standard....  10 ppm......................  January 1, 2017 \a\....  10 ppm.....................  January 1, 2017.\a\
Refinery gate per-gallon cap........  80 ppm......................  Already................  50 ppm.....................  January 1, 2020.
Downstream per-gallon cap...........  95 ppm......................  Already................  65 ppm.....................  March 1, 2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Effective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries.

d. Refinery Feasibility
    While evaluating the merits of a national gasoline sulfur program 
to reduce emissions and enable future vehicle technologies, we also 
considered the refining industry's ability to reduce sulfur to 10 ppm 
on average by January 1, 2017 and the associated costs (for more on 
fuel costs, refer to Section VII.A). Based on information gathered from 
numerous stakeholder meetings, discussions with vendor companies that 
provide the gasoline desulfurization technologies, as well as the 
results from our refinery-by-refinery modeling, we believe it is 
technologically feasible at a reasonable cost for refiners to meet the 
proposed sulfur standards in the lead time provided. A summary of our 
feasibility analysis is presented below. For more on our fuels 
feasibility assessment and refinery modeling, refer to Chapters 4 and 5 
of the draft RIA.
    Gasoline desulfurization technologies are well known and readily 
available. Many technologies were demonstrated under Tier 2 and have 
been further demonstrated by current fuel programs in California, 
Japan, and Europe. Under California's Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline 
program (CaRFG3), gasoline sulfur is limited to 15 ppm on average with 
a 20-ppm per-gallon cap.\339\ California reduced their per-gallon cap 
in phases from 60 ppm effective December 31, 2003, to 30 ppm effective 
December 31, 2005, to 20 ppm effective December 31, 2011. Actual in-use 
gasoline sulfur levels, however, have been largely constrained by the 
Predictive Model that California refiners are using to demonstrate 
compliance. As a result, gasoline sulfur levels are lower than the 
CaRFG3 limits. Based on the Predictive Model, California gasoline 
contained approximately 10 ppm sulfur on average in 2010 (9 ppm in the 
summer and 11 ppm in the winter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \339\ California Air Resources Board. (2008, August 29). The 
California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, Title 13, California 
Code of Regulations, Sections 2250-2273.5. Retrieved from https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/082908CaRFG_regs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Japan currently has a 10-ppm gasoline sulfur cap that took effect 
in January 2008. Europe also has a 10-ppm sulfur cap that has been 
adopted by the 30 Member States that comprise the European Union (EU) 
and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) as well as Albania and 
Bosnia-Herzegovina.\340\ Beijing, China also recently introduced a 10-
ppm sulfur limit for gasoline.\341\ We note, however, that many oil 
refineries outside of the United States operate differently from their 
U.S. counterparts. U.S. refiners have invested more heavily in 
fluidized catalytic cracker (FCC) units than the rest of the world in 
order to maximize gasoline production. Because the FCC unit is 
responsible for nearly all the sulfur that ends up in gasoline, many 
U.S. refineries face a bigger challenge in achieving 10-ppm gasoline 
sulfur levels. Nevertheless, these international fuel programs (along 
with California) provide evidence that advanced gasoline 
desulfurization technologies have been deployed and are readily 
available to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \340\ Hart Energy Consulting. (2011). International Fuel Quality 
Center: 2011 Worldwide Fuel Specifications
    \341\ Article from China.org.cn entitled ``Beijing to implement 
stricter fuel standards'', May 19, 2012, retrieved from https://www.china.org.cn/environment/2012-05/19/content_25422404.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When considering the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refineries 
can be grouped into three general categories based on their current 
post-Tier 2 refinery configurations: those without an FCC unit, those 
hydrotreating the gasoline stream coming from their FCC unit (i.e., 
postreating) \342\, and those hydrotreating their FCC feed (i.e., 
pretreating). Most refineries without FCC units would not need to do 
anything to meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards. Refineries 
equipped with FCC units that invested in an FCC postreater under Tier 2 
would likely just need to revamp (i.e., renovate) their existing unit 
for a modest cost. Refineries that only have an FCC pretreater would 
meet the Tier 3 sulfur standards by either revamping their existing 
pretreaters (perhaps also cutting the heavy portion of FCC naphtha into 
the diesel pool) or invest in a grassroots FCC postreater. Our 
refinery-by-refinery modeling suggests that 29 refineries would not 
need to make any capital changes, 66 would need to revamp their 
existing FCC postreaters, and 16 would need to add grassroots 
postreaters (we did not model any undercutting of heavy FCC naphtha 
into the distillate pool).\343\ Refiners that need to install a new 
postreater would have to make the largest desulfurization investments 
under Tier 3, typical of many of the refinery investments made under 
Tier 2. For more on our estimated sulfur control costs, refer to 
Section VII.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \342\ Some of them may also have an FCC pretreater.
    \343\ Our in-house refinery modeling considers 111 operational 
refineries producing non-California gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the choice of technology for each refinery is 
fairly insensitive to capital cost assumptions. Revamping an existing 
FCC postreater will almost always be the preferred compliance path if 
it is available. The majority of refineries only have an existing FCC 
postreater, so revamping it will be the preferred choice, given the 
much higher capital costs associated with adding grassroots FCC pre or 
postreaters. The 16 refineries we project would add grassroots 
postreaters do not have existing postreaters that could be revamped. As 
a result, their choices are limited to revamping their existing 
pretreater or installing a grassroots postreater. We believe based on 
conversations with industry technology vendors and engineering firms 
that

[[Page 29922]]

installing a grassroots postreater would be more likely for these 
refineries, because revamping their pretreater would still incur a 
significant capital cost and would reduce compliance flexibility. Thus, 
in the refinery-by-refinery analysis performed by EPA for this 
proposal, higher capital costs (either directly or thru a higher ROI) 
would be unlikely to alter the selection of pretreater versus 
postreater control technology. Higher capital costs would likely impact 
both technology options proportionally with no overall effect.
    We have built in a number of flexibilities that will reduce the 
compliance burden for refiners. In particular, coupling the proposed 
10-ppm annual average sulfur standard with refinery gate and downstream 
per-gallon caps should continue to allow for batch-to-batch 
variability, refinery upsets, and turnarounds while still maintaining 
the overall air quality benefits of the program. For more information 
on the applicable per-gallon sulfur caps, refer to Section V.A.3.
    We are also proposing an ABT program that would allow refiners to 
spread out their investments over time and achieve compliance in the 
most cost-effective manner. If some refineries either comply with the 
10-ppm standard earlier than required, or reduce sulfur partway toward 
10 ppm early, this would allow other refineries to delay compliance for 
a finite period through the use of early credits. The ABT program would 
also allow for ongoing company averaging. This would allow some 
refineries to stay slightly above the standard at the expense of other 
refineries over complying, resulting in the most cost-effective 
mechanism for meeting the 10-ppm annual average standard. For more 
information on the proposed ABT program, refer to Section V.E.1. 
Finally, our Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, when final, would allow 
three years of additional lead time for small refiners and small volume 
refineries (i.e., refineries processing less than or equal to 75,000 
net barrels per day of crude oil). As a group, we believe that these 
refineries are disproportionally impacted when it comes to their cost 
of compliance and ability to rationalize investment costs in today's 
gasoline market. Giving these refineries additional lead time would 
allow them more time to invest in desulfurization technology, take 
advantage of advancements in technology, develop confidence in a Tier 3 
credit market as a means of compliance, and avoid competition for 
capital, engineering, and construction resources with the larger 
refineries. For more on the proposed provisions for small refiners and 
small volume refineries, refer to Section V.E.2.
    The proposed Tier 3 rulemaking should not adversely affect the 
supply of gasoline in the U.S. This judgment is based on a review of 
both gasoline and diesel fuel supply when the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 
and ultra-low sulfur highway and nonroad diesel rules were phasing in 
between 2003 and 2011. At the end of this time period, the U.S. 
gasoline and diesel fuel markets were increasingly being supplied by 
U.S. refiners, instead of by imports, compared to the beginning of this 
time period. Most striking is that the more stringent ultra-low sulfur 
diesel fuel standards showed the largest shift as U.S. refiners not 
only began to supply more of the U.S. diesel fuel market, but became 
net exporters of diesel fuel. For more on our fuel supply assessment, 
refer to Section 5.3 of the draft RIA.
2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur Standard
    In the subsections that follow, we lay out our rationale for 
proposing a 10-ppm average standard, our assessment of how the proposed 
ABT program would help with compliance, and our conclusion that the 
proposed lead time is adequate. In the following section, we explain 
our rationale behind the proposed sulfur caps and seek comment on 
potential alternatives.
a. Appropriateness of Proposed 10-ppm Sulfur Standard
    As explained in Section IV.A.6, sulfur in fuel oxidizes in the 
exhaust and coats the sites where chemical reactions can take place on 
the precious metal catalysts used in vehicles to reduce emissions of 
VOC, NOX, PM, CO, and toxics. Accordingly, any sulfur in 
gasoline causes vehicle emissions to increase. Sulfur can be burned off 
the catalyst during high-temperature, rich operation of the vehicle 
(i.e., aggressive driving conditions), but as long as there is any 
sulfur in the fuel, exhaust emissions will increase. Because any amount 
of sulfur in the fuel can have this effect, the lower the sulfur the 
better.
    Refiners experience the same phenomenon with precious metal 
catalysts used in the reformer and isomerization units at their 
refineries.\344\ To protect the precious metal catalysts in these 
units, refiners reduce the sulfur in the feed to these units to 1 ppm 
or below. Thus, it is technically possible for refiners to reduce their 
gasoline sulfur levels to virtually zero. While refiners did not have 
reason to reduce the sulfur in FCC gasoline until Tier 2 required such 
reductions, some refiners have achieved reductions in this stream at 
some of their refineries for other reasons such as (1) Protecting the 
FCC catalyst from the contaminants in the gas oil feed, (2) reducing 
stack emissions from the regenerator of the FCC unit, and most 
importantly (3) increasing gasoline yields from the FCC unit. For most 
refineries, FCC gasoline accounts for about one-third of gasoline and 
before Tier 2 was the source of over 95 percent of the sulfur in 
gasoline. Under Tier 2, most refiners significantly desulfurized FCC 
gasoline to around 70 to 80 ppm, yet FCC gasoline continues to 
contribute the majority of sulfur in gasoline today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \344\ Together, the streams from the reformer and isomerization 
units account for approximately one-third of gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While further reducing sulfur in gasoline will continue to reduce 
vehicle emissions, our emissions analysis shows that a 10-ppm annual 
average is sufficient to enable vehicles to reach the proposed Tier 3 
standards. Moreover, for the following reasons, reducing sulfur further 
below 10 ppm becomes increasingly difficult and costly. First, FCC 
naphtha is very rich in high-octane olefins. As the severity of 
desulfurization increases, more olefins are saturated, further 
sacrificing the octane value of this stream and further increasing 
hydrogen consumption. Making up for this lost octane represents a 
significant portion of the sulfur control costs. Second, as 
desulfurization severity increases, there is an increase in the amount 
of sulfur removed (in the form of hydrogen sulfide) which recombines 
with the olefins in the FCC naphtha, thus offsetting the principal 
desulfurization reactions. There are means to deal with the 
recombination reactions, but they result in even greater capital 
investments. Third, while FCC gasoline contributes the majority of 
sulfur to the finished gasoline, as the sulfur level drops below 10 
ppm, the sulfur level of the various other gasoline streams within the 
refinery also become important. Any necessary treatment of these 
additional streams increases both capital and operating costs.
    U.S. refineries are currently in different positions, both 
technically and financially. In general, they are configured to handle 
the different crude oils they process and turn it into a widely varying 
product slate to match available markets. Those processing heavier, 
sour crudes would have a more challenging time reducing gasoline sulfur 
under the proposed Tier 3 program. As explained earlier, refineries 
have different sulfur levels in their non-

[[Page 29923]]

FCC streams based on their feedstocks and configurations. Those with 
higher sulfur levels in other refinery streams would have a more 
difficult time desulfurizing gasoline. Perhaps most important, U.S. 
refineries vary greatly in size (atmospheric crude capacities range 
from less than 5,000 to more than 500,000 barrels per day) and thus 
have different economies of scale for adding capital to their 
refineries. As such, it can be less costly per gallon for some larger 
refineries to get down to 10 ppm than for smaller refineries, as 
discussed in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. As a result, under a 10-ppm 
average standard, the flexibility afforded by the ABT program helps 
those refineries with very high costs. They have the option of staying 
above 10 ppm if they can acquire credits from other refineries that 
were able to lower their sulfur level below 10 ppm. However, if the 
gasoline sulfur standard were to be 5 ppm, this would essentially end 
the ability of refiners to average sulfur reductions across their 
refineries. There simply would not be enough opportunity to generate 
credits below 5 ppm. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA, to 
estimate the costs for a 10-ppm annual average standard where some 
refineries stay above 10 ppm, we also estimated the costs for 
refineries to get down to 5 ppm. To do so, we estimated that sulfur 
control costs would increase by at least 50 percent compared to the 
proposed 10-ppm standard, which is over two times more costly per ppm-
gallon of gasoline sulfur reduced. This 5-ppm cost assessment is 
reasonable for those refineries that would likely generate credits 
under a 10-ppm average standard as these refineries are most likely in 
the best position for achieving such low sulfur levels. However, were 
we to actually assess the costs of a 5-ppm standard, at least some of 
these refineries would likely have additional costs for controlling the 
sulfur in other gasoline blendstocks, and we would likely apply a 
higher overdesign factor to account for industry-wide compliance at 5 
ppm. More detailed refinery information may be needed for such an 
analysis but, for the more challenged refineries, a 5-ppm standard 
could potentially be cost prohibitive. A 5-ppm standard would also 
introduce further costs to address the contribution to gasoline sulfur 
from gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants, and 
contamination in the distribution system. Therefore, a 10-ppm annual 
average standard appears to be the point which properly balances 
feasibility with costs. Also, for these reasons, EPA believes that a 
viable ABT program is important to the success of the proposed Tier 3 
fuels program (explained in more detail in Section V.A.2.b).
    Finally, as discussed in Section IV.A.6, reducing sulfur below 10 
ppm would further reduce vehicle emissions and allow the proposed Tier 
3 vehicle standards to be achieved more easily. However, we believe 
that a 10-ppm average standard will be sufficient to allow vehicles to 
meet the proposed Tier 3 standards. The level of the Tier 3 standards 
was considered in light of a 10-ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. 
If we were to consider lowering sulfur further, we would then also have 
to consider reducing the vehicle standards further. Given the 
challenges associated with sulfur reductions below 10 ppm as discussed 
above, we do not believe this would be appropriate.
b. How Would the Proposed ABT Program Assist With Compliance?
    As described more fully in Section V.E.1, we are proposing an ABT 
program that would reduce the average compliance burden for gasoline 
producers and importers. This program would permit the generation of 
credits by refineries that reduce their annual average sulfur level 
below 10 ppm, and transfer of these credits to other refineries to 
reduce or eliminate their need to make capital investments to meet the 
10-ppm standard. The ABT program would thus provide refiners with 
multiple approaches to compliance, and each could choose the approach 
that minimizes their costs.
    We modeled an ABT program to estimate how it would affect 
compliance. As described in more detail in Section VII.B.4, our 
modeling determined the lowest cost approach on a refinery-by-refinery 
basis under two scenarios: an idealized scenario in which every 
refinery has the opportunity to make credit transfers with every other 
refinery in the nation, and a more limited scenario in which credit 
transfers would only occur within companies that own more than one 
refinery. Today a significant fraction of Tier 2 sulfur credits are 
transferred within companies, but there is still a considerable amount 
of inter-company trading occurring.\345\ Thus, assuming no trading 
between companies is a conservative assumption and the real impact is 
likely to be somewhere in between the two scenarios. Table V-2 
describes how compliance would be affected under these two scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \345\ Based on Tier 2 sulfur compliance data, of the 26 
companies that obtained sulfur credits in 2010, eight obtained 
credits only from their own company, and another five obtained 
credits both from their own company and from other companies. The 
remainder obtained credits only from other companies.

                           Table V-2--Impacts of Nationwide ABT Program on Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  ABT with nationwide     ABT with intra-company
                                                                    credit transfers         credit transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of refineries that generate credits....................                       46                       18
Number of refineries that consume credits.....................                       25                        8
Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume credits                       40                       85
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total modeled refineries..................................                      111                      111
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our ABT modeling, we believe that a significant number of 
refineries would take advantage of the opportunity to generate or use 
credits, thus lowering their compliance burden under the proposed 10-
ppm annual average standard. For a more complete discussion of our 
analysis of the proposed ABT program, refer to Chapter 5 of the draft 
RIA.
c. Adequacy of Proposed Refinery Lead Time
    Given the complexity of gasoline refining, numerous planning and 
action steps would be required for refiners to complete the refinery 
changes needed to comply with the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards. The 
steps required to implement these changes include: the completion of 
scoping studies, financing, process design for new or revamped refinery 
units or subunits, permitting, detailed engineering based

[[Page 29924]]

upon the process design, field construction of the gasoline sulfur 
reduction facilities, and start-up and shakedown of the newly installed 
desulfurization equipment.
    We conducted a thorough lead time analysis in which we sequenced 
the estimated time to complete scoping studies, process design, 
permitting, detailed engineering, field construction, and start-up and 
shakedown in advance of production based upon the methodology used in 
our recent gasoline and diesel rules.
    For the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we estimated 
refinery lead times step-by-step for the construction of new grassroots 
FCC postreaters and the revamp of existing pre and postreaters. For 
each refinery project type, we estimated lead times for scoping 
studies, process design, permitting, detailed engineering, field 
construction, and start-up and shakedown. Estimated required lead times 
for scoping studies are six months. Process design ranged from six 
months for desulfurization equipment revamping to nine months for a 
grassroots postreater. It is during the process of performing their 
scoping studies and process design analysis that refiners would 
complete their permit applications.
    Based on discussions with refiners, a review of the permitting 
experience for Tier 2 and our current analysis, we estimated that 
permitting for desulfurization equipment revamping and the construction 
of a grassroots postreater would take 9 months. However, we estimated 
the overall lead-times for Tier-3-related revamps to be considerably 
shorter, as described below. The estimates for permitting time are 
consistent with those of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS) and our regional offices, both of which have engaged 
in extensive dialog with potentially affected parties. A discussion of 
the permitting implications of Tier 3 is contained in Section V.B of 
the preamble. Detailed engineering efforts were estimated to require 
six months for desulfurization equipment revamping and nine months for 
grassroots postreaters. Field construction was estimated to require six 
months for revamped pre-and postreaters and 12 months for grassroots 
postreaters. Start-up and shakedown processes were estimated to require 
six months for revamped FCC treaters and 9 months for grassroots 
postreaters. There is some degree of overlap among each of these steps 
as shown in Table V-3.
    To allow refiners to complete all these different steps and comply 
with the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, assuming the Tier 3 
proposal were to be finalized by the end of 2013, we would be providing 
three years of lead time. In addition to the three years of lead time, 
the proposed rulemaking also provides additional flexibility provided 
by the ABT program, small refinery delays, and hardship provisions. To 
support this timeline, we conducted several analyses of the expected 
refinery lead time requirements associated with the proposed Tier 3 
standards and found that refinery operators would have more than 
adequate time to implement the required refinery charges. A 
justification for proposed timeline appears below.
    Complying with Tier 3 is expected to involve some grassroots FCC 
postreaters, but mostly we believe that refiners will revamp existing 
FCC postreaters. Revamping of existing FCC postreaters can be 
accomplished in approximately 2 years, or less (See Table V-3). 
Grassroots FCC postreaters are expected to require on average about 
three-years to install and start-up (See Table V-3). In comparision to 
FCC pretreaters, hydrocrackers and distillate hydrotreaters, FCC 
postreaters are much less costly, low pressure units that take less 
time to scope out, require shorter lead times for ordering the 
equipment, and less time to install. Furthermore, the grassroots FCC 
postreaters to be installed for Tier 3 are expected to be in a moderate 
to light desulfurization service because the refineries they will be 
installed in will already be complying with Tier 2 using an FCC 
pretreater. FCC naphtha from a refinery with an FCC pretreater is 
expected to only contain about 100 ppm sulfur. To comply with Tier 3, 
refiners installing these grassroots FCC postreaters would only need to 
desulfurize the FCC naphtha down to 25 ppm (about a 75% reduction). In 
comparison, a single-stage FCC postreaters would have to desulfurize 
FCC naphtha from as high as 2400 ppm sulfur down to 25 ppm, a 99% 
sulfur reduction. The more moderate desulfurization service of the 
grassroots FCC postreaters needed to comply with Tier 3 would be 
expected to streamline the scoping and design work.

[[Page 29925]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.002

    It is useful to compare the proposed lead time for Tier 3 to what 
was provided for Tier 2. In the case of the Tier 2 standard, we 
provided a three-year lead time along with an ABT program and other 
flexibilities to ease compliance. Refiners, though, commented that the 
three year timeline that we provided was not enough time. For the Tier 
2 analysis, we assumed that refiners would solely install low-pressure 
FCC postreaters, which we believe could be scoped out, designed, 
installed and started up within a 3 year time period. However, many 
refiners complied with Tier 2 by installing high-pressure FCC 
pretreaters which require long lead times for the procurement of the 
required equipment. Furthermore, those refiners that did not install 
high-pressure FCC pretreaters instead installed grassroots FCC 
postreaters, many of which were designed for severe desulfurization 
service. An additional difference between Tier 3 and Tier 2 is that for 
Tier 3 we expect the installation of only 16 grassroots units, along 
with many revamps, but for Tier 2 virtually all refiners installed both 
grassroots FCC pretreaters and postreaters. The demands on the 
desulfurization vendors for scoping studies, and on the E & C industry 
for design and construction, and on the refiners to train their 
operations staff and start up the new units, was a lot greater for Tier 
2 than what we would expect for Tier 3. The total estimated investment 
cost for Tier 2 versus Tier 3 also highlights the difference in 
investment demands.
    The total investment for Tier-2 desulfurization processing units 
was estimated to be about $6.1 billion, while the total investment for 
Tier-3 desulfurization processing units is estimated to be about $2.1 
billion. This simple comparison helps to illustrate that the proposed 
Tier 3 would be easier for refineries to obtain necessary permits, 
secure engineering and construction (E&C) resources, install new 
desulfurization equipment and make all necessary retrofits to meet the 
proposed sulfur standards.
    We assessed the permitting situation in more detail working in 
conjunction with the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS). Since the permitting process has little impact on the overall 
cost of compliance with Tier 3, it is an issue primarily in terms of 
its potential impact on the time needed to complete the necessary 
refinery modifications. On a refinery-by-refinery basis, we provided 
OAQPS estimates of the additional heating demands for the new and 
revamped units per the desulfurization vendor submissions. OAQPS was 
able to project which refineries would likely trigger NOX, 
particulate matter and greenhouse gas emission permitting limits, which 
would likely lengthen the permitting process as refiners would need to 
offset the projected emission increases. As it turns out, only 2 of the 
16 refineries which are projected to install grassroots units were 
projected to exceed particular permitting limits, and these solely did 
so based on the most conservative assumption that each would produce 
all the additional hydrogen on site using hydrogen plants (as opposed 
to using existing reforming capacity) and produce the electricity on 
site, to satisfy the needs of the new desulfurization equipment. When 
we provided a second heat demand estimate to OAQPS which assumes that 
refiners purchase their hydrogen and electricity from third parties, 
none of the refineries which we projected would install grassroots 
units was projected to have emission increases which would require 
offsets. Thus, many of the grassroots units that we project would be 
installed may end up with a streamlined permitting process. We seek 
comment on our estimates of the number of refineries that may trigger 
the need for new permits and the length of time necessary to obtain the 
various

[[Page 29926]]

types of permits that may be required once the refiner applies for 
them.
    The various flexibilities that the proposed Tier 3 rule provides to 
refiners provide refiners additional time for complying. These 
flexibilities include the ABT program, the small refiner delay 
provisions and the hardship provisions. The ABT program allows a 
refiner, either within its own company or by purchasing credits on the 
open market, to delay higher investment cost investments, such as the 
investments in grassroots FCC postreaters, which would provide 
additional lead time for installing these units. This would occur if 
refiners would reduce the sulfur levels of their gasoline through 
operational changes or revamps of their existing FCC pretreaters and 
postreaters when the ABT Program begins in 2014. Potentially every 
refinery with either an FCC pretreater or an FCC postreater may be 
capable of generating early credits. Furthermore, we project that 66 
refineries would revamp their existing FCC postreaters to comply with 
Tier 3. Since revamps can be completed within two years or less, these 
refiners could potentially begin generating early credits during 2016, 
or before if refiners begin each of these revamps in early 2014. During 
the period between 2014 and 2017, these refineries which reduce their 
gasoline sulfur levels below that required by Tier 2 would generate 
credits. Refineries with higher cost capital investments, such as the 
grassroots FCC postreaters, could then delay making those investments 
through the purchase of credits. We estimate that sufficient credits 
could be genereated early to allow many of these refineries to delay 
compliance until as late as 2020. The quantitative early credit 
analysis that we conducted showed that if refiners with an existing 
pretreater or postreater would generate early credits by lowering their 
gasoline sulfur down to 20 ppm starting in 2014 and if revamps were 
started up in 2016, one year before the program start date, that almost 
6 times more credits would be available to offset the early credit 
demand by the refiners installing grassroots postreater units, assuming 
that they start up those units in 2018. Even if all grassroots 
postreaters were assumed to not start up until 2020, there would be 
almost 4 times more early credits available to those refiners 
installing grassroots postreaters assuming that the same early credit 
generation scenario would occur.
    Additional flexibility is also provided by the small refineries 
provisions which delays compliance by the refineries that refiner less 
than a net of 75,000 barrels of crude oil per day until 2020. Three of 
the 16 FCC postreater grassroots units that we project will be 
installed would be by small refineries. However, small refineries could 
also decide to comply early and generate credits starting as early as 
2014.
    As in previous fuel programs, we are proposing hardship provisions 
to accommodate a refiner's inability to comply with the proposed 
standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with 
unforeseen circumstances that may occur at any point during the 
program. These provisions would be available to all refiners, small and 
non-small, though relief would be granted on a case-by-case basis 
following a showing of certain requirements; primarily that compliance 
through the use of credits was not feasible. We are proposing that any 
hardship waiver would not be a total waiver of compliance; rather, a 
hardship waiver would be short-term relief that would allow a refiner 
facing a hardship situation to, for example, receive additional time to 
comply. This hardship provision would allow a refiner to seek a delay 
in the case that there was insufficient time to comply.
    Finally, we believe that in reality, less leadtime than shown in 
Table V-3 would actually be necessary. We held discussions with many 
refiners during 2011, and so they have been well aware of Tier 3 and 
are familiar with the likely requirements. During our subsequent 
discussions with technology vendors and engineering firms, they 
explained to us that many refiners have already initiated, and by now, 
likely completed their scoping studies. Thus, actual time needed for 
designing, installing and starting of new desulfurization equipment for 
Tier 3 times would be even less than what we projected because many 
refineries may have already completed required scoping studies in 
anticipation of the Tier-3 standards. Moreover, lead times for those 
refineries that have yet to start the scoping process can also be 
expected to decrease, since fewer refineries will be competing for the 
services of the desulfurization vendors. We request comment on the 
amount of lead time that we are providing refiners to scope, design, 
permit, construct and start-up a grassroots desulfurization unit, 
considering all the proposed flexibilities which allow refiners to 
stagger their capital investments and ease compliance.
    As in prior rules, we also evaluated the capability of E&C 
industries to design and build gasoline hydrotreaters as well as 
performing routine maintenance. Two areas where it is important to 
consider the impact of the fuel proposed sulfur standards are: (1) 
Refiners' ability to procure design and construction services and (2) 
refiners' ability to obtain the capital necessary for the construction 
of new equipment required to meet the new gasoline quality 
specification. We evaluated the requirement for engineering design and 
construction personnel in a manner consistent with the Tier 2 analysis, 
particularly for three types of workers needed to implement the 
refinery changes: front-end designers, detailed designers, and 
construction workers. We developed estimates of the maximum number of 
each of these types of workers needed throughout the design and 
construction process and compared those figures to the number of 
personnel currently employed in these areas.
    The number of job hours necessary to design and build individual 
pieces of refinery equipment and the job hours per piece of equipment 
were taken from Moncrief and Ragsdale.\346\ Their paper summarizes 
analyses performed in support of a National Petroleum Council study of 
gasoline desulfurization, as well as other potential fuel quality 
changes. The design and construction factors for desulfurization 
equipment are summarized in Table V-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \346\ Moncrief, Philip & Ragsdale, Ralph. (2000). Can the U.S. 
E&C Industry Meet the EPA's Low Sulfur Timetable? Paper presented at 
NPRA Annual Meeting, March 26-28, 2000. Paper No. AM-00-57.

               Table V-4--Design and Construction Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline Refiners:
  Number of New Pieces of Equipment per Refinery...............       60
  Number of Revamped Pieces of Equipment per Refinery..........       15
Job Hours Per Piece of New Equipment: \a\
  Front End Design.............................................      300
  Detailed Design..............................................    1,200
  Direct and Indirect Construction.............................    9,150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Revamped equipment estimated to require half as many hours per piece
  of equipment.

    Refinery projects will differ in complexity and scope. Even if all 
refiners desired to complete their project by the same date, their 
projects would inevitably begin over a range of months. Thus, two 
projects scheduled to start up at exactly the same time are not likely 
to proceed through each step of the design and construction process at 
the same time. Second, the design and construction industries will 
likely provide refiners with economic incentives to avoid temporary 
peaks in the demand for personnel.
    Applying the above factors, we projected the maximum number of 
personnel needed in any given month

[[Page 29927]]

for each type of job. The results are shown in Table V-5. In addition 
to total personnel required, the percentage of the U.S. workforce in 
these areas is also shown, assuming that half of all projects occur in 
the Gulf Coast

                                 Table V-5--Maximum Monthly Demand for Personnel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Detailed
                                                            Front-end design     engineering      Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Program:
Number of Workers.........................................               202               809             6,012
Percentage of Current Workforce \a\.......................               11%                9%                4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Based on current employment in the U.S. Gulf Coast assuming half of all projects occur in the Gulf Coast.

    To meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are expected 
to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize approximately 
1,000 front-end design and engineering jobs and 6,000 construction 
jobs. The number of estimated jobs required is small relative to 
overall number available in the U.S. job market. As such, we believe 
that three years, plus the additional flexibilities provided, is 
adequate lead time for refineries to obtain necessary permits, secure 
E&C resources, install new desulfurization equipment, and make all 
necessary retrofits to meet the proposed sulfur standards. For an in 
depth assessment of stationary source implications, refer to Section 
V.B. For more on our E&C assessment, refer to Section 4.5 of the draft 
RIA.
3. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
    In much of Europe and Japan, the gasoline sulfur level is capped at 
10 ppm. We, however, are not considering a 10-ppm cap for the U.S. The 
U.S. gasoline distribution system poses contamination challenges that 
make it difficult to set and enforce such a tight downstream per-gallon 
sulfur standard. In Europe, Japan, and California, finished petroleum 
products are generally shipped short distances directly from the 
refinery to the terminal with limited susceptibility to contamination. 
The U.S. has the longest and most complex gasoline distribution system 
in the world, making it harder to control sulfur contamination than in 
other countries. Petroleum products are shipped long distances through 
multi-product pipelines. Further, gasoline goes through the same 
pipelines and terminals back-to-back with jet fuel (containing up to 
3,000 ppm sulfur). Products are often in the custody of a number of 
separate companies before reaching the terminal. This system is very 
effective at delivering petroleum products to the bulk of the country, 
but pipeline transport inevitably introduces the potential for sulfur 
contamination of the gasoline being shipped through pipelines. 
Additionally, gasoline additives needed to provide critical fuel 
performance characteristics (e.g., corrosion control, demulsifiers) 
also contain varying levels of sulfur which contribute to the overall 
sulfur content of gasoline. Therefore, we are proposing a 10-ppm 
refinery average sulfur standard (discussed in Section V.A.2) with 
higher per gallon caps at both the refinery gate and at all points 
downstream, which is similar to what currently exists under the Tier 2 
program. We believe this is the most prudent approach for lowering in-
use sulfur while maintaining flexibility considering cost and other 
factors. These per-gallon caps are important in the context of an 
average sulfur standard to provide an upper limit on the sulfur 
concentration that vehicles must be designed to tolerate. Since there 
are many opportunities for sulfur to be introduced into gasoline 
downstream of the refinery, these caps also limit downstream sulfur 
contamination and enable the enforcement of the gasoline sulfur 
standard in-use.
    We are proposing two options for the per-gallon sulfur caps. Under 
the first option, we are proposing to maintain both the current 80-ppm 
refinery gate sulfur cap and 95-ppm downstream sulfur cap.\347\ Because 
this represents no change from current requirements, we believe there 
would be no additional costs to refiners and downstream parties 
associated with satisfying these caps on gasoline sulfur content beyond 
those that were already incurred under the Tier 2 program. Compliance 
for downstream parties could be even easier given that the average 
refinery gate level would be lower. However, the high level of the caps 
means that vehicles still have to be designed to operate on high sulfur 
fuel, and there will be less attention paid to limiting contamination 
downstream of the refinery gate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \347\ This approach is reflected in the draft regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the second approach, we are proposing that the refinery gate 
cap would be reduced to 50 ppm and the downstream cap would be reduced 
to 65 ppm, in other words, a 30-ppm reduction in the caps to go along 
with a 20-ppm drop in the average standard. We are proposing that the 
50-ppm refinery gate cap would take effect on January 1, 2020 when the 
small refiner, small volume refinery, and early credit use provisions 
would expire. The reason for the delay in the more stringent cap until 
2020 is to avoid forcing additional refinery investments during the 
early credit usage period. A more stringent per-gallon cap would also 
be very difficult to enforce prior to the small refiner and small 
volume refinery provisions taking effect. Until that time, the current 
80-ppm refinery gate sulfur cap would apply. Additional time beyond 
when the 50-ppm refinery gate sulfur cap is implemented would be 
allowed for gasoline produced to an 80-ppm sulfur cap to clear the 
distribution system before the 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would 
replace the current 95-ppm downstream sulfur cap. Beginning February 1, 
2020, a 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would apply at all locations 
downstream of the refinery and importer gate with the exception of 
retail and wholesale-purchaser-consumer facilities. Beginning March 1, 
2020, a 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would apply at all locations in 
the gasoline distribution system downstream of the refinery and 
importer gate. We note that the additional time for parties to comply 
with a more stringent downstream sulfur cap mirrors the schedule for 
compliance under the Tier 2 program.
    As discussed previously in Sections III and IV of today's preamble, 
the vehicle emissions benefits associated with today's proposal are 
driven by the proposed reduction in the average sulfur content of 
gasoline from 30 to 10 ppm. However, vehicle manufacturers have 
expressed concerns about the potential impacts on emissions performance 
if individual vehicles are exposed to gasoline above the proposed 10-
ppm

[[Page 29928]]

refinery average.\348\ As discussed in Section V.A.2.b, our analysis of 
the potential response to the proposed ABT provisions assessed three 
options for refineries: remaining at their current sulfur levels and 
using credits, reducing sulfur levels to 10 ppm and neither generating 
or using credits, or reducing sulfur levels to 5 ppm and generating 
credits. We did not have available information that would enable us to 
assess refineries that might stay above 10 ppm and reduce their sulfur 
levels part way (e.g., reduce sulfur from 50 ppm today to 20 ppm under 
Tier 3). Nevertheless, we anticipate that in most cases refineries 
would respond by making operational changes and/or minor investments in 
order to reduce their credit burden and reduce their compliance costs. 
This anticipation, along with the fact that a 10-ppm average standard 
by definition limits the amount of gasoline that can remain at higher 
sulfur levels, means that we anticipate most credit-using refineries 
would still average less than 20 ppm in their physical gasoline 
production, and either all or virtually all gasoline would be expected 
to average at or below 30 ppm. Therefore, we believe that a 50-ppm per-
gallon cap at the refinery gate would not impose any additional cost or 
burden beyond the current 80-ppm per-gallon cap. Our discussions with 
refiners indicate that a 50-ppm sulfur cap would provide refiners with 
sufficient flexibility to produce gasoline during temporary upsets and 
turnarounds through the use of credits without necessitating the 
installation of additional desulfurization equipment.\349\ However, it 
would provide some additional assurance of in-use gasoline quality and 
help to address vehicle manufacturer concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2011, October 6). 
Letter to EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson.
    \349\ Refer to Section 4.2.4.1 of the draft RIA for a more 
detailed discussion of the impacts of lowering the refinery gate 
sulfur cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also believe that implementing a 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap 
would provide essentially the same flexibilities to downstream parties 
as the existing sulfur caps. We believe that maintaining a 15-ppm 
differential between the proposed refinery gate sulfur cap of 50 ppm 
and the proposed 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would provide pipeline 
operators, transmix processors, and gasoline additive users the same 
flexibility as provided under the current 80/95 ppm sulfur caps.
    Pipeline operators are currently allowed to blend limited volumes 
of transmix into gasoline in their systems provided that the resulting 
gasoline meets all fuel quality specifications and the endpoint of the 
blended gasoline does not exceed 437 [deg]F.\350\ This enables pipeline 
operators to avoid the installation of additional transmix storage and 
loading equipment at a number of remote locations to facilitate 
shipping small volumes of transmix to processing facilities by truck. 
We believe that a 65-ppm sulfur cap would provide sufficient 
flexibility to allow pipeline operators to continue this practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \350\ The requirements for transmix blenders are contained in 40 
CFR 80.84(d). 437 [deg]F is the maximum endpoint allowed for 
gasoline in ASTM D4814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently transmix processors must produce gasoline sufficiently 
below the 95-ppm downstream sulfur cap to accommodate any downstream 
sulfur increases from the use of gasoline additives and contamination 
from further distribution. The sulfur content of the gasoline produced 
by transmix processors is determined by the sulfur content of the 
transmix they receive, which in turn is primarily a function of the 
sulfur content of gasoline and jet fuel components in the 
transmix.\351\ Transmix processors do not handle sufficient volumes to 
support the installation of currently available desulfurization 
units.\352\ Data provided by the largest operator of transmix 
processing facilities indicates that relatively few batches of the 
gasoline they currently produce approach 80 ppm sulfur. Most batches 
are approximately 10 ppm above the current 30-ppm refinery sulfur 
average. Therefore, we believe that under a 10-ppm refinery average 
standard and 50-ppm refinery sulfur cap, transmix processors would be 
able to produce gasoline sufficiently under the proposed 65-ppm 
downstream sulfur cap to accommodate the additional sulfur contribution 
from the use of additives and contamination during further 
distribution. Since the 65-ppm downstream cap would not take effect 
until 2020, while the 10-ppm average standard would take effect in 
2017, we would have three years of experience with which to verify this 
and take corrective action if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \351\ Transmix is a by-product of the multi-product pipeline 
distribution system. 40 CFR 80.84(a) defines transmix pipeline 
interface that does not meet the specifications for a fuel that can 
be used or sold, and that is composed solely of any combination of: 
previously certified gasoline (including previously certified 
gasoline blendstocks that become gasoline solely upon the addition 
of an oxygenate); distillate fuel; or gasoline blendstocks that are 
suitable for use as a blendstock without further processing.
    \352\ Transmix processors produce ~0.1 percent of the gasoline 
consumed in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to proposing refinery gate and downstream per gallon 
sulfur caps of either 80 ppm and 95 ppm or 50 ppm and 65 ppm, we are 
also requesting comment on the potential implementation of a refinery 
gate sulfur cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream sulfur cap as low as 
25 ppm. This would further constrain downstream contamination and limit 
the temporary exposure of vehicles in-use to sulfur levels that would 
significantly degrade their emission performance. This would serve to 
provide added assurance that all parts of the country would receive the 
full emission benefits of gasoline sulfur control. However, we are only 
seeking comment on it and not proposing it due to the potential cost 
increases resulting from further constraints on refinery and 
distribution system operations. While a 50-ppm refinery gate cap may 
not impact refinery costs, in order to meet a 20-ppm refinery gate cap 
and downstream standard of 25 ppm we expect that essentially all 
refineries would need to invest to meet the 10-ppm annual average 
standard. Our modeling of a non-ABT scenario, discussed in Section 
VII.B, shows that the sulfur control costs would increase by almost 10 
percent, with no net change in average in-use sulfur levels. Similarly, 
while a 65-ppm downstream cap may have little or no impact on 
downstream operations, a 25-ppm downstream sulfur cap would likely 
require changes in pipeline operations, treatment of gasoline transmix, 
and formulation and use of sulfur containing gasoline additives (e.g., 
corrosion inhibitors, and demulsifiers) that could further increase the 
costs of the standard. The extent of such impacts and associated costs, 
however, are difficult to quantify. Consequently we seek comment on the 
appropriateness, impacts, and costs of lowering the per-gallon caps to 
20 ppm at the refinery gate, and 25 ppm downstream.
    Further, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the downstream 
cap and prevent the potential dumping of high sulfur materials into 
gasoline under the guise of adding gasoline additives, we are proposing 
additional requirements to clarify the treatment of gasoline additives. 
Parties that introduce additives to gasoline at over 1.0 volume percent 
are required to satisfy all of the obligations of a fuel manufacturer 
including demonstration that the finished blend meets the applicable 
sulfur specification. A party other than a fuel refiner or importer who 
adds a quantity of additive(s) amounting to less than 1.0 percent by 
volume of the

[[Page 29929]]

resultant additive(s)/fuel mixture is not considered a fuel 
manufacturer.\353\ Thus, the addition of sulfur to finished gasoline 
from additives used at less than 1.0 volume percent is simply limited 
by the current 95-ppm downstream sulfur cap. We are proposing to limit 
the sulfur contribution from the use of a gasoline additive added 
downstream of the refinery at less than 1.0 volume percent to 3 ppm 
when added at the maximum recommended treatment rate. We believe that 
this limitation would not constrain the use of gasoline additives or 
result in significant additional costs to gasoline additive 
manufacturers. This is because information received from additive 
producers indicates that all current gasoline additives contribute less 
than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished fuel when used at the 
maximum recommended treatment rate. The maximum treatment rate is 
already stated on product transfer document or packaging for the 
additive. We are proposing a requirement that additive manufacturers 
maintain records of their additive production quality control 
activities, which demonstrate that the sulfur content of additive 
production batches complies with the proposed sulfur requirement, for 
five years and to make these available to EPA upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \353\ 40 CFR 79.2(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions

    It is important to the success of the proposed Tier 3 fuel program 
that refineries are able to obtain air permits, if needed, in time to 
complete the modifications necessary to comply with the proposed 
gasoline sulfur program. Accordingly, we have considered the 
implications of permitting requirements with respect to the 
implementation of the proposed gasoline sulfur program. This section 
provides information on this topic. In summary, we believe that only a 
small percentage of refineries would likely need to make modifications 
that will trigger a requirement to apply for air permits, and we 
anticipate that these permit applications would be processed quickly 
enough that air permitting will not be a significant obstacle to timely 
compliance with the gasoline sulfur program. In contrast to the Tier 2 
program, where EPA expected the need for NAAQS-related New Source 
Review (NSR) permits might be widespread among refineries, we believe 
that under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard at most only 
about 19 refineries would need NSR or Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) permits. This number--which equates to 
approximately 17 percent of the 111 refineries projected to be affected 
by the proposed Tier 3 standards--could be even lower if refineries 
apply emission controls to reduce emissions increases below the 
significance level or if they ``net out'' of NSR.
    If our final assessment of permitting prospects following analysis 
of comments indicates it would be appropriate, we would form a special 
team to monitor for permitting delays and assist in resolving 
associated problems. We also anticipate that other new requirements 
applicable to refineries that are being proposed for implementation in 
approximately the same period as the gasoline sulfur program would not 
interfere with the modifications needed to meet the new sulfur limits 
and would not create a competition for air permitting agency resources.
    We invite public comment on air permitting issues, and on possible 
actions we might be able to take to help make sure refineries can 
obtain needed permits expeditiously. As described in further detail in 
Sections V.B.4 and V.B.6, a number of mechanisms and resources are 
already available to help mitigate and streamline NSR permitting 
requirements associated with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. For 
example, EPA has issued guidance on Best Available Control Technology 
(BACT) analysis for GHG emissions, including a white paper that 
identifies specific technologies available for refinery process units. 
As explained in greater detail below, we expect that the types of 
equipment and process technologies that refiners would select to meet 
the proposed Tier 3 standards would generally be consistent with BACT 
for GHG emissions in terms of achievable, cost-effective, and energy-
efficient design even absent the requirement to obtain a permit, 
meaning that such a requirement would not necessitate a shift in 
project design or increase costs.
1. Background on New Source Review Programs
    The New Source Review (NSR) program, as it applies to existing 
major sources of air pollution, requires that a permit be issued before 
a source begins construction of any project to modify the source that 
would result in a significant emissions increase and a significant net 
emissions increase of a pollutant regulated under this program.\354\ 
The physical modifications and operational changes that we expect 
refineries would make to comply with the proposed gasoline sulfur 
standards (described in Section V.A.1.d) could result in emissions 
increases in one or more pollutants that may trigger NSR requirements 
for preconstruction air permits. NSR permits specify what emission 
limits must be met by the new and modified equipment that is part of 
the proposed project. They may contain conditions to make sure that the 
modifications being made match parameters in the application that the 
permit-issuing agency relied on in its analysis. Permits contain 
emission limitations for new and modified units and also typically 
specify some aspects of how, consistent with the permit application, 
the project elements must be constructed and operated. For example, the 
permit may identify important design and operational parameters that 
are consistent with the established control technology determination(s) 
and help assure compliance with associated emission limitations. To 
assure that sources follow the permit requirements, permits also 
contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. NSR 
permits are issued by a state or local air pollution control agency if 
it has its own permit program that has been approved by EPA in the 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) or if it has been delegated the 
authority to issue federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) permits on behalf of EPA. An EPA Regional Office issues the 
permit in other cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \354\ Generally, a source is a major source if its ``potential 
to emit'' a regulated NSR pollutant is greater than either 100 or 
250 tons/year depending on the industrial type of the source and 
whether the area is designated nonattainment for the particular 
pollutant. All refineries in the U.S. are major sources for purposes 
of NSR. A major modification is a physical change or a change in the 
method of operation that causes a significant emissions increase and 
a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant regulated 
under the NSR program. (A net emissions increase differs from an 
emissions increase in that a net increase takes into account 
contemporaneous emissions changes from other projects at the 
source.) Significant emission rates vary depending on the pollutant 
and range from 0.6 to 100 tons/year for criteria (NAAQS) pollutants 
and their precursors. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23). For GHGs, 
modifications of existing sources trigger NSR permitting 
requirements when there is an increase of GHG emissions of at least 
75,000 tons/year of CO2 equivalent, as well as any 
increase of GHG emissions on a mass basis. At the time refineries 
are required to comply with the proposed fuel sulfur program, the 
GHG threshold may be different, but will not be lower than 50,000 
tons/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two separate sets of major source permit requirements 
that may apply to modifications at a refinery depending on the 
attainment status of the area in which a refinery is located. Each set 
of requirements is applied on a pollutant-specific basis, so that in 
some cases both permit programs may

[[Page 29930]]

apply to the same modification project. The PSD permit program applies 
to any major modification at a source located in a designated 
attainment or unclassifiable area for any NAAQS pollutant.\355\ PSD 
requires compliance with emission limitations achievable through 
installation of BACT, an air quality analysis to show that the 
modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS 
or applicable PSD increment,\356\ an assessment of impact on visibility 
and other conditions in national parks and similar federal lands, an 
additional impacts analysis, and an opportunity for public involvement. 
The second set of requirements is known as the Nonattainment NSR 
program because it applies to major modifications at sources located in 
areas designated as nonattainment for a specific NAAQS pollutant.\357\ 
The Nonattainment NSR requirements include, among other things, that a 
proposed major modification meet the lowest achievable emission rate 
(LAER) for each triggering nonattainment pollutant for which the source 
is major and for which there will be a significant emissions increase, 
obtain emission offsets for those nonattainment pollutants, and provide 
an opportunity for public involvement. LAER is generally a more 
stringent emission limitation than BACT. LAER is derived from either 
the most stringent emission limitation contained in the implementation 
plan of any state for the same type of source or the most stringent 
emission limitation achieved in practice. Emission offsets are 
emissions reductions, generally obtained from other existing stationary 
sources located in the vicinity of a proposed source. Such offsets must 
be equal to or larger than the emissions increase resulting from the 
modification to ensure that the growth being allowed to occur does not 
interfere with the ability of an area to continue making reasonable 
further progress towards attainment of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \355\ The PSD program stems from part C of Title I of the Clean 
Air Act. The implementing regulations are contained in 40 CFR 51.166 
and 52.21.
    \356\ A system of ``increments'' is the mechanism used in the 
PSD program to define significant deterioration of ambient air 
quality for a pollutant. An increment is the maximum allowable 
increase in ambient concentrations of a pollutant in an area 
relative to a specified baseline. Increases above that level are 
considered to significantly deteriorate air quality and cannot be 
allowed.
    \357\ The Nonattainment NSR program stems from part D of Title I 
of the Clean Air Act. The implementing regulations are contained in 
40 CFR 51.165 and 50 CFR part 51 appendix S. Under Nonattainment 
NSR, a major source is generally any source with a potential to emit 
of 100 tons/year or more of the nonattainment pollutant, regardless 
of industrial type (lower thresholds apply for some pollutants/
classifications). The thresholds for a significant emissions 
increase under Nonattainment NSR are generally the same as under PSD 
but lower for certain pollutants/classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described previously in Section V.A.1.d, there are several types 
of process changes refineries could make to meet the proposed gasoline 
sulfur levels. To different degrees, all these technologies involve 
process heat from fuel combustion and, thus, have the potential to 
increase emissions of pollutants associated with combustion that are 
regulated under NSR,\358\ such as NOX, VOCs, 
PM2.5, PM10, CO, SO2, and GHGs. The 
addition of certain technologies could also result in equipment leaks 
of petroleum compounds, which could increase emissions of VOCs and 
other pollutants. It is also possible that the removal of more sulfur 
from the gasoline stream could require increased capacity or increased 
utilization of other refinery processes, such as hydrogen plants and 
sulfur recovery units (SRUs), which are sources of air emissions. The 
emissions increases associated with a desulfurization project would 
vary from refinery to refinery, depending on a number of refinery-
specific factors, such as the refinery output volume, refinery 
configuration, feedstocks, choice of desulfurization technology, and 
type of fuel used to operate affected process heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \358\ Toxic air pollutants are excluded from the PSD program. 42 
U.S.C. 7412(b)(6); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in more detail in Section V.B.4, we anticipate that 
the types of changes that would occur at most refineries would not 
result in sufficient emissions increases to require major NSR permits 
as a prerequisite for completing the needed changes. The major NSR 
permitting requirements would not be triggered for several reasons: 
because the emissions increase or the net emissions increase is 
naturally less than the significant level, because the refinery 
installs control technologies on project-affected units to further 
limit the emissions increase, and/or because the refinery ``nets out'' 
all or part of the emissions increase.
    However, we anticipate that some refineries have the potential to 
experience significant emissions increases and significant net 
emissions increases as a result of process changes necessary to meet 
the proposed gasoline sulfur standard and, therefore, may trigger major 
NSR (Nonattainment NSR and/or PSD). These facilities would have to 
obtain a major NSR preconstruction permit prior to making these 
necessary process changes. For any required major NSR permits, the 
associated control technology requirements (BACT and/or LAER) would 
apply only to new or modified units associated with the project and not 
to units at the refinery that are not affected by the project. We do 
not anticipate that the time frames required for the small number of 
affected refineries to obtain any needed NSR and/or PSD permits will 
present an obstacle to timely compliance with the proposed Tier 3 
gasoline sulfur requirements. We are proposing approximately 3 years of 
lead time. However, as discussed in section V.E., this is extended to 
up to 6 years of lead time for all small refineries, as well as for all 
other refineries if they take advantage of the flexibility of the early 
credit provisions. In comparison, as discussed in section V.A.2.c, 95 
of the 111 refineries are anticipated to be able to comply within 2 
years, and the remaining 16 within 3 years. For the 16 that may require 
up to 3 years to comply due to the construction of grassroots 
hydrotreaters, only 2 of these are projected to potentially trigger the 
need for new permits, and even then only for PSD for greenhouse gases, 
and only if they choose to produce their own hydrogen. As a result, 
only two refineries may actually require the full 3 years to comply.
    For facilities subject to major NSR, the timing of permit issuance 
could vary depending on a number of factors, including the clarity and 
completeness of the application, the complexity of process changes, the 
type of permit required, air quality impact, control technology 
reviews, and the permitting agency's overall permit workload. The time 
spent preparing a permit application is under the control of the 
applicant. Once a permit application is complete, permitting 
authorities operating under approved SIPs should be able to issue a 
permit within 9 to 12 months if the permit applies to NAAQS pollutants. 
Because EPA-issued permits and permits issued by states operating under 
a delegation from EPA are subject to additional analysis and 
interagency consultation steps specified in federal law, it can take a 
few more months if, for example, there are endangered species or 
historical preservation issues.\359\ For permits that apply only to 
GHGs, we anticipate that less time will be necessary both to prepare 
the

[[Page 29931]]

application and for the permitting authority to approve the permit. The 
CAA requires that EPA take final action on a PSD permit within one year 
of the filing with the agency of a complete application. 42 U.S.C. 
7475(c). Refineries that are able to avoid major NSR may be required to 
obtain a state-issued minor NSR permit. Generally, minor NSR permits 
involve less extensive and/or stringent requirements and have shorter 
processing times than major NSR permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \359\ These processing time periods assume that the refinery can 
successfully show that the emission increases associated with the 
modifications will not cause or contribute to a violation of any 
NAAQS or increment (under PSD) or can obtain needed emissions 
offsets for the emission increases (under Nonattainment NSR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Background on NSR Experience Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program
    Many of the modifications that refineries are projected to make in 
order to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program are similar in 
type, although not necessarily in number or magnitude, to the changes 
that were needed to comply with the Tier 2 fuel program finalized in 
2000. Therefore, information on the Tier 2 experience may assist the 
public in understanding the permitting issues for the Tier 3 fuel 
program and in providing comment on possible actions we might undertake 
to help refineries expeditiously obtain needed permits.
    The Tier 2 program was designed to reduce the average sulfur 
content of gasoline from about 300 ppm to 30 ppm, a reduction of about 
90 percent. Anticipating that many refineries would have to make 
modifications that might trigger the need for NSR permits, we addressed 
the permitting issue in the proposal for the Tier 2 program, in the 
final rule, and during implementation. At proposal, we provided 
background information on the NSR program and its relationship to the 
types of changes likely to be required at refineries. We had not 
estimated the number of refineries that might trigger NSR, but we 
stated that the number could be substantial. We invited comment on a 
number of actions that EPA, states, and/or refineries could pursue in 
order to help refineries avoid the need for NSR permits or to obtain 
permits more expeditiously than might otherwise be the case. These 
actions included the following:
     Use of plantwide applicability limits, possibly 
facilitated by new EPA guidance or rules addressing issues specific to 
refineries.
     Issuance of new federal guidance on streamlining certain 
major NSR permitting requirements such as control technology and 
compliance parameters.
     Use of emissions reductions resulting from vehicles 
operating on lower sulfur gasoline as offsets for refineries seeking 
Nonattainment NSR permits.
     Use of model permits and permit applications.
     EPA refinery permitting teams.
    The Tier 2 proposal also addressed issues related to the Title V 
permitting program,\360\ and requested comments on possible approaches 
by which refineries might satisfy some NSR and Title V requirements at 
the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \360\ Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires all major 
sources and some minor sources of air pollution to obtain an 
operating permit. A Title V permit contains all air pollution 
requirements that apply to the source, including emissions limits 
and monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements. It also 
requires that the source report its compliance status to the 
permitting authority annually. All existing refineries potentially 
affected by the proposed Tier 3 fuel standards have Title V permits 
and, because Title V permits by themselves generally do not 
establish new applicable requirements, the only implication of the 
proposed Tier 3 fuel standards would be the ``roll-in'' of any new 
NSR permit requirements into existing refinery Title V permits. 
Permitting agencies have efficient processes to accomplish this that 
do not delay construction of proposed projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received comments on refinery permitting issues from the 
refining industry, the automobile manufacturing industry, state and 
local agencies that administer air permitting programs, and 
environmental and community groups. Based on these comments and 
statutory constraints, we decided that it was not necessary or 
appropriate to exempt Tier 2 projects from the normally applicable 
preconstruction review process. We also decided not to pursue the 
development of guidance on plantwide applicability limits for 
refineries based on comments suggesting this would be an unproductive 
effort because of the complexity of refineries. Nonetheless, we 
concluded that it was useful to add certainty to the anticipated 
permitting actions and schedules, and to minimize the possibility of 
delay. Accordingly, EPA took two types of actions to promote these 
objectives. First, as we are now proposing for Tier 3 (see proposed 
program flexibilities discussion in V.E.1.-3.), we structured the Tier 
2 gasoline sulfur program to allow additional lead time for many 
refineries (i.e., certain refineries would be able to make 
desulfurization changes later than the otherwise applicable compliance 
date to meet Tier 2 requirements). This approach was expected to help 
address the concerns over the availability of necessary new equipment 
and permitting backlogs caused by many refineries acting to obtain 
permits and order equipment within the same time period.Second, we 
stated our intention to take several actions during implementation of 
the Tier 2 rule to expedite and impart greater certainty in obtaining 
necessary major NSR permits (described in more detail below). We also 
stated our intention to assist states and refiners on a case-by-case 
basis in their efforts to address any unique permitting problems that 
might arise and, thus, remedy potential problems that could cause 
unanticipated delays. We committed to work with refiners and the state/
local permitting agencies on a case-by-case basis, where a refinery had 
unique circumstances that necessitated unique treatment. We clarified 
that, in our efforts to provide greater certainty and to facilitate 
more expeditious permitting, we were in no way shortcutting existing 
opportunities for public participation in making permitting decisions. 
We encouraged refineries to begin discussions with permitting 
authorities and to submit permit applications as early as possible.
    The final Tier 2 rule identified three key actions that we intended 
to take (and subsequently took) to provide assistance that would be 
useful toward helping states issue timely permits to refineries. The 
first such action was to organize a special EPA team, comprised of 
Headquarters and Regional Office experts, to track the overall progress 
in permit issuance and to be available to assist state and local 
permitting authorities, refineries, and the public upon request to 
resolve site-specific permitting issues. The team made special efforts 
to be aware of state and local permitting actions that were underway 
during the time between the finalization of the Tier 2 program and the 
compliance time frame. Experience during this period suggested that 
state and local permitting agencies, as predicted in their comments on 
the proposed Tier 2 program, were able to process permit applications 
in a timely manner, without much need for special troubleshooting help 
from the EPA team. In many cases, the modifications to allow compliance 
with Tier 2 requirements were subject to only minor NSR permitting 
requirements rather than major NSR, or those modifications were rolled 
into another permitting action that was needed for other modifications 
or expansions due to other technical or market developments. We believe 
it is reasonable to expect that similar outcomes (refineries not 
needing major NSR permits) would result in connection with air 
permitting for the modifications refineries would need to make under 
the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program.
    The second action we took was to develop new guidance on emission 
control technology requirements to meet BACT and LAER. We issued this 
guidance in 2001. It addressed the levels of control that could be 
reasonably

[[Page 29932]]

anticipated to represent BACT or LAER under the major NSR requirements. 
Our general experience following the release of this BACT/LAER guidance 
was that it did not play a substantial role in the permitting of 
refinery projects for Tier 2. That is, due to their own expertise and 
the need to consider refinery-specific factors, state and local 
permitting authorities generally did not find it necessary to rely on 
our guidance in their own permitting processes for refineries making 
changes to meet the Tier 2 requirements. In addition, many of the 
refinery projects were able to avoid major NSR, so BACT and LAER were 
not requirements that had to be met. Again, we believe it is reasonable 
to expect that similar outcomes (refineries not needing major NSR 
permits) would result in connection with air permitting for the 
modifications refineries would need to make to meet the proposed 
gasoline sulfur standard.
    The third action we took was a fast-track effort to develop new 
guidance on the use of emissions reductions resulting from vehicles 
operating on lower sulfur gasoline as emission offsets for refineries 
seeking Nonattainment NSR permits. We invited comment on a draft 
version of this guidance five months after the final Tier 2 rule. The 
draft guidance discussed in depth how the use of such offsets could be 
made consistent with seven criteria given in the CAA for such offsets. 
We received many comments from state and local air agencies and 
community groups opposing the proposed offset guidance on legal, 
fairness, and environmental justice grounds. One refiner recommended 
that EPA set aside a portion of the Tier 2 reductions in each state as 
offsets, rather than leaving this decision to each state. We did not 
finalize the draft guidance, and no state further pursued a system 
under which vehicle emissions reductions were made available to 
refineries as offsets for Nonattainment NSR permits.
3. Changes in the NSR Permitting Program Since Tier 2 Final Rule
    The Tier 2 fuel program was promulgated in early 2000, and most 
refiners were required to comply with those requirements by 2006. 
During and since that period, there have been a number of changes to 
the major NSR programs. These changes are summarized here to facilitate 
public comment as to how these changes may affect whether refinery 
modifications undertaken as a result of the proposed Tier 3 fuel 
program would trigger NSR and/or the requirements that refiners and 
permitting authorities would have to meet.
    In 2002, we issued a final rule known as the NSR Reform Rule.\361\ 
This rule revised the EPA-administered NSR programs and changed the 
minimum approvals required for SIP-approved NSR programs for NSR 
applicability. Some of the provisions of the 2002 final rule have been 
vacated by the Court, subsequently amended by EPA, or are currently 
under reconsideration. Two key components of the NSR Reform Rule that 
remain in place are a new applicability test for projects involving 
existing emissions units (the ``actual-to-projected-actual'' 
applicability test) and provisions that allow for the establishment of 
plantwide applicability limits (PALs). The change in the applicability 
test since the Tier 2 experience means that fewer modifications may be 
found to have emissions increases that are above the significant 
emission levels, in which case fewer major NSR permits may need to be 
issued. The PAL provisions offer a voluntary alternative for 
determining major NSR applicability that can provide sources with 
significant flexibility to manage facility-wide air emissions without 
triggering major NSR permitting. Refineries that have established PALs 
or will establish one or more PALs prior to or as part of permitting 
associated with the Tier 3 fuel program will be far less likely to 
trigger major NSR permitting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \361\ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also taken a series of actions that have had the effect of 
making emissions of GHGs a factor in determining whether a PSD permit 
is required for a refinery modification. Under the applicable PSD 
provisions in the CAA, GHGs became regulated under the PSD program on 
January 2, 2011 after EPA adopted tailpipe emissions standards for 
these pollutants under Title II of the CAA. Because the incorporation 
of GHGs into the PSD program had the potential to significantly expand 
the number of sources required to obtain PSD permits, EPA adopted the 
2010 Tailoring Rule to phase in the PSD permitting requirements 
according to a series of steps based on different GHG emission 
thresholds.\362\ At this time the Tailoring Rule requires that any 
modification at an existing refinery that increases GHG emissions by 
75,000 tons per year or more of CO2 equivalent and also 
produces any mass increase in GHG emissions would trigger the need for 
a PSD permit that addresses GHG emissions.\363\ Because there are no 
NAAQS for GHGs and, therefore no nonattainment areas, only PSD could 
potentially apply to a refinery modification with respect to increases 
in GHG emissions. The analysis (described in Section V.B.4) indicates 
that only a small number of large refineries would be affected. For the 
sources that would need a PSD permit for GHGs, the main substantive 
requirement for obtaining the permit is to apply BACT for GHG emissions 
from the new or modified unit(s) because an air quality analysis is not 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \362\ 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
    \363\ 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another development since 2000 has been the establishment of 
several new and revised NAAQS and the designation of nonattainment 
areas under some of these NAAQS. At the time of the final Tier 2 rule, 
the NAAQS of most relevance to Nonattainment NSR permitting for 
refineries were the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the PM10 NAAQS, and 
the SO2 NAAQS, because these NAAQS accounted for the vast 
majority of the existing nonattainment areas. The designation of new 
nonattainment areas under the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour ozone became 
effective in 2004. Designations under the 1997 NAAQS for 
PM2.5 became effective in 2005. In 2008, we again revised 
the ozone NAAQS and designations under that standard became effective 
in July 2012.\364\ In 2006, we revised the 24-hour PM2.5 
NAAQS and in 2009 (2011 for a few areas) we designated areas under the 
2006 PM2.5 standard.\365\ In December 2012 we revised the 
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and designations associated with 
that revised standard are expected to become effective in 2015.\366\ 
One effect of this evolution of the NAAQS and associated attainment 
status for areas is that it has become more common over time for 
sources to be located in ozone or PM2.5 nonattainment areas 
and thus subject to Nonattainment NSR rather than to PSD for their VOC, 
NOX, and PM2.5 emissions increases. However, over 
the same time period, some areas currently designated as nonattainment 
for ozone and/or PM2.5 are expected to be redesignated to 
attainment. Therefore, we do not expect a dramatic shift on a national 
basis in one direction or the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \364\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).
    \365\ Listings of areas currently designated nonattainment for 
all the NAAQS are available at https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/.
    \366\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, we issued a final rule specifying in detail how NSR 
applies to PM2.5.\367\ In addition, in 2010 we

[[Page 29933]]

supplemented this rule with additional provisions for the PSD program 
specifically.\368\ The latest rule, among other things, established 
PM2.5 increments, and as of October 20, 2011, sources that 
trigger PSD for PM2.5 are required to show compliance with 
the applicable increment, in addition to showing that they do not cause 
or contribute to a violation of any of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \367\ 73 FR 28321 (May 18, 2008). On January 4, 2013, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250, 2013 WL 45653 (filed July 15, 
2008, consolidated with 09-1102, 11-1430), issued a judgment that 
remanded EPA's 2008 PM 2.5 NSR rule and ordered the EPA 
to repromulgate the rule ``pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with 
this opinion.'' Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA 
establishes additional provisions for particulate matter 
nonattainment areas. EPA is evaluating the impact of the court 
decision on the provisions of the 2008 rule.
    \368\ 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010). On January 22, 2013, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club 
v. EPA, No. 10-1413 (filed Dec. 17. 2010), issued a judgment that 
vacated and remanded the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 
52.21(k)(2) (concerning implementation of the PM2.5 SILs) 
and vacated the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) (adding the PM2.5 SMC) that were 
promulgated as part of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, EPA finalized new NAAQS for 1-hour NO2 and 1-
hour SO2.\369\ EPA has completed the initial round of 
mandatory designations for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and all 
areas have been designated unclassifiable/attainment.\370\ The first 
round of designations for the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS will be made 
in June 2013, thus we do expect there to be nonattainment areas for the 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS by the time that refineries might need to 
seek NSR permits to make the required facility modifications for the 
Tier 3 program. However, we expect that no refinery would have 
increases in SO2 emissions that are large enough to trigger 
major NSR, so any change in attainment status for the SO2 
NAAQS should have no effect on permitting issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \369\ 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010) and 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 
2010).
    \370\ 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 1-hour 
NO2 or 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the air quality impacts 
assessment required to obtain a PSD permit can present new challenges 
for permit applicants. This is because demonstrating that a 
modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of these 1-
hour standards may require more refined and data-intensive air quality 
modeling approaches than has previously been required to make this 
demonstration with respect to the pre-existing NAAQS for NO2 
and SO2. To assist permit applicants in performing the 
required analysis of 1-hour NO2 and SO2 air 
quality impacts, we have issued several guidance memos that describe 
available alternative approaches and flexibilities.\371\ In addition, 
EPA provides technical assistance with modeling issues upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \371\ These memos are available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance_clarificationmemos.htm, https://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/appwso2.pdf, and https://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100629no2guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting Implications
    EPA has performed a refinery-by-refinery assessment of the physical 
and operational changes that are likely to be needed to allow each 
active refinery in the U.S. to produce gasoline that complies with the 
proposed Tier 3 fuel specifications. We have also assessed the likely 
effects of those changes on refinery emissions. This assessment is 
described in more detail in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. Using this 
assessment, we were able to gain a reasonable understanding of the 
potential scope of NSR permitting requirements refiners might face 
under the proposed Tier 3 program. In general, our assessment indicates 
that only a small number of refineries will likely need to make 
modifications of a type and size that would trigger the need for a PSD 
or Nonattainment NSR permit. The assessment and this conclusion take 
into account the changes in the NSR program and its context since 2000 
described in Section V.B.3. A technical memorandum describing in detail 
our analysis and results is in the public docket for this 
proposal.\372\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \372\ Keller, P. (February 2013). New Source Review Permitting 
Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our analysis, we started with the estimates we have made 
regarding the physical and operational changes that would be required 
at each refinery (described in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA). The 
modifications at a given refinery could include revamps to existing FCC 
pre- or post-treatment unit(s) or the installation of a new grassroots 
post-treatment unit for sulfur reduction. Based on the projected 
refinery-specific changes, we estimated the increased demand for energy 
(i.e., fuel to generate process heat, steam and electricity), hydrogen, 
and sulfur recovery associated with meeting the proposed Tier 3 
standards. We selected representative industry emission factors for 
NAAQS pollutants, their precursors, and GHGs for each emitting process 
and combined them with estimates of incremental activity to estimate 
the emissions changes at each equipment unit (or group of similar 
units) at each refinery.
    To determine upper and lower bounds for emissions increases 
resulting from changes necessary to meet the proposed Tier 3 gasoline 
sulfur specification, we evaluated two scenarios, a no ABT scenario 
(assuming no trading of sulfur credits) and the primary ABT scenario 
described in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. We did not have sufficient 
detailed information to predict which refineries would find it most 
profitable to generate additional electrical power, hydrogen and high 
octane blendstocks internally on site rather than purchasing these 
inputs from external suppliers. If a refinery generates these 
additional inputs internally on site, the additional emissions would 
count towards the significant emissions rates and could affect the need 
for a major NSR permit. To account for these variables, we evaluated a 
high and a low case for each identified scenario. Under the high case, 
we assumed 100 percent internal generation of the additional electrical 
power, hydrogen, and high octane blendstocks and under the low case, 
100 percent external generation of the same. We expect refineries to 
actually be somewhere between these two extreme cases in the future. 
For the identified scenarios and cases, we compared the emissions 
increase for each pollutant at each refinery to the significant 
emissions increase threshold for that pollutant, taking into 
consideration the current attainment status for each pollutant where 
the refinery is located. We found that the no ABT scenario, low case 
had the lowest number of refineries estimated to trigger major NSR and 
the primary ABT scenario, high case had the highest, although the 
overall numbers did not vary greatly.
    An important aspect of our analysis is that we assumed that 
refineries would not install new emission controls on affected units 
for the purpose of staying below the significant emissions increase 
threshold and thereby not triggering major NSR. In particular, we did 
not assume that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to control 
NOX emissions would be applied to new or modified fuel 
combustion units. This is an important assumption that tends to result 
in overestimates of the number of major NSR permits needed for NAAQS-
related pollutants. In reality, applying new emission controls would be 
an option that refineries may employ to legally avoid major NSR 
permitting. We also did not assume that refineries would ``net out'' of 
NSR by taking credit for any emissions reductions occurring within a 
contemporaneous timeframe, including any new emissions reduction

[[Page 29934]]

projects initiated specifically for the purpose of ``netting out.'' 
This analysis resulted in a prediction of whether a PSD and/or a 
Nonattainment NSR permit would be needed for each refinery and the 
pollutants that would have to be addressed in those permits, under each 
of the two scenarios. Only the results for the primary ABT scenario, 
high case are presented here. The results for the no ABT scenario, 
which are not greatly different, are described in the previously 
referenced technical memo found in the docket for this rulemaking.
    We found that under the primary ABT scenario, high case, 19 
refineries appeared likely to have significant emissions increases for 
one or more pollutants and thus would trigger major NSR.\373\ This 
equates to approximately 17 percent of the 111 refineries projected to 
be affected by the proposed Tier 3 standards. Of these 19 refineries, 
we predicted that 13 refineries would need permits for NAAQS-related 
pollutants and their precursors (PSD and/or Nonattainment NSR) and for 
GHGs (results for GHG are discussed below). Thus, compared to the Tier 
2 program where EPA expected the need for NAAQS-related NSR permits 
might be widespread among refineries, we believe that under the 
proposed Tier 3 program only about 13 refineries would need major NSR 
air permits to address NAAQS pollutants. This number could be lower if 
those refineries apply pollution controls, such as SCR for 
NOX, to sufficiently reduce the emissions increases to 
levels that are below the applicable pollutant significance level, or 
if the refineries can achieve emissions reductions elsewhere at the 
facility to ``net out'' of major NSR. For refineries that are required 
to obtain a major NSR permit for NAAQS pollutants, the permitting 
process is expected to normally take about 9 to 12 months once the 
permitting authority has received a complete application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \373\ Because state requirements regarding minor NSR permitting 
vary and we do not expect minor NSR permitting programs to be a 
significant challenge for refinery modification projects, we did not 
attempt to estimate how many of the remaining refineries might need 
to obtain minor NSR permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All 13 refineries just described as potentially needing NSR permits 
for NAAQS pollutants are also projected to need PSD permits for GHGs. 
In addition to these 13 refineries, we estimated that 6 other 
refineries may require a PSD permit addressing only GHG emissions from 
new or modified equipment that is part of the project. For these 
refineries, BACT must be applied for GHG emissions, which we expect in 
most cases would mean that new or modified fuel-burning equipment would 
have to be designed for good energy efficiency. We expect that the 
types of equipment and process technologies that refiners would modify 
or add to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards would generally be 
consistent with BACT for GHG emissions in terms of achievable, cost-
effective, and energy-efficient design even absent the requirement to 
obtain a permit, meaning that such a requirement would not necessitate 
any shift in project design or increase costs. This expectation is 
based on the fact that there are strong economic incentives for 
refiners to design and purchase the most energy-efficient process 
equipment to minimize the cost of production. For example, most of the 
new or modified units expected to be involved in refinery projects 
designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards are fuel combustion 
units (e.g., process heaters). Because fuel cost (direct cost in the 
case of purchased natural gas and opportunity cost in the case of 
refinery-generated fuel gas) represents a significant component of 
total operating cost for such units, refineries will strive to maximize 
energy efficiency based on available technologies as part of their 
project design. EPA requests comment on the likelihood that refineries' 
costs for equipment and process technology for compliance with Tier 3 
would include any associated costs of compliance with NSR.
    In 2010, EPA issued a white paper on available and emerging 
technologies for reducing GHGs from the petroleum refining 
industry.\374\ This white paper addresses the types of equipment 
expected to be involved in projects designed to meet the proposed Tier 
3 fuel standards, including process heaters/boilers, hydrogen plants, 
and sulfur recovery units. The identified GHG control technologies for 
these types of units predominately involve opportunities for energy 
efficiency. Consistent with the findings reported in the white paper, 
our experience to date with GHG permitting at refineries and other 
similar sources supports the application of energy efficient design and 
operation of affected units as BACT, and we do not expect that in the 
time frame associated with Tier 3-related projects, add-on controls 
would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \374\ See ``Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum Refining Industry,'' 
October 2010, available at https://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For EPA-issued permits and permits issued by state or local 
agencies under delegation, consultation with other federal agencies 
under the Endangered Species Act and consideration of environmental 
justice would also be required. Significantly, no air quality modeling 
of GHGs would be required, and thus there would be no need to obtain 
extensive input information on meteorology and emissions from other 
nearby sources. Given these differences, we expect that the timeline 
for obtaining a permit only for GHG emissions should be shorter by 
several months than the timeline for a permit that addresses NAAQS 
pollutants.
    We invite public comment on our analysis including ways in which we 
might improve the assessment between now and the final rule.
5. New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries
    In addition to the proposed Tier 3 rulemaking, we are also 
conducting other rulemakings to set new and revised limits for direct 
emissions from refineries of NAAQS-related pollutants and hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs). This section provides summary information on these 
rulemaking efforts, so that comments on the proposed Tier 3 program can 
be more fully informed.
    We first regulated petroleum refineries in 1974 when the agency 
issued the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to control NAAQS-
related air pollutants. The NSPS applies to refinery process units that 
commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 
1973, but before May 14, 2007. On June 24, 2008, we amended the NSPS 
and issued new standards for most process units constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified after May 14, 2007 and for flares which 
commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 24, 
2008. We were petitioned to reconsider these final rules and on 
September 12, 2012, EPA finalized amendments and technical corrections 
to address issues related to flares and process heaters. There are two 
existing Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards to 
control HAPs that apply specifically to petroleum refineries.\375\ 
These standards are referred to as MACT 1 and 2 and were issued in 1995 
and 2002, respectively. EPA is required to perform risk and technology 
reviews (RTR) to assess residual risk for MACT standards for HAPs 
within eight years of the

[[Page 29935]]

promulgation of the original MACT standards. In addition, EPA is 
required to perform a technology review of advancement in processes, 
practices and control requirements every eight years after promulgation 
of the MACT. EPA is planning to issue a single rulemaking that will 
address the RTR analyses for both MACT 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \375\ These are codified in 40 CFR part 63, Subpart CC (National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum 
refineries) and 40 CFR part 63, Subpart UUU (National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: 
Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur 
Recovery Units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, on March 21, 2011 EPA published MACT standards for 
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 
and on January 31, 2013 EPA finalized revisions to those standards 
based on reconsideration.\376\ These standards apply to boilers and 
process heaters at refineries. Because any changes that are made to 
meet new requirements of these rulemakings would likely reduce rather 
than increase refinery emissions, we do not expect these modifications 
to trigger NSR unless a refinery chooses to increase the capacity of 
one or more of its units at the same time.\377\ This means that we 
expect the final rules would not themselves increase the major NSR 
workload for refinery environmental permitting staffs or for permitting 
agencies in the same period that these organizations need to prepare 
and process permit applications related to the proposed Tier 3 fuel 
program. (Minor NSR permitting workload may be affected.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \376\ 76 FR 15451 (March 21, 2011) and 78 FR 7138 (January 31, 
2013).
    \377\ Some approaches for controlling NAAQS-related pollutants 
do require additional electrical power or otherwise may increase GHG 
emissions. Conversely, some approaches to increasing energy 
efficiency (and thereby reducing GHG emissions) can increase 
emissions of NAAQS-related pollutants if compensating changes are 
not made in downstream emission control devices, for example 
increases in NOX emissions from higher combustion 
temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Steps for Streamlining the Permitting Process
    As we did for Tier 2, we could organize a Headquarters-Regional 
response team to monitor and address any delays in permitting by 
facilitating coordination among organizations where needed to resolve 
permitting issues. The mission of this team would also include tracking 
the overall progress in permit issuance and assisting state and local 
permitting authorities, refineries, and the public upon request to 
resolve site-specific permitting issues. The team would be comprised of 
EPA staff knowledgeable about permitting programs and refinery 
operations, so the team could provide expert assistance and 
troubleshoot permitting issues in a timely fashion. We invite comment 
from refineries, permitting authorities, and others regarding the 
usefulness of such a team.
    We will continue to maintain and refine the tools and resources 
that have proven useful to permit applicants and permitting 
authorities, such as the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse, the Support 
Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling, and our web-based resources 
on GHG permitting. These GHG permitting resources include various 
materials on the topic of BACT for GHG, including white papers and 
copies of our comments on recent draft permits proposed by state and 
local permitting agencies.\378\ One of the white papers, described 
previously in Section V.B.4, addresses petroleum refining, and provides 
information on control techniques and measures that are available to 
mitigate GHG emissions in order to assist states and local air 
pollution control agencies, tribal authorities, and regulated entities 
in implementing technologies or measures to reduce GHGs under the CAA, 
particularly in permitting under the PSD program and the assessment of 
BACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \378\ See ``PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse 
Gases,'' March 2011 and ``Available and Emerging Technologies for 
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum Refining 
Industry,'' October 2010, both available at https://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe the guidance we provided on BACT and LAER for 
NOX and VOC shortly after the final Tier 2 rule was not 
widely utilized by either refineries or permitting authorities. 
Nevertheless, we invite comment on whether additional guidance on BACT 
and LAER for these and other NAAQS-related pollutants would be useful 
to support permitting for Tier 3-related modifications as well as the 
appropriate scope and substance of such guidance. We anticipate that if 
we do develop any new BACT/LAER guidance, we would provide an 
opportunity for public comment on the draft guidance before finalizing 
it.
    For Tier 3-related NSR permit applications submitted to EPA 
Regional Offices, we will assist members of the local communities in 
understanding the applications and our proposed permits, in offering 
comment, and participating in our decisions. We also encourage similar 
assistance efforts by the state and local permitting authorities, and 
we invite comment on the specific forms that our and their support 
should take.
    EPA received comments during the Tier 2 rulemaking that vehicle 
emissions reductions should be allowed to be used as part of ``netting 
out'' of NSR. This concept is now relevant to GHG emissions, in 
addition to the NAAQS-related pollutants to which it was relevant at 
the time of the Tier 2 rulemaking. At that time we responded to the 
comments by saying that the use of vehicle emissions reductions for 
netting purposes was not permitted by the NSR regulations, since the 
creditable emissions reductions used for netting purposes must result 
from reductions occurring at the modified source. We noted, for 
example, that the definition of net emissions increase in 40 CFR 
52.21(b)(3)(i) includes only increases and decreases occurring ``at the 
source''. We believe this provision in the NSR rules is well founded in 
the CAA. Setting aside the issue of whether we have authority to change 
this provision, the potential consequences of changing it to allow the 
use of non-source emissions reductions in ``netting out'' of NSR would 
be far reaching. We are not proposing such a change as part of this 
rulemaking, and we believe that any proposal for such a change should 
be based on a much better assessment of its possible implications than 
can be accomplished as part of this rulemaking. We also note that 
``netting out'' of NSR could be a complex and often time-consuming 
process because all contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases 
within the refinery must be properly accounted for, so the ability to 
use vehicle emissions reductions in the netting analysis would not 
automatically make ``netting out'' a time-saving shortcut around the 
permitting process that would otherwise apply. Nevertheless, we invite 
comment regarding how critical such a change may be to successful 
permitting of the modifications needed to comply with the proposed Tier 
3 program, possible legal rationales for such a change, and the 
possible implications beyond the Tier 3 rule including ways to limit 
such implications by making the change specific to vehicle emissions 
reductions that are closely linked to changes in fuel properties that 
result from the refinery modifications.
    Finally, we invite comment on issues related to state and local 
minor source NSR programs and how they may relate to implementation of 
the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. EPA rules give states wide latitude 
in the design and operation of their minor source programs, and we do 
not routinely require states to report their minor source permitting 
activity to us. Therefore, focused comments on this issue would be 
helpful.

C. Standards for Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates

    Current gasoline requirements include the prohibition on blending 
gasoline with denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that has sulfur content 
higher than 30

[[Page 29936]]

ppm.\379\ This requirement reflects the current 30-ppm refinery average 
sulfur requirement. Consistent with this requirement and our proposed 
introduction of a 10-ppm refinery average sulfur standard, we propose 
that manufacturers of DFE for use by oxygenate blenders would be 
required to meet a 10-ppm sulfur cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \379\ 40 CFR 80.385(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California's requirements for DFE, which became effective in 
December 2003, are as follows: maximum 10 ppm sulfur, maximum 0.06 
volume percent benzene, maximum 0.5 volume percent olefins, and maximum 
1.7 volume percent aromatics.\380\ Denaturants used to manufacture DFE 
must also meet maximum benzene, olefins, and aromatics specifications 
that are based on the anticipated dilution ratio when blended with 
ethanol.\381\ Additionally, in July 2002, the Renewable Fuel 
Association (RFA) recommended that all ethanol produced for use in the 
U.S. should be manufactured in accordance with the California 
specifications primarily because of logistical difficulties in 
segregating ethanol destined for California from other 
destinations.\382\ RFA recently indicated that all ethanol producers 
are adhering to this recommendation. Some DFE marketers have also 
adopted California's DFE requirements as part of their 
specifications.\383\ Consequently, we believe that the implementation 
of a 10-ppm sulfur cap for DFE would not result in increased burden to 
ethanol producers. We are proposing it to reduce emissions from motor 
vehicles, the same reason we are proposing a more stringent sulfur 
standard for gasoline into which it is blended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \380\ California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2262.9, 
``Requirements Regarding Denatured Ethanol Intended For Use as a 
Blend Component in California Gasoline''.
    \381\ The current California requirements which are based on a 
maximum 5 percent denaturant level in DFE are as follows: maximum 
1.1 volume percent benzene, maximum 10 volume percent olefins, and 
maximum 35 volume percent aromatics. ASTM International Standard 
D4806-11(a), ``Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for 
Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine 
Fuel'' requires that the maximum denaturant concentration in DFE is 
5 volume percent.
    \382\ RFA publication entitled ``Fuel Ethanol, Industry 
Guidelines, Specifications and Procedures,'' 2011.
    \383\ For example, Aventine Renewable Energy Fuel-Grade Ethanol 
specifications at https://www.aventinerei.com/pdfs/fuel_grade_spec.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the ASTM International specification for DFE allows only 
natural gasoline, gasoline blendstocks, and gasoline as 
denaturants.\384\ Similar to the ASTM specifications, we are proposing 
to require that only natural gasoline, gasoline, and gasoline 
blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOB) be used as ethanol 
denaturants. We believe that this limitation is needed to prevent the 
use of other denaturants that might adversely impact vehicle emissions 
performance. We believe that the ASTM specifications are already in use 
by industry and, therefore, EPA's adoption of the same specifications 
would not result in an increased burden to DFE producers. We further 
believe that limiting the type of gasoline blendstocks that can be used 
as denaturant to BOBs would not impose a new burden on DFE producers 
since other gasoline blendstocks would not typically be available to 
DFE producers. We request comment on whether there should be an 
allowance for other gasoline blendstocks to be used as ethanol 
denaturants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \384\ ASTM International D4806-11(a), ``Standard Specification 
for Denatured Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to benzene, olefins, and aromatics, we believe that 
these proposed requirements along with Internal Revenue Service ethanol 
denaturant requirements would limit benzene, olefins, and aromatics 
content of DFE to very low levels. Therefore, we are not proposing any 
limits on these parameters in DFE. Nevertheless, we are requesting 
comments on whether we should adopt the State of California's benzene, 
olefin, and aromatics specifications for DFE. We are also proposing to 
limit the maximum concentration of denaturant that can be used in DFE 
to 2 volume percent. Under the RFS2 regulations, if the denaturant 
level is 2 volume percent or less (effectively less than 2.5 volume 
percent considering rounding) the entire volume of denatured fuel 
ethanol can be used for determining compliance with the RFS2 renewable 
fuel volume requirements.\385\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \385\ See the definition of Renewable Fuel in 40 CFR 80.1401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also request comment on whether to require manufacturers of 
denaturants for use in DFE to register with EPA, and demonstrate 
compliance with the maximum sulfur, benzene, olefins, and aromatics 
specifications enforced in the State of California based on the 
anticipated dilution with ethanol. We believe that such additional 
requirements on the denaturants used to manufacture DFE would not be 
necessary given that DFE producers would be required to meet the 
proposed specifications and the proposed requirement that denaturant 
concentration in DFE be limited to a maximum of 2 volume percent.
    We propose that producers of DFE would be required to meet the 
proposed fuel quality requirements for their product and provide batch 
reports to EPA. This is similar to the requirements for gasoline 
refiners. This approach would provide an appropriate level of assurance 
on the quality of DFE which has become such a large component in the 
gasoline fuel pool. We believe that this approach would not result in 
additional burden to ethanol producers beyond the annual batch reports 
that they would need to submit to EPA and the information they provide 
on product transfer documents (PTDs). Currently, under the fuel and 
fuel additives registration requirements at 40 CFR part 79, 
manufacturers of DFE are required to register their products with EPA 
prior to introducing DFE into commerce. Also, DFE producers currently 
test each batch of their product in order to provide assurance to 
blenders that it meets the current fuel quality requirements. This 
information is critical to ethanol blenders to avoid testing each batch 
of an ethanol blend that they manufacture. The proposed requirements 
would facilitate unfettered downstream ethanol blending.
    We are also proposing that the proposed fuel quality specifications 
and requirements for DFE (except those related to the use of 
denaturants) would apply to other oxygenates used in gasoline. We are 
proposing that the oxygenate quality requirements would become 
effective for oxygenate producers/importers on January 1, 2017. We are 
proposing that oxygenate producers and importers would be required to 
register by December 1, 2016, or 30 days prior to the date when they 
produce/import oxygenate (which ever date is later). Registration under 
the RFS program would be sufficient to fulfill this proposed 
requirement. We are proposing that oxygenate blenders be required to 
begin using oxygenates that comply with the proposed requirements 
beginning March 1, 2017. We also seek comment on the ability of these 
blenders to comply with the proposed requirements earlier, and 
appropriateness of such an earlier compliance date.

D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles

    FFVs are vehicles that are capable of operating on both gasoline 
and gasoline blends containing up to 85 volume percent denatured 
ethanol. Whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline (E0), E85, or any 
level of ethanol in between, to maintain emission

[[Page 29937]]

performance the vehicles still need the fuel to meet certain quality 
specifications, such as the 10-ppm average gasoline sulfur standard 
proposed today. We anticipate that the volume of higher level ethanol 
blends used in FFVs may increase substantially as the volume 
requirements of the RFS program increase. Significant public and 
private initiatives are also currently underway to expand the use of 
ethanol blender pumps that dispense a variety of ethanol blends for use 
in FFVs.\386\ Therefore it is becoming increasingly important that all 
fuels used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A 
lack of clarity regarding the standards that apply to fuels used in 
FFVs could act to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended 
fuels, which is important to satisfying the requirements of the RFS 
program. For these reasons, we believe it is important that our 
gasoline quality standards for not just sulfur, but also benzene, Reid 
Vapor Pressure (RVP), detergency, and compliance with the interpretive 
rule defining the phrase ``substantially similar'' in CAA section 
211(f)(1) \387\ (i.e., contain only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, 
and sulfur) apply to any fuel used in an FFV. At the same time, it is 
not necessarily clear how we should implement such standards within the 
context of our existing regulations. For this reason we are seeking 
comment on appropriate regulatory mechanisms for doing so. The 
following sections discuss potential approaches for gasoline-ethanol 
blends both above and below 50 percent ethanol. We have also developed 
a possible approach, along with draft regulations, that are included in 
the docket on which we specifically seek comment.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \386\ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a program to 
assist in the funding for the installation of as many as 10,000 
ethanol blender pumps over the next 15 years in rural areas. Growth 
Energy has a ``Blend Your Own Ethanol'' program to encourage the 
installation of ethanol blender pumps.
    \387\ 73 FR 22277, 22281 (April 25, 2008).
    \388\ Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach to Fuel 
Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-
Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Standards for E51-83
    Historically, ``E85'' has been used to describe fuel blends 
containing gasoline and ethanol with a minimum and maximum ethanol 
content of 68 volume percent and 83 volume percent, respectively. The 
recent update to the ASTM International specification for ``E85'' 
included a reduction in the minimum ethanol concentration to 51 volume 
percent.\389\ As part of the updated specification, ASTM retired the 
name ``E85'' in favor of ``ethanol fuel blends for flexible-fuel 
automotive spark-ignition engines.'' ASTM took this action because the 
term ``E85'' has caused confusion regarding the variability in the 
ethanol content depending upon seasonal climactic conditions and 
regional gasoline volatility specifications. For the purposes of this 
discussion, ``E51-83'' refers to the fuel which meets the new ASTM 
D5798-11 specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \389\ ASTM International D5798-11, ``Standard Specification for 
Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, only reformulated gasoline blendstocks for oxygenate 
blending (RBOBs) and gasoline that has previously been demonstrated to 
comply with applicable EPA specifications (reformulated gasoline (RFG) 
and conventional gasoline (CG)) are used to manufacture E51-83.\390\ 
The Agency believes that the use of these blendstocks prevents 
inappropriate blending components (e.g., chemical wastes) from being 
used in the production of E51-83. Use of these blendstocks would also 
help ensure that E51-83 meets the necessary sulfur levels we are 
proposing today. We note, however, that use of only these blendstocks 
is interfering with expansion of E51-83 into the marketplace by 
preventing blends at the upper range of the allowed ethanol content. At 
higher ethanol concentrations, blenders often cannot meet the minimum 
volatility specifications set by ASTM for cold start performance when 
using only BOBs and gasoline. Prior to the recent update of the ASTM 
specifications, it was frequently not possible to manufacture ``E85'' 
that met both the ASTM minimum volatility specification and the EPA 
requirements regarding the blendstocks that can be used. As a result, 
some marketers discontinued distributing ``E85.'' Although the ASTM 
update provided a compliance method for manufacturing E51-83, the 
result is that less ethanol can be used in FFVs, because the ethanol 
concentration is forced down from 83 percent toward the 51 percent 
minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \390\ Letter to Robert Sydney, Division of Energy Resources, 
Boston, MA, from James Caldwell, U.S. EPA, February 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this situation, we believe that we need to prescribe 
requirements for E51-83 that would enable the continued expansion into 
the marketplace. We believe that such requirements could focus more on 
the product and less on how it is made. We also believe that E51-83 
should meet the same sulfur, RVP, and benzene standards otherwise 
applicable to gasoline as well as the ``substantially similar'' 
requirements. We are therefore seeking comments on whether we could 
extend these requirements to E51-83. We note that establishing such 
requirements could allow the use of butane and natural gasoline liquids 
(NGL) to manufacture E51-83 with sufficient volatility to meet the ASTM 
specifications. Butane is commonly blended into gasoline and NGL is the 
denaturant specified by ASTM for the manufacture of DFE.\391\ 
Additionally, because NGL and butane are less expensive than gasoline 
or BOBs, we anticipate that such a change could help to reduce the 
price of E51-83 relative to finished gasoline.\392\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \391\ ASTM International D4806-11(a), ``Standard Specification 
for Denatured Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel''.
    \392\ In August of 2011 the retail price of E85 was 
approximately 60 cents per gallon more than gasoline on an energy 
content adjusted basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, we note that requiring E51-83 to meet the same standards 
as gasoline would subject E51-83 manufacturers to all the sampling, 
testing, and reporting obligations of refiners. While this would 
provide maximum blending flexibility, it could also limit the parties 
that might choose to blend E51-83. Currently oxygenate blenders are 
exempt from much of this regulatory burden. For this reason, we are 
also seeking comments on whether we could establish requirements that 
would allow producers of E51-83 to avoid the compliance burdens of a 
refiner. We are seeking comments on one such approach that would 
require the use of only blendstocks that meet certain specifications to 
produce E51-83. We believe that use of only blendstocks (including 
butane and NGL) that meet these specifications would ensure the final 
blend would always meet the standards. These approaches are discussed 
in greater detail in the docket for this rulemaking.\393\ We seek 
comment on these approaches, and any other approaches that could be 
used to remove hurdles for blending of E51-83 while still ensuring the 
product meets the fuel quality requirements needed to maintain vehicle 
emission performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \393\ Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach to Fuel 
Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-
Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Standards for Mid-Level Ethanol Blends (E16-50)
    As discussed earlier, whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline 
(E0), E85, or any level of ethanol in between, to maintain emission 
performance these

[[Page 29938]]

vehicles still need the fuel to meet certain quality specifications. 
For this reason, we believe it is important that higher ethanol blends 
also meet the same standards that apply to gasoline. Our various 
standards for gasoline already apply to any fuel sold for use in motor 
vehicles, which is commonly or commercially known or sold as gasoline. 
In the fuel and fuel additive registration program, the gasoline family 
includes fuels composed of at least 50 percent clear gasoline by 
volume.\394\ As a result, our gasoline standards already apply to E16-
50 ethanol blends. And yet, such fuels currently can only be used in 
FFVs. Therefore, in addition to seeking comment on the need to have 
E16-50 blends comply with the gasoline sulfur, benzene, and RVP 
standards, we also seek comment on the means of doing so. For example, 
can and should the Agency simply treat E16-50 as gasoline under our 
regulations and clarify that gasoline means any fuel that contains 50 
percent or more gasoline? Alternatively, should the Agency treat E16-50 
as an alternative fuel used in FFVs? In which case we seek comment on 
whether we should take the same approach for E16-50 as discussed above 
for E51-83 with respect to sulfur, benzene, RVP standards, and 
substantially similar requirements under section 211(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \394\ 40 CFR 79.56(e)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the context of considering whether and how to apply gasoline 
standards and requirements to E16-50 we also seek comment on whether it 
might be an appropriate reading of our regulatory and statutory 
authority to allow E16 to E50 blends to have higher RVP levels than 
otherwise required by our regulations for gasoline. As the ethanol 
level increases, the volatility increase caused by blending ethanol 
with gasoline begins to decline, such that at E30 there is only about a 
0.5-psi RVP increase. While still an increase compared to the standards 
that apply to gasoline other than E9-10, it is considerably less than 
the full 1-psi RVP increase that results at E10. The evaporative 
emission increase caused by E30 would then be less than for E10. Thus, 
we seek comment on whether it would be an appropriate reading of our 
regulatory and statutory authority to allow higher RVP levels for such 
blends, at least in some limited situations and time frames (e.g., 
using existing regulatory research exemptions for demonstration 
programs) where new efforts are being made to introduce such blends 
into the market. We further seek comment on data that might help 
quantify both the evaporative and exhaust emission impacts necessary to 
support any such action.

E. Proposed Program Flexibilities

1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
    As mentioned in Section V.A.2.b, we are proposing an ABT program 
which reduces the cost and promotes the feasibility of the program by 
allowing refiners and importers to choose the most economical 
compliance strategy (investment in technology, credits, or both) to 
meet the proposed Tier 3 average gasoline sulfur standard. The program 
allows refiners and importers to generate standard credits for 
overcompliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard beginning in 2017. These 
credits could be generated indefinitely and banked or transferred to 
others for compliance with the average sulfur standard. The proposed 
program also permits refiners and importers to generate early credits 
for overcompliance with today's 30-ppm average sulfur standard from 
2014 to 2016. Early credits may be used towards compliance with the 10-
ppm standard beginning in 2017, banked for use through 2019, and/or 
transferred to other refiners or importers subject to the sulfur 
standard.
a. Eligibility
    Under the ABT program, we are proposing that U.S. refiners who 
produce gasoline by processing crude oil and/or intermediate feedstocks 
through refinery processing units are eligible to generate both early 
credits (2014-2016) and standard credits (2017 and later). As proposed, 
importers are also eligible to generate both early and standard sulfur 
credits on gasoline imported into the United States.
    We are proposing that sulfur credits may only be generated for 
gasoline that is subject to the proposed sulfur requirements as 
described at Sec.  80.1603. This excludes gasoline designated for 
export. It also excludes California gasoline (gasoline produced or 
imported for use in California) but includes gasoline produced by 
California refineries for use outside the state. Although California 
gasoline is not covered by our proposed sulfur program, we seek comment 
on whether to include California gasoline in the ongoing ABT program 
under Tier 3 (not the early credit program). The result would be a 
national 10-ppm average gasoline sulfur standard. This approach could 
provide some additional compliance flexibility to refiners, but it 
would also require reporting of batch data to EPA for California 
gasoline.
    We have received inquiries whether fuel ethanol producers or 
blenders should be eligible to generate credits under the proposed 
gasoline sulfur program. Denatured fuel ethanol currently contains 
around 9 ppm sulfur on average, ranging anywhere from 2 to almost 30 
ppm.\395\ While certain batches of ethanol could theoretically be low 
enough in sulfur to generate credits, it is our desire to limit credit 
generation to companies required to comply with the proposed Tier 3 
sulfur standards, i.e., refiners and importers. Experience in the 
unleaded gasoline program suggests widespread abuse and fraud when 
credits have been allowed to be generated or sold by non-obligated 
parties. Thus, in order to allow ethanol producers (or blenders) to 
generate sulfur credits under Tier 3, they would need to be treated as 
refiners and subject to our batch testing, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements for the finished gasoline they produce.\396\ Currently, 
downstream blenders are exempt from these regulations because the 
certification and compliance burden is being borne by the upstream 
refiners.\397\ Furthermore, since many refiners currently comply with 
our standards taking into consideration the fuel property changes 
expected as a result of downstream ethanol blending, providing ethanol 
blenders with sulfur credit would result in double counting the effects 
of ethanol. To avoid this, we would need to restructure our gasoline 
regulations to shift the point of compliance to the many terminals and 
bulk plants where ethanol is blended and finished gasoline is produced 
instead of the refinery gate. While possible, this would significantly 
expand the amount of sampling, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 
required to demonstrate compliance with our gasoline standards. It 
would also considerably expand the amount of sampling, testing, 
recordkeeping, and reporting required of ethanol blenders. As discussed 
in Section V.C, we are proposing a cap of 10 ppm on the sulfur content 
of denatured fuel ethanol (DFE). Over compliance with the per-gallon 
cap would not be a valid basis for credit generation, as you would 
expect that in all cases the DFE would be below the

[[Page 29939]]

cap. To allow credit generation, we would need to propose an additional 
annual average sulfur standard for DFE at some level below 10 ppm, and 
allow credits to be generated for over compliance with that standard. 
Accordingly, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow ethanol 
producers or blenders to generate sulfur credits under the proposed 
gasoline sulfur program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \395\ Report on Ethanol Producers Survey, Presented at the 
California Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline Regulation Workshop, June 
15, 2000, Carl Reeder, Archer Daniels Midland.
    \396\ 40 CFR 80.330, 80.335, 80.365, and 80.370.
    \397\ Under the proposed Tier 3 program, as explained in Section 
V.C, we are requiring fuel ethanol producers to comply with the 10-
ppm standard. However, for the reasons discussed above, we still do 
not believe it is appropriate to allow them to generate sulfur 
credits under the proposed ABT program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Standard Credit Generation
    Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are proposing standard credit 
generation provisions similar to those offered under Tier 2 as well as 
the MSAT2 gasoline benzene program. We are proposing an ongoing sulfur 
credit program that would allow refiners and importers to average 
within and across companies to meet the new 10-ppm average sulfur 
standard in the most cost-effective manner possible. Refiners and 
importers could generate standard credits for overcomplying with the 
10-ppm standard on a volume-weighted annual average basis beginning 
January 1, 2017. Standard credit generation periods would be 12 months 
long and synchronized with compliance demonstration periods.
    We are proposing that small refiners and small volume refineries 
could generate standard credits beginning with the start of their 
program on January 1, 2020. Eligible small refining entities could also 
generate standard credits for over compliance with the 10-ppm standard 
from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 by voluntarily opting in 
to the Tier 3 sulfur program during a time period when it would 
otherwise not apply. Regardless of whether they were generated early or 
not, all standard credits generated by small refiners and small volume 
refineries would be subject to the credit life provisions described in 
Section V.E.1.d. For a summary of the small refiner and small volume 
refinery ABT provisions, refer to Section V.E.1.f.
c. Early Credit Generation
    To encourage early gasoline desulfurization and give the refining 
industry flexibility to stagger their investments over time, we are 
proposing that refiners and importers could also generate early credits 
for overcomplying with today's 30-ppm gasoline sulfur standard on a 
volume-weighted annual average basis from January 1, 2014 through 
December 31, 2016. Under the ABT program, we are proposing that 
refiners and importers would not need to establish a gasoline sulfur 
baseline or meet a trigger point in order to generate early credits. 
They would simply need to demonstrate that their average U.S. gasoline 
sulfur levels are below today's 30-ppm Tier 2 standard during the early 
credit generation period. We believe this simple early credit approach 
is possible because U.S. gasoline is currently averaging around 30 ppm 
today based on compliance data. Since during the proposed early credit 
generation period refiners and importers would need to continue to 
comply with the existing Tier 2 sulfur standards, absent Tier 3, they 
would need to maintain this level of performance on an industry average 
basis. Accordingly, any additional gasoline sulfur reductions beyond 30 
ppm could thus be attributed to the proposed Tier 3 program.
    Refiners and importers supplying gasoline containing less than 30 
ppm sulfur from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 could choose 
from generating either standard credits under the existing Tier 2 
program or early credits under the proposed Tier 3 program, but not 
both (at least not for the same volume of gasoline). Sulfur credits 
would be generated on an annual average basis. Refiners and importers 
could make the decision at the end of the year whether credits 
generated in 2014, 2015 or 2016 would be more valuable used/traded to 
comply with the Tier 2 program or banked for the Tier 3 program. Some 
year-end credits could be designated as Tier 2 and some designated as 
Tier 3 provided the same volume of gasoline was only used to generate 
one type of credit. We believe that the proposed early credit program 
structure is the simplest approach to giving refiners and importers 
incentive for doing more sulfur control earlier than required and 
providing additional lead time to meet the Tier 3 annual average 
standard. We seek comments on alternative ways to structure the early 
credit program to help ease the transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3.
    Under past fuel programs (e.g., MSAT2), we precluded importers from 
generating early credits under the premise that they did not need 
additional lead time to comply with our fuel standards because, most 
likely, they would not be investing in new refining technologies. We 
also thought it would be difficult for them to establish representative 
baselines from which early credits could be generated. Since we are not 
proposing early credit baselines under Tier 3, as discussed above, we 
are proposing to allow importers to generate early credits for sending 
over-compliant gasoline to the United States prior to the start of the 
program, but seek comment on the appropriateness of doing so.
d. Credit Life Provisions
    Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are proposing that early credits 
must be used towards compliance within three years from the start of 
the program; otherwise they would expire and become invalid. In other 
words, early credits must be applied towards the 2017, 2018 or 2019 
compliance years. After February 29, 2020, all early credits would 
expire and become invalid. The proposed three-year early credit life 
provision would offer considerable flexibility to refiners phasing in 
Tier 3 gasoline sulfur controls while still placing a 2020 end date at 
which point the intended sulfur program is fully implemented and 
enforceable. It would provide a date certain by when auto manufacturers 
could have confidence for the design of their vehicles that all 
vehicles in-use are running on 10 ppm average fuel. Otherwise, it is 
possible that the greater ease of generating early credits relative to 
30 ppm sulfur (as opposed to 10 ppm in 2017 and beyond) could allow 
higher sulfur levels to continue well beyond 2019. Refiners that are 
able to generate early credits may choose to hold onto them for later 
use, rather than trade them to other refiners who may need them sooner. 
The proposed three-year early credit life provision would also be 
consistent with the duration of the small volume refinery provisions 
described below. We seek comment on the lifetime of early credits and 
the implications on in-use sulfur levels beyond 2019 should we allow 
them to have a longer credit life.
    We are proposing that standard credits must be used within five 
years from the year they were generated (regardless of when/if they are 
traded); otherwise they would expire and become invalid. For example, 
standard credits generated in 2017 could be applied towards 2018-2022 
compliance, as well as 2017 compliance. After February 28, 2023, 
standard credits generated in 2017 would expire and become invalid. 
Similarly, standard credits generated in 2018 could be applied towards 
2019-2023 compliance, as well as 2018 compliance. After February 29, 
2024, standard credits generated in 2018 would expire, and so on and so 
forth.
    We believe the five-year standard credit life provision, when 
final, would give refiners and importers sufficient time to use credits 
generated in previous years while still placing limitations on credit 
life that would help with enforcement. Five years is consistent with 
the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements (described in 
more detail in Section V.F.1) as well as

[[Page 29940]]

the current Tier 2 and MSAT2 standard credit life provisions.
e. Credit Trading Provisions
    It is possible that sulfur credits could be generated by one party, 
subsequently transferred or used in good faith by another, and later 
found to have been calculated or created improperly or otherwise 
determined to be invalid. If this occurs, as in past fuel programs, we 
are proposing that both the seller and purchaser would have to adjust 
their sulfur calculations to reflect the proper credits and either 
party (or both) could be determined to be in violation of the standards 
and other requirements if the adjusted calculations demonstrate 
noncompliance with the 10-ppm standard.
    Under the proposed Tier 3 ABT program, sulfur credits must be 
transferred directly from the refiner or importer generating them to 
the party using them for compliance purposes. This ensures that the 
parties purchasing them are better able to assess the likelihood that 
the credits are valid. An exception exists where a credit generator 
transfers credits to a refiner or importer who inadvertently cannot use 
all the credits. In this case, the credits could be transferred a 
second time to another refiner or importer. After the second trade, the 
credits must be used or they would be terminated. Allowing a maximum of 
two trades is consistent with other recent fuel programs and we believe 
it is sufficiently flexible while still preserving adequate means for 
enforcement. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the need for allowing more 
than two trades for sulfur credits under the proposed Tier 3 program.
    There are currently no prohibitions against brokers facilitating 
the transfer of credits from one party to another. Any person can act 
as a credit broker, regardless of whether such person is a refiner or 
importer, as long as the title to the credits is transferred directly 
from the generating refiner or importer to the using refiner or 
importer. This prohibition on outside parties taking ownership of 
credits was promulgated in response to problems encountered during the 
unleaded gasoline program and has since appeared in subsequent fuels 
rulemakings. Maintaining this prohibition would allow for maximum 
program enforceability and consistency with all of our other ABT 
programs for mobile sources and their fuels. Nonetheless, we seek 
comment on the need for this restriction under the proposed Tier 3 
program.
f. Summary of ABT Provisions for Small Refiners and Small Volume 
Refineries
    We are proposing that small refiners and small volume refineries 
would have an additional three years to comply with the 10-ppm annual 
average standard, or until January 1, 2020. This is the primary form of 
relief offered to small refining entities under the proposed Tier 3 
gasoline sulfur program. The proposed credit provisions are similar to 
those offered to non-small refiners. Eligible small refiners and small 
volume refineries would be able to generate early credits for 
overcomplying with the 30-ppm Tier 2 standard from January 1, 2014 
through December 31, 2016. Like non-small refiners, they would need to 
make the decision whether these credits would be more valuable under 
the Tier 2 program or the proposed Tier 3 program. While early credits 
could help postpone investments by up to three years, they could not be 
used by small refiners or small refineries to postpone sulfur 
investments beyond their January 1, 2020 start date. However, early 
credits generated by small entities from 2014-2016 could be traded/sold 
to non-small refiners subject to the January 1, 2017 standard and the 
credit revenues could be used to help offset their Tier 3 investments.
    As explained above, small refiners and small volume refineries 
could generate standard credits relative to the 10-ppm standard 
beginning with the start of their program on January 1, 2020. Eligible 
small refining entities could also generate standard credits for over 
compliance with the 10-ppm standard from January 1, 2017 through 
December 31, 2019 by voluntarily opting in to the Tier 3 sulfur program 
earlier than required. Regulatory flexibility provisions offered to 
small refiners and small volume refineries are described in more detail 
below.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
a. Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
    As in previous fuel rulemakings, our justification for including 
provisions specific to small businesses is that these entities 
generally have a greater degree of difficulty in complying with the 
standards compared to other entities.
    In developing the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we 
evaluated the environmental need as well as the technical and financial 
ability of refiners and others in the fuel industry to meet the sulfur 
standards as expeditiously as possible. We believe it is feasible and 
necessary for the vast majority of the program to be implemented in the 
established time frame to achieve the air quality benefits as soon as 
possible. Based on information available from small refiners and 
others, we believe that entities classified as small generally face 
unique circumstances with regard to compliance with environmental 
programs, compared to larger entities. Thus, as discussed below, we are 
proposing several regulatory flexibility provisions for small entities 
in the fuels industry to reduce the burden that our proposed program 
could have on them.
    Small entities generally lack the resources that are available to 
larger companies, including those large companies that own small-
capacity refineries, to raise capital for investing in a new regulatory 
program, such as shifting of internal funds, securing of financing, or 
selling of assets. Small entities are also likely to have more 
difficulty in competing for any needed engineering and construction 
resources. As such, we are proposing provisions that would provide 
assistance for small entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards. 
This proposed approach would allow the overall program to begin as 
early as possible; achieving the air quality benefits of the program as 
soon as possible, while helping to ensure that small entities have 
adequate time to raise capital for new fuel desulfurization equipment 
or to make any other needed changes. We believe that small business 
regulatory flexibilities could provide these entities with additional 
help and/or time to accumulate capital internally or to secure capital 
financing from lenders, and could spread out the availability of any 
needed engineering and construction resources.
i. Delayed Standards for Small Refiners
    As explained in Sections V.A.1.c and V.E.1.f, we are proposing an 
option that would allow small refiners to postpone compliance with the 
Tier 3 program for up to three years. This delayed compliance schedule 
for small refiners is not intended as an opportunity for those refiners 
to greatly expand their production of >10 ppm sulfur gasoline, but 
rather would help small refiners with compliance with the program. 
Since the compliance costs for their competitors would rise during 
these three years and since their gasoline would be sold into the same 
fungible market, this delay would not only provide them more lead time, 
but also financial support towards later compliance. Small refiners 
choosing this option would have from January 1, 2017 through December 
31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average sulfur 
level of 30 ppm (per the

[[Page 29941]]

Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). Compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur 
standard would begin on January 1, 2020. Any small refiner choosing 
this option would be allowed to continue using Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 
credits through December 31, 2019 to meet their refinery average 30-ppm 
sulfur standard (however, these credits may not be used for compliance 
with the proposed Tier 3 10-ppm average sulfur standard).
ii. Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps
    During the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) Panel process, small refiners raised the concern that a 
refinery gate cap of 20 ppm could cause problems during a refinery 
turnaround or an upset because a cap of this level could result in a 
refiner not being able to produce saleable gasoline. The Panel likewise 
had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm may cause problems for 
small downstream entities such as transmix processors because, as they 
noted in their comments during the Panel process, transmix processors 
may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline down to this level. 
Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on 
retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80 
and 95 ppm, respectively, to help provide maximum flexibility and avoid 
system upsets for the entire refining and distribution system. Further, 
the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Panel members recommended that EPA propose retaining the 
80-ppm and 95-ppm caps. The Panel also recommended that, if EPA were to 
propose caps lower than 80 and 95 ppm, the Agency request comment on 
additional refinery gate and downstream caps that are above 20/25 ppm 
but below 80/95 ppm.
    As discussed in Section XI.C, we are proposing to either maintain 
the current 80/95 ppm caps or to lower them to 50/65 ppm. Should we 
lower the caps to 50/65 ppm, given the stringency of the 10-ppm average 
standard, we anticipate that they would provide the same level of 
flexibility for refiners, pipelines, terminals, transmix processors, 
and gasoline additive manufacturers as the current 80/95 ppm caps. 
Should we lower the caps to 50/65, we are proposing to allow the 
current Tier 2 80-ppm refinery gate cap to remain in place through 
December 31, 2019. Compliance with the 50-ppm refinery gate cap would 
begin on January 1, 2020, when the 10-ppm average sulfur standard is 
required for all refiners. Similarly, we are proposing to allow the 
Tier 2 95-ppm downstream cap to remain in effect through February 29, 
2020. Compliance with the 65-ppm downstream cap would begin on March 1, 
2020. For more information on the proposed cap provisions, refer to 
Section V.A.3.
iii. Credit-Related Flexibilities
    As described above in Section V.E.1, we are proposing an ABT 
program. Refiners and importers would be able to generate early sulfur 
credits from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 relative to the 
current 30-ppm Tier 2 average sulfur standard (i.e., credits may be 
generated for any reductions below 30 ppm prior to the start of the 
general Tier 3 program). Beginning January 1, 2017 standard credits may 
be generated for overcompliance with the proposed 10-ppm Tier 3 sulfur 
standard. In addition, small refiners and small volume refineries would 
be able to generate standard credits from January 1, 2017 through 
December 31, 2019 for reductions below 10 ppm prior to their proposed 
program start date of January 1, 2020.
    During the SBREFA Panel process, one Small Entity Representative 
(SER) commented that importers should be allowed to participate in the 
credit program. In previous EPA fuel programs, importers have generally 
been treated as refiners, except for the purposes of early credit 
generation. Refiners have historically been required to establish a 
baseline in order to generate early credits. Importers generally do not 
have a specific baseline or amount of fuel that they import in a given 
year, so participation in the early credit market would not have been 
feasible under those programs. However, under the proposed Tier 3 
sulfur program, refiners and importers are not required to establish 
baselines; the existing 30-ppm Tier 2 standard serves as the 
``baseline.'' Therefore, as discussed above in Section V.E.1.c, we are 
proposing to allow importers to participate in the early credit program 
as well as the ongoing standard credit program.
iv. Gasoline Additive Manufacturers
    During the SBREFA Panel process, some gasoline additive 
manufacturing SERs raised the concern that they would have difficulty 
meeting a 25-ppm per-gallon sulfur cap, and the Panel recommended that 
EPA request comment on whether or not gasoline additives should be 
allowed to remain at levels above 25 ppm sulfur, and on potential 
methods for ensuring that bulk additives do not increase the sulfur 
level of the resultant fuel blend. However, as discussed above and in 
Section V.A.3, we are proposing to either retain the current 80/95 ppm 
caps or only go to 50/65 ppm. Both of these options would have the same 
15-ppm differential between the refinery gate and downstream caps, thus 
we are not proposing any additional provisions for gasoline additives 
beyond what already exists under the current Tier 2 program.
b. Small Volume Refinery Provisions
    During the development of this proposal and throughout the SBREFA 
process, it became evident that some refineries may experience higher 
compliance costs on a per-gallon basis than other refineries, and in 
some cases considerably higher. It also became apparent that in many of 
these cases it was not necessarily a refinery owned by a refiner/
company that would meet the SBA definition of a small business 
(however, these refineries tend to be small volume refineries). In an 
oversupplied gasoline market, these refineries may have difficulty 
justifying capital investments to comply with the proposed sulfur 
standard. In recognition of this concern under the RFS program, 
Congress granted all small refineries with a crude oil throughput of 
less than or equal to 75,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd) additional 
time to comply. As such, we are also proposing delayed Tier 3 sulfur 
standards for approved small volume refineries. Overall, we believe 
that these small refineries are disproportionally impacted when it 
comes to their cost of compliance and ability to rationalize the 
investment costs in today's gasoline market. Giving these refineries 
additional lead time would allow them more time to invest in 
desulfurization technology, take advantage of advancements in 
technology, develop confidence in a Tier 3 credit market as a means of 
compliance, and avoid competition for capital, engineering, and 
construction resources with the larger refineries. We are proposing 
that approved small volume refineries would receive a three-year delay 
(January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019) in meeting the 10-ppm 
average gasoline sulfur standard, similar to the small refiner delay. 
Credit generation opportunities for approved small volume refineries 
would be identical to those proposed for small refiners as described in 
Section V.E.1.f.
    A refiner would need to apply and be approved for small volume 
refinery status. We are proposing a small volume refinery net crude 
throughput of less than or equal to 75,000 bpcd, and we request comment 
on whether or not a different crude throughput would be more 
appropriate. To determine compliance with this threshold, we

[[Page 29942]]

propose to base the crude throughput on the highest crude throughput 
for either the 2010 or 2011 calendar years.
3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations
    As in previous fuel programs, we are proposing hardship provisions 
to accommodate a refiner's inability to comply with the proposed 
standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with 
unforeseen circumstances that may occur at any point during the 
program. These provisions would be available to all refiners, small and 
non-small, though relief would be granted on a case-by-case basis 
following a showing of certain requirements; primarily that compliance 
through the use of credits was not feasible. We are proposing that any 
hardship waiver would not be a total waiver of compliance; rather, a 
hardship waiver would be short-term relief that would allow a refiner 
facing a hardship situation to, for example, receive additional time to 
comply. EPA would determine appropriate hardship relief based on the 
nature and degree of the hardship, as presented by the refiner in their 
hardship application, and on our assessment of the credit market.
    In addition to the unforeseen circumstances and extreme hardship 
circumstances waivers being proposed today and discussed in more detail 
below, the Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on the 
concept of long-term cap relief should we lower the sulfur caps below 
the current 80/95-ppm level if the circumstances both warrant it and 
can be structured in a way to allow for it. Such a provision may 
require segregation of their fuel through to the retail station in 
order for it not to preclude enforcement on the gasoline supplied by 
other refiners serving the area. Therefore, in providing comment on 
such a hardship provision, please also comment on potential compliance 
and enforcement mechanisms to account for such longer-term relief, 
e.g., fuel segregation, tracking, reporting and recordkeeping, etc.
a. Temporary Waivers Based on Unforeseen Circumstances
    We are proposing a provision which, at our discretion, would permit 
any refiner to seek a temporary waiver from the Tier 3 sulfur standards 
under certain rare circumstances. This waiver provision is similar to 
provisions in existing fuel regulations. It is intended to provide 
refiners relief in unanticipated circumstances--such as a refinery fire 
or a natural disaster (i.e., force majeure)--that cannot be reasonably 
foreseen now or in the near future. Under this provision, a refiner 
could seek a hardship waiver for relief if it could demonstrate that 
the magnitude of the impact was so severe as to require such an 
extension. We are proposing that the refiner would be required to show 
that: (1) The waiver would be in the public interest; (2) the 
nonconformity was unavoidable; (3) it would meet the proposed Tier 3 
standards as expeditiously as possible; (4) it would make up the air 
quality detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where 
practicable; and (5) it would pay to the U.S. Treasury an amount equal 
to the economic benefit of the nonconformity less the amount expended 
to make up the air quality detriment. These conditions are similar to 
those in previous fuels regulations, and are necessary and appropriate 
to ensure that any waivers granted would be limited in scope.
    As discussed, such a request would be based on the refiner's 
inability to produce compliant gasoline at the affected facility due to 
extreme and unusual circumstances outside the refiner's control that 
could not have been avoided through the exercise of due diligence. The 
hardship request would also need to show that other avenues for 
mitigating the problem, such as the purchase of credits toward 
compliance under the proposed credit provisions, had been pursued and 
yet were insufficient or unavailable. In light of the proposed 
flexibilities including the ABT program, we expect that the need for 
such requests would be rare.
b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme Hardship Circumstances
    In addition to the provision for short-term relief in extreme 
unforeseen circumstances, we are also proposing a hardship provision 
where a refiner could receive a hardship waiver based on severe 
economic or physical lead time limitations of the refinery to comply 
with the Tier 3 standards at the start of the program. A refiner 
seeking such hardship relief under this proposed rule would have to 
demonstrate that these criteria were met. In addition to showing that 
unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship in meeting the 
proposed standards, the refiner would have to show that: (1) It has 
made best efforts to comply, including through the purchase of credits; 
(2) the relief granted under this provision would be in the public 
interest; (3) the environmental impact would be acceptable; and (4) it 
has active plans to meet the requirements as expeditiously as possible. 
We expect that hardship relief requests under this provision would 
mostly be applicable at the beginning of the Tier 3 program, when 
refiners are making their investments to comply. If hardship relief 
under these circumstances was approved, we would expect to impose 
appropriate conditions to ensure that the refiner was making best 
efforts to achieve compliance offsetting any loss of emission control 
from the program. We believe that providing short-term relief to those 
refiners that need additional time due to hardship circumstances would 
help to facilitate the adoption of the overall Tier 3 program for the 
majority of the industry. However, we do not intend for hardship waiver 
provisions to encourage refiners to delay planning and investments they 
would otherwise make. Again, because of the flexibilities of the 
proposed overall program, we expect that the need for additional relief 
would be rare.

F. Compliance Provisions

    For the most part, the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards simply 
reflect a lowering of the current Tier 2 sulfur standards. Thus, we are 
proposing to retain most of the same compliance provisions as the 
current Tier 2 program, with exceptions as noted. However, we are also 
proposing and seeking comment on several fuel program regulatory 
streamlining measures, including a broader program redesign to 
streamline the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping regulations.\398\ 
Some of these streamlining measures, if adopted, may also impact the 
Tier 3 sulfur compliance provisions proposed below. FF

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

    \398\ For more information on Part 80 regulatory streamlining 
options, refer to Section VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Registration, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to track 
compliance with the Tier 3 standards and the ABT program. This section 
describes the proposed compliance provisions of today's program.
a. Registration Requirements
    We are proposing that refiners, importers, and anyone acting as a 
refiner (e.g., a terminal with blending or other refining operations) 
who expects to produce or import gasoline would be required to register 
each of its facilities with EPA by June 1, 2016, or six months prior to 
producing gasoline meeting the Tier 3 standards and/or participating in 
the credit program. After the program begins on January 1, 2017, any 
non-

[[Page 29943]]

registered parties must register at least three months prior to 
producing gasoline or participating in the credit market under the Tier 
3 program. Most refiners, importers, and ethanol producers are 
currently registered with EPA under other 40 CFR part 80 fuels 
programs. We are proposing that those who are already registered would 
not have to register again.
    For registration, we are proposing to use the same basic forms that 
previous fuels programs have used. These forms are well known in the 
regulated community and are simple to fill out. Upon receipt of a 
completed registration form, EPA would issue a unique 4-digit company 
identification number and a unique 5-digit facility identification 
number. As with existing fuels programs, these numbers would be 
required for all reports sent to EPA and for PTDs.
    Registrations would not expire and would not have to be renewed; 
however, we are proposing that registered parties would be responsible 
for notifying us of any change to their company or facility 
information.
    An entity's registration must include a corporate name and address 
(including the name, telephone number, and email address of a corporate 
contact); and, for each facility operated by the entity:
     Type of facility (e.g., refinery, import facility, 
pipeline, terminal, transmix facility, etc.)
     Facility name.
     Physical location.
     Contact name, telephone number, and email address.
b. Reporting Requirements
    We are proposing to require refiners and importers to submit annual 
reports demonstrating their compliance with the Tier 3 standards and on 
the generation, use, and transfer of sulfur credits at each of its 
refineries or import facilities. Similar to our other sulfur programs, 
we are also proposing to require refiners and importers to submit data 
on individual batches of gasoline (including batch volume and sulfur 
content). Based on our experience with existing gasoline and sulfur-
based programs, we believe that requiring annual reports and individual 
sulfur batch data would provide an effective means of monitoring 
compliance with the standards and the credit program.
    We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates 
would be required to submit an annual report that includes the total 
volume of DFE/oxygenate produced and an attestation that all batches 
met the proposed fuel quality requirements: sulfur content, composition 
(i.e., composed only of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and 
sulfur), and denaturant concentration as applicable.
    We are proposing that reports would be due annually on March 31.
c. Recordkeeping Requirements
    Similar to current EPA fuels programs, we are proposing that 
refiners and importers would be required to retain all records that 
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 program, including ABT program 
information.
    We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates 
would be required to keep records on individual batches of DFE/
oxygenate (including batch volume, sulfur content, and denaturant 
concentration as applicable).
    All parties in the gasoline production and distribution system 
subject to today's proposed rule would also be required to keep records 
of all PTDs and records of any quality assurance programs. Records 
would need to be retained for five years. For credit transactions, 
records would need to be retained for five years from the usage date. 
Records would need to be made available to EPA on request. We are also 
proposing that if electronic records are kept, hard copies should be 
made available upon request.
    We are proposing to allow parties to claim information submitted to 
EPA as confidential business information (CBI). Parties making such a 
claim would be required to follow all reporting guidance and clearly 
mark the information being claimed as proprietary. EPA would treat 
information covered by such a claim in accordance with the regulations 
at 40 CFR part 2 and other Agency procedures for handling proprietary 
information.
2. Sampling and Testing Requirements
    Under the Tier 2 program, a sulfur concentration must be determined 
for every batch of gasoline. We are proposing to retain that 
requirement under Tier 3. As with the Tier 2 program, this every batch 
testing requirement would be required to occur prior to the batch 
leaving the refinery. We are proposing to retain the current sampling, 
testing, and sample retention requirements. However, as discussed below 
in Section VI.A.3, we are proposing performance based measurement 
standards that would allow refiners to use alternate test methods for 
measuring sulfur.
    We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE would be required to 
test each individual batch of DFE for its sulfur content.
    We request comment on these elements related to sampling and 
testing, as well as the sampling and testing requirements in the 
proposed regulations.
3. Small Refiner Compliance
    To qualify for small refiner status under the Tier 3 program, we 
are proposing that a refiner must apply by March 31, 2014. As with our 
other EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to continue using the Small 
Business Administration definition of a small refiner: 1,500 employees 
(company-wide). To qualify for small refiner status under Tier 3, we 
are also proposing that a small refiner must meet the following 
additional criteria:
     The refiner must have produced gasoline from crude oil 
during the 2011 calendar year.
     The refiner must have owned and operated the refinery 
during the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. New 
owners that purchased a refinery after that date would do so with full 
knowledge of the proposed regulations, and should have planned to 
comply along with their purchase decisions. As with existing fuel 
programs, we are proposing that a refiner that restarts a refinery in 
the future may be eligible for small refiner status. Thus, a refiner 
restarting a refinery that was shut down or non-operational during 
calendar year 2011 could apply for small refiner status. In such cases, 
we would judge eligibility under the employment and crude oil capacity 
criteria based on the most recent 12 consecutive months prior to the 
application, unless we conclude from data provided by the refiner that 
another period of time is more appropriate. However, we propose to 
limit this to a company that owned the refinery at the time that it was 
shut down. New purchasers would not be eligible for small refiner 
status for the same reasons described above.
     The refiner must have had 1,500 employees or less based on 
the average number of employees for all pay periods from January 1, 
2011 through December 31, 2011 for all subsidiaries, parent companies 
(i.e., any company or companies with controlling interest), and joint 
ventures.
     The refiner must have had a crude oil capacity less than 
or equal to 155,000 bpcd during the 2011 calendar year.
    A refiner applying for status as a small refiner would be required 
to apply and provide EPA with several types of information, as 
specified in the regulations, by March 31, 2014. All refiners seeking 
small refiner status under this program would need to apply for small 
refiner status, regardless of

[[Page 29944]]

whether or not the refiner had been approved for small refiner status 
under another fuel program. As with applications for relief under other 
rules, applications for small refiner status under this proposed rule 
that are later found to contain false or inaccurate information would 
be void ab initio.
    Requirements for small refiner status applications:
     The total crude oil capacity as reported to the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
for the most recent 12 months of operation. This would include the 
capacity of all refineries controlled by a refiner and by all 
subsidiaries and parent companies and joint ventures. We would presume 
that the information submitted to EIA is correct. (In cases where a 
company disagreed with this information, the company could petition EPA 
with appropriate data to correct the record when the company submitted 
its application for small refiner status. EPA could accept such 
alternate data at its discretion.)
     The name and address of each location where employees 
worked during the 2011 calendar year; and the number of employees at 
each location during this time period. This would include the employees 
of the refiner and all subsidiaries and parent companies and joint 
ventures.
     In the case of a refiner who reactivates a refinery that 
was either shutdown or non-operational from January 1, 2011 through 
December 31, 2011, the name and address of each location where 
employees worked since the refiner reactivated the refinery and the 
average number of employees at each location for each calendar year 
since the refiner reactivated the refinery.
     The type of business activities carried out at each 
location.
     Contact information for a corporate contact person, 
including: name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, email address.
     A letter signed by the president, chief operating officer, 
or chief executive officer of the company (or a designee) stating that 
the information contained in the application was true to the best of 
his/her knowledge and that the company owned the refinery as of January 
1, 2011.
    We are proposing that an approved small refiner that exceeds the 
employee count or crude capacity criteria due to merger with, 
acquisition by, or the acquisition of another entity will lose its 
small refiner status. In situations where a small refiner loses its 
small refiner status due to merger with a non-small refiner, 
acquisition of another refiner, or acquisition by another refiner, we 
are proposing provisions which are similar to those in our existing 
fuels programs to allow an additional 30 months of lead time to comply 
with the Tier 3 program after the disqualifying event.\399\ The 
proposed 30 months of additional lead time would only apply to 
refineries that had previously been subject to small refiner relief, as 
we believe there would be no adverse environmental impact because of 
the pre-existing relief provisions that applied to the small refiner. 
We are also proposing that a refiner would lose its small refiner 
status if it ceases to process crude oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \399\ See, for example, 69 FR 39051 (June 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our intent has been, and continues to be, limiting the small 
refiner relief provisions to a small subset of refiners that are 
challenged, as discussed above. However, it is also our intent to avoid 
stifling normal business growth. Therefore, we are proposing that an 
approved small refiner who exceeds the employee count or crude oil 
capacity criteria through normal business practices, may retain its 
small refiner status. Further, in the sole case of a merger between two 
approved small refiners we are proposing to allow such refiners to 
retain their small refiner status. Additional financial resources would 
not typically be provided in the case of a merger between two small 
refiners. Small refiner status for the two entities of the merger would 
not be affected; hence the original compliance plans of the two 
refiners should not be impacted. Moreover, no environmental detriment 
would result from the two small refiners maintaining their small 
refiner status within the merged entity as they would have likely 
maintained their small refiner status had the merger not occurred.
    We request comment on whether or not these provisions remain 
appropriate.
4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance
    In the case of small volume refineries, the application process for 
qualification is similar to that of a small refiner. A refiner that is 
both a small refiner and owns a small volume refinery need not apply 
for small volume refinery status; the small refiner application is all 
that is needed. We are proposing a net crude throughput threshold of no 
more than 75,000 bpcd based on the highest throughput in calendar years 
2010 or 2011 as the basis for receiving small volume refinery status. 
We request comment on whether or not another threshold would be more 
appropriate.
    We are proposing that refiners would need to include the following 
in their applications:
     Proof that the refiner produced gasoline from crude oil 
during the 2011 calendar year.
     Proof that the refiner owned and operated the refinery 
during the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
     The refinery's total crude throughput as reported to EIA 
for each of calendar years 2010 and 2011. Again, we would presume that 
the information submitted to EIA is correct. In cases where a refiner 
disagrees with this information, the refiner could petition EPA with 
appropriate data to correct the record when the refiner submits its 
application for small volume refinery status. EPA could accept such 
alternate data at its discretion.
     Contact information for a corporate contact person, 
including: name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, email address.
     A letter signed by the president, chief operating officer, 
or chief executive officer of the company (or a designee) stating that 
the information contained in the application was true to the best of 
his/her knowledge and that the company owned the refinery as of January 
1, 2011.
5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties
    We are proposing to retain the Tier 2 requirements for attest 
engagements for generation of both early and standard credits, use of 
credits, and compliance with the proposed program, using the procedures 
used in other EPA fuels programs for attest engagements. The violation 
and penalty provisions applicable to today's proposed program would be 
very similar to the provisions currently in effect in other gasoline 
programs as well. We request comment on the need for additional attest 
engagement, violation, penalty, or any other compliance and enforcement 
related provisions specific to the proposed Tier 3 program.
6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions
    The following paragraphs discuss several provisions and exemptions 
for gasoline that we are proposing would apply in special 
circumstances.
a. Gasoline Used in Military Applications
    In our diesel fuel program, we provided an exemption for diesel 
fuel used in tactical military vehicles and nonroad engines and 
equipment with a national security exemption (NSE) from the vehicle and 
engine emissions standards. Due to national security considerations, 
some of EPA's existing

[[Page 29945]]

regulations allow the military to request and receive NSEs for 
vehicles, engines, and equipment from emissions regulations if the 
operational requirements for such vehicles, engines, or equipment 
warrant such an exemption. Fuel used in these applications would also 
be exempt if it is used in tactical military vehicles, engines, or 
equipment that are not covered by an NSE but, for national security 
reasons (such as the need to be ready for immediate deployment 
overseas), these applications need to be fueled on the same fuel as 
those with an NSE. We are proposing this exemption under the proposed 
Tier 3 gasoline program.
b. Gasoline Used in Research, Development, and Testing
    Similar to other EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to allow 
requests for an exemption from the Tier 3 standards for gasoline used 
for research, development, and testing purposes (``R & D exemption''). 
We recognize that there may be legitimate research programs that 
require the use of gasoline with sulfur levels greater than those 
allowed under the proposed Tier 3 program. Thus, we are proposing 
provisions for obtaining an exemption from the prohibition against 
persons producing, distributing, transporting, storing, selling, or 
dispensing gasoline that does not meet the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 
standards, where such fuel is necessary to conduct a research, 
development, or testing program.
    Parties seeking an R & D exemption would be required to submit an 
application for exemption to EPA that describes the purpose and scope 
of the program, and the reasons why the noncompliant gasoline is 
necessary. Upon presentation of the required information, an exemption 
could be granted at the discretion of EPA, with the condition that EPA 
could withdraw the exemption in the event the Agency determines the 
exemption is not justified. In addition, an exemption based on false or 
inaccurate information would be considered void ab initio. Gasoline 
subject to an exemption would be exempt from certain provisions of this 
rule, including the sulfur standards, provided certain requirements are 
met. These requirements include the segregation of the exempt gasoline 
from non-exempt gasoline, identification of the exempt gasoline on 
PTDs, and pump labeling.
c. Gasoline for Export
    Gasoline produced for export, and that is actually exported for use 
in a foreign country, would be considered exempt from the fuel content 
standards and other requirements of this proposed rule. Such gasoline 
would be considered as intended for use in the U.S. and subject to the 
proposed standards unless it is designated by the refiner and the PTD 
states that the gasoline is for ``export only''. Gasoline intended for 
export would be required to be segregated from all gasoline intended 
for use in the U.S. Distributing or dispensing such fuel for domestic 
use would be illegal.
d. Other Special Provisions and Potential Exemptions
    We are proposing provisions for Alaska that would allow the 
refinery gate and downstream caps to remain at the current Tier 2 80-
ppm and 95-ppm levels, respectively, should the caps be lowered to 50 
and 65 ppm (per Section V.A.3).
    Additionally, in previous fuels programs we have included 
exemptions for racing fuel and for fuel used in the U.S. territories of 
Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. We request 
comment on whether or not such exemptions would be needed for this 
program.

G. Statutory Authority for Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Controls

    We are proposing gasoline sulfur controls under our authority in 
section 211(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. This section gives us the 
authority to ``control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into 
commerce, offering for sale, or sale'' of any fuel or fuel additive for 
use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or 
nonroad vehicle (1) whose emission products, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, cause or contribute to air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare 
[section 211(c)(1)(A)] or (2) whose emission products will impair to a 
significant degree the performance of any emission control device or 
system which is in general use, or which the Administrator finds has 
been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it would be in 
general use were the fuel control or prohibition adopted [section 
211(c)(1)(B)]. We are proposing controls on gasoline sulfur levels 
based on both of the Clean Air Act criteria, as described in more 
detail below.
1. Section 211(c)(1)(A)
    Under the first criterion, we believe that emission products of 
gasoline with current levels of sulfur contribute to ambient levels of 
ozone, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO), which are all 
pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS). These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or 
cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to 
increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department 
visits, and premature mortality. Approximately 159 million people 
currently live in counties exceeding a NAAQS.\400\ Motor vehicles also 
emit air toxics, and the majority of Americans continue to be exposed 
to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the 
potential to cause adverse health effects, including cancer, immune 
system damage, and neurological, reproductive, developmental, 
respiratory, and other health problems.\401\ A more detailed discussion 
of the health and environmental effects of these pollutants is included 
in Section II.B. As discussed in this section, emissions of these 
pollutants cause or contribute to ambient levels of air pollution that 
are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. 
Control of gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm will lead to significant, cost-
effective reductions in emissions of these pollutants, with the 
benefits to public health and welfare significantly outweighing the 
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \400\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population 
Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: https://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0135.
    \401\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated the technical feasibility of achieving these 
sulfur levels, including the cost of the reductions and the impact on 
fuel supply. As discussed in Section V.A, we have concluded that these 
reductions are feasible in the lead time provided and should not have 
an adverse impact on the adequacy of gasoline fuel supply to meet 
demand. For more on the feasibility of the proposed fuel program, refer 
to Chapter 4 of the draft RIA.
    As discussed in Section III, EPA also evaluated the emissions 
reductions from pre-Tier 3 vehicles that would be achieved by 
controlling gasoline sulfur levels. These reductions are significant 
and contribute to the total monetized health benefits. EPA also 
evaluated the cost per ton of emissions reduced for the proposed 
program, of which the 10-ppm sulfur standard is a part. As can be seen 
in Section VII.D, the program is very cost-effective in 2030. Even in 
2017, when the emission reductions are almost entirely due to the 
sulfur standards (and the costs are attributed to

[[Page 29946]]

both the fuel and vehicle standards), the cost-effectiveness of the 
program is reasonable. In sum, EPA concludes that the entire body of 
evidence strongly supports the view that controlling gasoline sulfur to 
10 ppm is quite reasonable in light of the emissions reductions and 
benefits achieved, taking costs into consideration. For more detail on 
the costs and benefits of the proposed standards, refer to Chapter 8 of 
the draft RIA.
    The control of gasoline sulfur down to 10 ppm provides significant 
reductions in harmful emissions. The fuel program is cost-effective and 
produces benefits to public health and welfare whose value 
significantly outweighs the costs. These reductions can be achieved in 
a manner that is technologically feasible, and will not disrupt fuel 
supply.
    Section 211(c)(2)(A) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel 
control based on a finding that the fuel's emission products contribute 
to air pollution that can reasonably be anticipated to endanger public 
health or welfare, EPA must consider ``all relevant medical and 
scientific evidence available, including consideration of other 
technologically or economically feasible means of achieving emission 
standards under [section 202 of the Act].'' EPA's analysis of the 
medical and scientific evidence relating to the emissions impact from 
motor vehicle engines, which are impacted by gasoline sulfur, is 
described in more detail in Chapter 6 of the draft RIA. EPA has also 
satisfied the statutory requirement to consider ``other technologically 
or economically feasible means of achieving emission standards under 
section [202 of the Act].'' This provision has been interpreted as 
requiring consideration of establishing emission standards under 
section 202 prior to establishing controls or prohibitions on fuels or 
fuel additives under section 211(c)(1)(A). See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 
F.2d. 1, 31-32 (DC Cir. 1976). In Ethyl, the court stated that section 
211(c)(2)(A) calls for good faith consideration of the evidence and 
options, not for mandatory deference to regulation under section 202 
compared to fuel controls. Id. at 32, n.66. EPA is also proposing Tier 
3 emissions standards for motor vehicles under section 202. In order to 
meet these more stringent standards, the program requires a reduction 
in the sulfur content of gasoline to the 10-ppm annual average.
2. Section 211(c)(1)(B)
    Under the second criterion, we believe that sulfur in gasoline will 
significantly impair the emission-control systems expected to be in 
general use in motor vehicle engines designed to meet the Tier 3 
emission standards proposed in this rule. EPA is proposing to restrict 
gasoline sulfur content to an annual average of 10 ppm beginning in 
2017, to enable compliance with new emission standards based on the use 
of advanced emission control technology that will be available to Tier 
3 engines and California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) program.
    Section IV describes the substantial adverse effect of high 
gasoline sulfur levels on the emission-control devices or systems for 
Tier 3 vehicles and engines meeting the proposed emission standards. As 
discussed in Section IV.A.6, modern three-way catalytic exhaust systems 
utilize platinum group metals (PGM), metal oxides, and other active 
materials to selectively oxidize organic compounds and carbon monoxide 
in the exhaust gases. These systems simultaneously reduce nitrogen 
oxides when air-to-fuel ratio control operates in a condition of 
relatively low amplitude/high frequency oscillation about the 
stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a well-known catalyst poison. There is 
a large body of work demonstrating sulfur inhibition of the emissions 
control performance of PGM three-way exhaust catalyst systems. The 
nature of sulfur interactions with washcoat materials, active catalytic 
materials and catalyst substrates is complex and varies with catalyst 
composition and exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. The 
variation of these interactions with exhaust gas composition and 
temperature means that the operational history of a vehicle is an 
important factor; continuous light-load operation, throttle tip-in 
events and enrichment under high-load conditions can all impact sulfur 
interactions with the catalyst.
    Operating the catalyst at a sufficiently high temperature under net 
reducing conditions (e.g., air-to-fuel equivalence that is net fuel-
rich of stoichiometry) can effectively release the sulfur oxides from 
the catalyst components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently high 
temperatures at rich air-to-fuel ratios can minimize the effects of 
fuel sulfur levels on catalyst active materials and catalyst 
efficiency. However, it cannot completely eliminate the effects of 
sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in-use fleet 
recently completed by EPA shows that emission levels immediately 
following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur 
level, suggesting that lower fuel sulfur levels will bring emission 
benefits unachievable by catalyst regeneration procedures alone. 
Furthermore, regular operation at these temperatures and at rich air-
to-fuel ratios is not desirable, for several reasons. The temperatures 
necessary to release sulfur oxides are high enough to lead to thermal 
degradation of the catalyst over time via thermal sintering of active 
materials. Sintering reduces the surface area available to participate 
in reactions. Additionally, it is not always possible to maintain these 
catalyst temperatures (because of cold weather, idle conditions, light 
load operation) and the rich air-to-fuel ratios necessary can result in 
increased PM, NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, reducing fuel sulfur levels 
has been the primary regulatory mechanism to minimize sulfur 
contamination of the catalyst and ensure optimum emissions performance 
over the useful life of a vehicle.
    The impact of gasoline sulfur has become even more important as 
vehicle emission standards have become more stringent. Some studies 
have suggested an increase in catalyst sensitivity to sulfur (in terms 
of percent conversion efficiency) when standards increase in stringency 
and emissions levels decrease. Emission standards under the programs 
that preceded the Tier 2 program (Tier 0, Tier 1 and National LEV, or 
NLEV) were high enough that the impact of sulfur was considered 
negligible. The Tier 2 program recognized the importance of sulfur and 
reduced the sulfur levels in the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in 
conjunction with the new emission standards. At that time, very little 
work had been done to evaluate the effect of further reductions in fuel 
sulfur--especially on in-use vehicles that may have some degree of 
catalyst deterioration due to real-world operation.
    In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a program 
that examined the effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties, 
benzene, and volatility on emissions from a fleet of nine Tier 2 
compliant vehicles. Subsequently, EPA conducted a much more extensive 
study of the effects of sulfur on emissions from Tier 2 vehicles. These 
studies demonstrate that emissions from Tier 2 vehicles continue to be 
very sensitive to gasoline sulfur levels below the current 30-ppm 
average standard. For more on the estimated emission impacts, refer to 
Section III.B.
    Furthermore, vehicles already capable of meeting the proposed Tier 
3 standards have been found to be extremely sensitive to the effects of 
sulfur. A Chevy Malibu was tested and found to be able to meet the 
proposed Tier 3 standards on low-sulfur gasoline, but following 
operation on higher-sulfur

[[Page 29947]]

gasoline, its emission levels exceeded the standard. As explained in 
Section IV.A, following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm sulfur 
fuel, NOX emissions alone were more than double the proposed 
Tier 3 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX standard.
    Overall, the Tier 3 Program would reduce fleet average 
NMOG+NOX emissions by over 80 percent. The feasibility of 
the proposed 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX fleet average standard 
depends on a degree of emissions control from exhaust catalyst systems 
that will require gasoline at 10 ppm sulfur or lower. The most likely 
control strategies would involve using exhaust catalyst technologies 
and powertrain calibration primarily focused on reducing cold-start 
emissions of NMOG and on both cold-start and warmed-up (running) 
emissions of NOX. An important part of this strategy, 
particularly for larger vehicles having greater difficulty achieving 
cold-start NMOG emissions control, will be to reduce NOX 
emissions to near-zero levels. This would allow sufficient NMOG 
compliance margin to allow vehicles to meet the combined 
NMOG+NOX emissions standards for the full useful life.
    Achieving the proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require very 
careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures to 
ensure high catalyst efficiency. The impact of sulfur on oxygen storage 
components in the catalyst makes this a challenge even at relatively 
low (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur levels.
    The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on NOX, NMOG and 
air toxic emissions occurs across all vehicle categories. However, the 
impact of gasoline sulfur on NOX emissions control of 
catalysts in the fully-warmed-up condition is particularly of concern 
for larger vehicles. Manufacturers face the most significant challenges 
in reducing cold-start NMOG emissions for these vehicles. Because of 
the need to reach near-zero NOX levels, any significant 
degradation in NOX emissions control over the useful life of 
the vehicle would likely prevent some if not most larger vehicles from 
reaching a combined NMOG+NOX low enough to comply with the 
30 mg/mi fleet-average standard. These vehicles represent a 
sufficiently large segment of light-duty vehicle sales now and in the 
foreseeable future that their emissions could not be offset (and thus 
the fleet-average standard achieved) by certifying vehicles to bins 
below the fleet average. Any degradation in catalyst performance due to 
gasoline sulfur would reduce or eliminate the margin necessary to 
ensure in-use compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards. 
Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles vs. the current 120,000 
miles would further add to manufacturers' compliance challenge for Tier 
3 large light trucks (refer to Section IV.7.b for more on the useful 
life requirements).
    The impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust catalyst 
performance and the relative stringency of the Tier 3 standards, 
particularly for larger vehicles and trucks, when considered together 
make a compelling argument for the virtual elimination of sulfur from 
gasoline. As discussed in Section V.A.2, the proposed 10-ppm standard 
for sulfur in gasoline represents the lowest practical limit from a 
standpoint of fuel production, handling and transport. While lowering 
gasoline sulfur to levels below 10 ppm would help ensure in-use vehicle 
compliance with the Tier 3 standards, the Agency believes that a 
gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow compliance with a 
national fleet average of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX. The level of 
the Tier 3 standards was considered in light of a 10-ppm average sulfur 
level for gasoline. Not only should a 10-ppm sulfur standard enable 
vehicle manufacturers to certify their entire product line of vehicles 
to the Tier 3 fleet average standards, but based on the results of 
testing both Tier 2 vehicles and SULEV vehicles as discussed above, 
reducing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to 
maintain their emission performance in-use over their full useful life.
    Section 211(c)(2)(B) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel 
control based on a significant impairment to vehicle emission-control 
systems, EPA consider available scientific and economic data, including 
a cost benefit analysis comparing emission-control devices or systems 
which are or will be in general use that require the proposed fuel 
control with such devices or systems which are or will be in general 
use that do not require the proposed fuel control. As described below, 
we conclude that the emissions control technology expected to be used 
to meet Tier 3 standards would be significantly impaired by operation 
on gasoline with annual average sulfur levels greater than 10 ppm. Our 
analysis of the available scientific and economic data can be found 
elsewhere in this document. The draft RIA includes a detailed analysis 
of the environmental benefits of the emission standards (Chapters 6 and 
8), an analysis of the technological feasibility and cost of 
controlling sulfur to the levels established in the final rule 
(Chapters 4 and 5), and a cost-effectiveness analysis of the sulfur 
control and motor vehicle and engine emission standards (Chapter 9). 
Under section 211(c)(2)(B), as just noted, EPA is also required to 
compare the costs and benefits of achieving emission standards through 
emission-control systems that would not be sulfur-sensitive, if any 
such systems are or will be in general use. We have determined that 
there are not (and will not be in the foreseeable future) emission 
control devices available for general use in motor vehicles that can 
meet the emission standards and would not be significantly impaired by 
gasoline with current gasoline sulfur levels. Emissions cannot be 
reduced anywhere near the magnitude contemplated by the proposed 
emission standards without the application of the kind of emissions 
control technology discussed in this proposal.
    Section 211(c)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires that prior to 
prohibiting a fuel or fuel additive, EPA establish that such 
prohibition will not cause the use of another fuel or fuel additive 
``which will produce emissions which endanger the public health or 
welfare to the same or greater degree'' than the prohibited fuel or 
additive. This finding is required by the Act only prior to prohibiting 
a fuel or additive, not prior to controlling a fuel or additive. Since 
EPA is not prohibiting use of gasoline sulfur, but rather is 
controlling the level of sulfur in these fuels, this finding is not 
required for this rulemaking. However, EPA does not believe that the 
proposed gasoline sulfur controls will result in the use of any other 
fuel or additive that will produce emissions that will endanger public 
health or welfare to the same or greater degree as the emissions 
produced by gasoline with current sulfur levels. Unlike the case of 
unleaded gasoline in the past, where lead performed a primary function 
by providing the necessary octane for the vehicles to function 
properly, sulfur does not serve any useful function in gasoline. It is 
not added to gasoline, but occurs naturally in the crude oil into which 
gasoline is processed. Were it not for the expense of sulfur removal, 
it would likely have been removed from gasoline years ago in order to 
improve the maintenance and durability characteristics of motor vehicle 
engines.
    We are also adopting the various controls for DFE, other 
oxygenates, butane blended into gasoline, and gasoline additives, under 
our authority in section 211(c)(1). As explained above, these controls 
are necessary to prevent emissions products that may endanger the 
public health or welfare or impair to

[[Page 29948]]

a significant degree the performance of any emission control device or 
system. The proposal basically extends various controls on gasoline to 
DFE, other oxygenates, butane, and gasoline additives. The reasons for 
adopting the controls for gasoline apply as well to adopt the controls 
for DFE, other oxygenates, butane, and gasoline additives.

VI. Technical Amendments and Regulatory Streamlining

    In addition to proposing new Tier 3 vehicle standards and new 
gasoline sulfur standards, we are also proposing and seeking comment on 
a number of technical amendments and regulatory streamlining actions as 
part of the Regulatory Review initiative. Some of these may have some 
bearing on implementation of the proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel 
standards, while others deal with other aspects of EPA's existing 
vehicle and fuel regulations.
    EPA is also proposing to synchronize a number of different 
reporting deadlines under various regulations affecting transportation 
and motor vehicle fuels and fuel additives. This action would reduce 
regulatory burdens by aligning reporting deadlines across several 
programs and would lay the foundation for the overall goal of combining 
various fuels reports together into a single, simplified electronic 
format.

A. Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 79 and 80

    The following sections discuss our proposed changes to regulations 
in 40 CFR part 79 and part 80. Some of these changes are technical 
amendments to correct minor errors or inconsistencies in the 
regulations; others are to address areas in the regulations that could 
benefit from clarification and/or streamlining.
    With regard to regulatory streamlining, the majority of these items 
involve clarifying vague or inconsistent language, removal or updating 
of outdated provisions, and decreasing the frequency and/or volume of 
reporting burden where data is either no longer needed or is redundant 
in light of other EPA fuels programs. In general, we believe that these 
changes would reduce burden on industry with no expected environmental 
impact. We believe that the regulatory streamlining items that we are 
proposing are changes that are straightforward and that should be made 
quickly. There are also additional items that would need further 
consideration and discussion, such as a new fuels program compliance 
structure, as discussed below in Section VI.A.1.b. We are also 
requesting comment on expanding the downstream butane blending 
provisions to allow for pentane blending, as discussed in Section 
VI.A.4.
1. Regulatory Streamlining
a. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    Below is a table listing the provisions that we are proposing to 
amend in today's action. We have provided additional explanation for 
those amendments that warrant additional explanation below.

                Table VI-1--Summary of Proposed Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Section                                                Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Varied.....................................  Various sections amended to update references to test methods (see
                                              Section Section VI.A.1.a.iii).
79.5.......................................  Revises periodic reporting requirements.
80.2.......................................  Revises and adds definitions.
80.8.......................................  Amended to update sampling test methods, and to state to which
                                              fuels Sec.   80.8 applies.
80.10......................................  Added to allow for de minimis changes in compliance reports that
                                              would not require a resubmission of compliance reports when a
                                              minor discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered.
80.46......................................  Revises measurement of RFG fuel parameters.
80.47......................................  Revises Performance-Based Test Method Approach.
80.65......................................  Amended to reduce complex model test parameters and reporting.
80.65(f)(5)................................  Added to allow for designation of an alternative lab.
80.75......................................  Revises RFG reporting requirements.
80.82......................................  Amended to apply butane blending provisions to entire part 80 and
                                              to revise RVP test method.
80.101.....................................  Revises measurement of conventional gasoline fuel parameters.
80.105.....................................  Amended to require identification of test methods used and revises
                                              reporting requirements.
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2).....................  Amended to allow an alternative gasoline detergent certification
                                              option.
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3).....................  Added to allow an alternative detergent certification option.
80.161(b)(2)...............................  Amended to address the submission of gasoline detergent samples
                                              under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.161(b)(3)(ii)(C)........................  Amended to reflect that documentation of the fuel injector deposit
                                              demonstration test would be required under the alternative
                                              detergent certification option.
80.161(b)(3)(v)............................  Amended to state that the results of the intake valve and fuel
                                              injector deposit demonstration test must be submitted to EPA as
                                              part of the certification letter under the alternative detergent
                                              certification option.
80.161(b)(3)(viii).........................  Amended to change ``PFID test'' to ``fuel injector test''.
80.161(d)(1)...............................  Amended to reflect the availability of the alternative gasoline
                                              detergent certification option.
80.163(a)(1)(iii)..........................  Amended to allow use of the alternative gasoline detergent
                                              certification option.
80.164(a)..................................  Amended to reference the test fuel requirements under the
                                              alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.165.....................................  Amended the introductory paragraph to accommodate the alternative
                                              deposit control test procedures and standards under the
                                              alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.167(a)..................................  Amended the introductory paragraph to specify how confirmatory
                                              testing would be conducted for additives certified under the
                                              alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.176.....................................  Added to specify the certification test procedures and standards
                                              under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option.
80.177.....................................  Added to specify the certification test fuels under the alternative
                                              gasoline detergent certification option.
80.178.....................................  Incorporates standards and test methods by reference.
80.330.....................................  Revises sampling and testing requirements.
80.370.....................................  Amended to require identification of test method used and revises
                                              reporting requirements.
80.511.....................................  Revises per-gallon and marker requirements.
80.572.....................................  Revises labeling requirements.
80.573.....................................  Revises labeling requirements.
80.574.....................................  Revises labeling requirements.

[[Page 29949]]

 
80.580.....................................  Incorporates test methods by reference.
80.585.....................................  Revises test method approval process.
80.604.....................................  Revises reporting requirements.
80.1235(a)(6),.............................  Amended to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock
                                              into previously certified gasoline (PCG) an alternative to
                                              directly test the blendstock for benzene.
80.1235(a)(5)..............................  Amended to clarify that refiners and importers may use either
                                              approach for blendstocks that are blended into either conventional
                                              gasoline or reformulated gasoline.
80.1235(b)(2)..............................  Amended to clarify EPA's intent (per Sec.   80.1238(b)) to allow
                                              refiners and importers to include oxygenate blended downstream of
                                              a refinery or import facility in their annual average benzene
                                              calculation, and to make the section consistent with Sec.
                                              80.1238(b).
80.1238....................................  Revises benzene determination.
80.1347(a)(5)..............................  Amended to require that a negative annual average must be reported
                                              as zero, and that a refiner must comply with Sec.   80.65(i) when
                                              producing RBOB or RFG and Sec.   80.101(g)(9) when producing
                                              conventional gasoline.
80.1347(a)(6)..............................  Added to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock
                                              into previously certified gasoline (PCG) an alternative to
                                              directly test the blendstock for benzene.
80.1348....................................  Revises sample retention requirements.
80.1349....................................  Added to allow importers who import gasoline into the U.S. by truck
                                              to use the sampling and testing requirements in 40 CFR part 80
                                              subpart E as an alternative to the sampling and testing
                                              requirements in subpart L.
80.1354....................................  Revises reporting requirements for gasoline benzene program.
80.1451....................................  Revises RFS reporting requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Amendments Related to Reduction of Testing for Complex Model Fuel 
Parameters
    In Sec. Sec.  80.65 and 80.75, we are proposing to streamline and 
reduce the RFG and CG testing and reporting burden of gasoline refiners 
and importers by reducing the testing and reporting requirements of 
certain fuel parameters associated with the complex model. Currently, 
for RFG, every parameter listed in Sec.  80.65 must be tested for every 
batch and each parameter must be reported for every batch. No monthly 
compositing of batch samples is allowed for any parameter. For 
conventional gasoline, monthly compositing and batch reporting based on 
those monthly composites is allowed for all parameters except sulfur 
and benzene. However, with the phasing out of complex model standards, 
reduced testing and reporting is appropriate, particularly for RFG. In 
cases where a refiner is subject to only benzene, RVP, and sulfur 
standards, certain parameters no longer need to be tested and reported 
on an every-batch basis. However, the full slate of complex model 
parameters will still be needed in some cases. Specifically, refiners 
producing RFG during the summer VOC control season will still need to 
use the complex model to determine VOC performance, and thus must still 
measure and report the relevant complex model fuel parameters. In 
addition, small refiners that are subject to the delayed compliance 
option for the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard will have to use 
the complex model until 2015 for CG MSAT1 compliance.\402\ Currently, 
there are 17 complex model parameters on the RFG/anti-dumping batch 
report. We are proposing to eliminate reporting for American Petroleum 
Institute (API) gravity. In addition, oxygenates need not be reported 
unless the refiner's gasoline includes oxygenates or the refiner is 
including downstream added oxygenate in its compliance calculations. 
Apart from being necessary for use in the complex model, these 
parameters have little use for program compliance. In addition, we are 
proposing to reduce testing and reporting as follows: For both RFG and 
conventional gasoline we propose to eliminate the requirement to test 
and report API gravity for batch certification purposes. For winter 
RFG, we propose to eliminate the requirement to test and report the 
following parameters on an every batch basis and instead allow testing 
and reporting of monthly composites: aromatics, distillations and 
olefins. Winter sulfur and benzene would continue to be tested and 
reported on an every batch basis. All summer complex model parameters 
would still be required to be tested and reported on an every batch 
basis. For conventional gasoline, since the regulations already allow 
for testing and reporting most parameters on a monthly composite basis, 
the only significant change would be to eliminate the batch 
certification testing and reporting for API gravity. Only benzene, 
sulfur, and any oxygenates that are actually included in the gasoline 
batch must be tested and reported on an every-batch basis (except for 
refiners that are still subject to a complex model toxics standard; 
they must test all parameters but may use monthly composite testing and 
reporting except for sulfur and benzene, and oxygenate, where 
applicable). The values for aromatics, olefins, and distillation terms 
may continue to be determined from monthly composites. These changes 
would substantially reduce the testing and reporting associated with 
each batch. We request comment on this reduced testing scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \402\ 61 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Amendments Related to Reporting
    EPA is proposing to amend various provisions in 40 CFR parts 79 and 
80 to reduce the number of different reporting deadlines that regulated 
parties must meet and to enable the future use of a unified and 
simplified reporting form. EPA's goal is to simplify reporting and 
reduce the number of hours parties spend preparing and submitting 
reports. This overall effort responds to Executive Orders 13563 and 
13610, which direct government agencies to simplify rules and to 
achieve reductions in paperwork and reporting burdens, and is part of 
EPA's agency-wide effort to streamline regulatory reporting 
requirements.
    Currently under 40 CFR parts 79 and 80, there are ten separate 
cyclical reporting dates each year (eleven in a leap year). This 
proposal would amend these deadlines so that all affected programs use 
the same four dates. Programs that would be affected by this proposal 
include the fuels and fuel additives registration program (40 CFR part 
79, subpart A), the Reformulated Gasoline and Anti-Dumping program (40 
CFR part 80, subparts D and E), the Gasoline Sulfur program (40 CFR 
part 80 subpart H), the Motor Vehicle, Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine 
Diesel program (40 CFR part 80 subpart

[[Page 29950]]

I), the Gasoline Benzene program (40 CFR part 80 subpart L), and the 
Renewable Fuel Standard program (40 CFR part 80 subparts K and M). We 
are proposing that reporting deadlines would be standardized as 
follows: June 1, for all reports covering quarter 1 of the compliance 
year; September 1, for quarter 2; December 1, for quarter 3; and March 
31 for quarter 4. End of year compliance reports would also be due on 
March 31.
    These proposed changes would either delay or maintain current 
deadlines for nearly all required reports. Deadlines for all other 
annual reports would either be maintained if they matched the new 
quarterly deadline, or extended to match the new quarterly deadline.
    These proposed changes would not include ``Attest Engagements'' or 
reporting related to specific events under the Fuels Program, such as 
trading Renewable Identification Numbers (RINS) in EPA's Moderated 
Transaction System (EMTS). All reporting deadlines for Attest 
Engagements and reporting specific events would remain the same.
    Respondents would still have the option to report earlier than any 
given deadline. Additionally, these deadline changes would allow EPA to 
develop a single electronic format that would collect all required data 
and maximize the capability of electronic reporting with data reuse, no 
duplicate fields, and a user-friendly interface.
    We would also be correcting a typographical error in 40 CFR 
80.1451(f)(2) and clarifying that reports are to be signed by the 
``responsible corporate officer.'' Additionally, we would remove an 
incorrect reference under 79.5(a)(2).
iii. Amendments To Update Test Methods
    Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing gasoline and 
diesel motor vehicle fuel are required to test RFG, CG and diesel fuel 
for various fuel parameters including aromatics, benzene, distillation, 
olefins, oxygenate content, RVP, and sulfur. A number of relevant 
regulatory provisions currently have references to test methods that 
have since been revised and updated. We are proposing to update those 
test methods to reflect current test methods in order to ensure that 
all test methods are readily available to the regulated community. ASTM 
International (ASTM) test method D2622 is currently the designated test 
method for measuring sulfur (Sec. Sec.  80.46(a)(1), 80.580(b)(2)), in 
gasoline and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard. ASTM test 
methods D5453, D6920, D3120 and D7039 are currently alternative test 
methods for measuring sulfur (Sec. Sec.  80.46(a)(3)(i), 
80.46(a)(3)(ii), 80.46(a)(3)(iii), 80.46(a)(3)(iv)) in gasoline. ASTM 
test method D5453 is also alternative test method for measuring sulfur 
(Sec.  80.580(c)(2)) in diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard, as 
well as ASTM test method D4294. ASTM test method D6667 is currently the 
designated test method for measuring sulfur (Sec.  80.46 (a)(2)) in 
butane. ASTM test methods D4468 and D3246 are currently alternative 
test methods for measuring the sulfur (Sec.  80.46(a)(4)(i), 
80.46(a)(4)(ii)) content in butane. ASTM D1319 is currently the 
designated test method for measuring olefins (Sec.  80.46(b)) in 
gasoline and aromatics (Sec.  80.2(z)) in diesel fuel and is also 
allowed as an alternative test method for measuring aromatics (Sec.  
80.46(f)(3)) in gasoline. ASTM D6550 is currently an alternative test 
method for measuring olefins (Sec.  80.46(b)(2)(i)) in gasoline. ASTM 
test method D5599 is currently the designated test method for measuring 
oxygenates (Sec.  80.46(g)(1)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D4815 is 
currently an alternative test method for measuring oxygenates (Sec.  
80.46(g)(2)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D5769 is currently the 
designated test method for measuring aromatics (Sec.  80.46(f)(1)) in 
gasoline. ASTM test method D3606 is currently the designated test 
method for measuring benzene (Sec.  80.46(e)) in gasoline. ASTM test 
method D86 is currently the designated test method for measuring the 
distillation (Sec.  80.46(d)) of gasoline. ASTM test method D5191 is 
currently the designated test method for measuring the RVP (Sec.  
80.46(c)) of gasoline. ASTM test method D976 is currently the 
designated test method for measuring the Cetane Index (Sec.  80.2(w)) 
of diesel fuel. ASTM standard practice D4057 is currently the manual 
sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (Sec.  
80.8(a)). ASTM standard practice D4177 is currently the automatic 
sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (Sec.  
80.8(b)). ASTM standard practice D5842 is currently the RVP sampling 
standard practice for fuels (Sec.  80.8(c)). ASTM standard practice 
D5854 is currently the composite sampling standard practice for 
petroleum and petroleum products (Sec.  80.8(a)).
    Table VI-2 lists the designated analytical test methods and 
alternative analytical test methods for RFG, CG and diesel fuel that we 
are proposing to update in today's action. The Agency has reviewed 
these updated ASTM test methods and believes that the revisions 
contained in them will result in improvements in the utilization of 
these test methods for the regulated industry. We also believe that our 
proposal to revise these test methods would not result in significant 
changes that would cause a user of an older version of the same method 
to incur increased compliance costs. Moreover, all of the revisions 
were deemed necessary by ASTM International so that improvements in the 
test method's procedures would ensure better operation for the user of 
the test method. Thus, EPA is proposing today to update the regulations 
for the following ASTM test methods: (1) ASTM D2622-10, the designated 
test method for measuring sulfur in RFG, CG, and alternative test 
method for diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (2) ASTM D3120-
08, alternative test method for sulfur in gasoline, ASTM D4294-10, 
alternative test method for sulfur in diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur 
standard; (3) ASTM D5453-09, alternative test method for sulfur in 
gasoline and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (4) ASTM 
D6667-10, designated test method for sulfur in butane; (5) ASTM D4468-
85(2006), alternative test method for sulfur in butane; (6) ASTM D3246-
11, alternative test method for sulfur in butane; (7) ASTM D1319-10, 
designated test method for measuring olefins in gasoline and aromatics 
in diesel fuel, as well as the alternative test method for measuring 
aromatics in gasoline; (8) ASTM D6550-10, alternative test method for 
measuring olefin content in gasoline; (9) ASTM D4815-09, alternative 
test method for measuring oxygenate content in gasoline; (10) ASTM 
D5599-00(2010), the designated test method for measuring oxygen content 
in gasoline; (11) ASTM D5769-10, the designated test method for 
measuring aromatics in gasoline; (12) ASTM D3606-10, the designated 
test method for measuring benzene in gasoline; (13) ASTM D86-11a, the 
designated test method for measuring distillation properties of 
gasoline; (14) ASTM D5191-10b, the designated test method for measuring 
the RVP of gasoline; (15) ASTM D976-06(2011), the designated test 
method for measuring the Cetane Index of diesel fuel; (16) ASTM D4057-
06(2011), the manual sampling standard practice for petroleum and 
petroleum products; (17) ASTM D4177-95(2010), the automatic sampling 
standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products; (18) ASTM 
D5842-04(2009), the sampling standard practice for RVP of fuels; and 
(19) ASTM D5854-96(2010), the

[[Page 29951]]

composite sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum 
products.

 Table VI-2--Proposed Designated & Alternative ASTM International Analytical Test Methods Under RFG, CG & Diesel
                                           Motor Vehicle Fuel Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fuel parameter                                     ASTM analytical test method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur (gasoline)...........................  ASTM D2622-10, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
                                               Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence
                                               Spectrometry.''
Sulfur (500 ppm diesel).....................  ASTM D2622-10, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
                                               Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence
                                               Spectrometry''
Sulfur (gasoline)...........................  ASTM D5453-09, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
                                               of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine
                                               Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet
                                               Fluorescence.''
Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel)..............  ASTM D5453-09, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
                                               of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine
                                               Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet
                                               Fluorescence.''
Sulfur (gasoline)...........................  ASTM D3120-08, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Trace
                                               Quantities of Sulfur in Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative
                                               Microcoulometry.''
Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel)..............  ASTM D4294-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
                                               Petroleum Products by Energy Dispersive Xray Fluorescence
                                               Spectrometry.''
Sulfur (butane).............................  ASTM D6667-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
                                               of Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied
                                               Petroleum Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence.''
Sulfur (butane).............................  ASTM D4468-85(2006), entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Total
                                               Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric
                                               Colorimetry.''
Sulfur (butane).............................  ASTM D3246-11, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in
                                               Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry.''
Oxygen content (gasoline)...................  ASTM D5599-00(2010), entitled, ``Standard Test Method for
                                               Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and
                                               Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection.''
Oxygen content (gasoline)...................  ASTM D4815-09, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Determination
                                               of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4
                                               Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography.''
Olefins (gasoline)..........................  ASTM D1319-10, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon
                                               Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator
                                               Adsorption.''
Olefins (gasoline)..........................  ASTM D6550-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for the
                                               Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-
                                               Fluid Chromatography.''
Aromatics (gasoline and diesel).............  ASTM D1319-10, entitled ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon
                                               Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator
                                               Absorption,'' for diesel fuel, this method is the designated test
                                               method; for gasoline, this method is an alternative test method
                                               and if used as an alternative method, its results must be
                                               correlated to ASTM D5769.
Aromatics (gasoline)........................  ASTM D5769-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
                                               of Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by
                                               Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.''
Benzene (gasoline)..........................  ASTM D3606-10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Determination
                                               of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by
                                               Gas Chromatography.''
Distillation (gasoline).....................  ASTM D86-11a, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Distillation of
                                               Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.''
Reid Vapor Pressure (gasoline)..............  ASTM D5191-10b, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for Vapor
                                               Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini-Method).''
Cetane Index (diesel).......................  ASTM D976-06(2011), entitled, ``Standard Test Method for
                                               Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels.''
Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum    ASTM D4057-06(Reapproved 2011), entitled, ``Standard Practice for
 Products.                                     Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and           ASTM D4177-95(Reapproved 2010), entitled, ``Standard Practice for
 Petroleum Products.                           Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.''
RVP Sampling for Fuels......................  ASTM D5842-04(Reapproved 2009), entitled, ``Standard Practice for
                                               Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement.''
Composite Sampling of Petroleum and           ASTM D5854-96(Reapproved 2010), entitled, ``Standard Practice for
 Petroleum Products.                           Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum
                                               Products.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Amendments Related to Downstream Blending
    Today's proposed rule also clarifies the list of products that are 
not to be included in a refinery's or importer's compliance 
determination under Sec.  80.1240. Refiners and importers are currently 
required under Sec.  80.1235(b)(2) to exclude oxygenate added to 
finished gasoline, RBOB or CBOB downstream of either the refinery that 
produced the gasoline or the import facility where the gasoline was 
imported. This conflicts with EPA's intended approach in Sec.  
80.1238(b), which allows refiners and importers to include oxygenate 
blended downstream of a refinery or import facility in their annual 
average benzene calculation, provided the refiner or importer meets 
certain requirements. We are proposing changes that would allow 
refiners and importers to include oxygenate blended downstream of their 
facility and that would make these related sections consistent.
v. Amendments for Previously Certified Gasoline
    For benzene, we would also provide flexibility for refiners and 
importers by providing an alternative allowing them to directly sample 
and test each batch of blendstock, and treat the blendstock as the 
produced batch for blendstock that is blended into previously certified 
gasoline (PCG). We are proposing to add Sec.  80.1347(a)(6) to reflect 
this alternative. This practice is already allowed under the Tier 2 
sulfur program (at

[[Page 29952]]

Sec.  80.340(a)(2)). Refiners and importers are currently required to 
test the PCG for benzene before addition of blendstock, test the 
combined blend of PCG and blendstock for benzene, and calculate the 
properties of the blendstock by treating the PCG as a negative volume 
batch and treating the blended product as a positive batch. Due to 
variability in the benzene test method, the PCG approach can sometimes 
result in calculated blendstock benzene concentrations that are 
negative, which is physically impossible. We are proposing to amend the 
regulations at Sec.  80.1235(a)(6) (and add Sec.  80.1347(a)(6), as 
mentioned) to allow refiners and importers that blend blendstock into 
PCG an alternative to directly test the blendstock for benzene. We 
expect that this would ensure a positive benzene test result. Also, 
today's proposal would clarify that regardless of the approach used, a 
negative sulfur or benzene result cannot be reported; rather, any 
negative result must be rounded to zero. Similarly, no negative annual 
average result can be reported. We are also proposing to amend the 
regulations at Sec.  80.1235(a)(5) to clarify that refiners and 
importers may use either approach for blendstocks that are blended into 
either conventional gasoline or reformulated gasoline.
    Lastly, we are proposing to allow importers who import gasoline 
into the United States by truck to use the sampling and testing 
requirements in subpart E for truck importers as an alternative to the 
sampling and testing requirements in subpart L. EPA provided these 
alternative requirements in subpart E to eliminate the need to test 
every truckload of imported conventional gasoline for all complex model 
parameters, including benzene.\403\ Since Subpart L also requires 
importers to test every truckload of imported gasoline for benzene, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to allow truck importers of gasoline to use 
the sampling and testing requirements in subpart E as an alternative. 
Today's rule proposes to amend the regulations to provide this 
alternative by adding a new Sec.  80.1349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \403\ 70 FR 74561 (December 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Amendments Related to Designation of an Alternative Lab
    Refiners have indicated to EPA that significant problems are 
created when a facility's designated lab is nonoperational and testing 
cannot be performed at the lab during that time period. We are thus 
proposing (at Sec.  80.65(f)(5)) that a facility have the ability to 
designate a back-up or alternative lab for testing during such times. 
In no case could this alternative lab be used to select the best test 
result, rather it could only be used on those occasions where 
operational necessity causes a need for it (e.g., the normal lab is 
closed, the apparatus for certain test methods are down, or independent 
lab personnel are not available).
vii. Amendments Related to De Minimis Reporting Changes
    We are proposing for the correction of batch volume reports to 
allow for de minimis changes in reporting compliance that would not 
require a complete resubmission of compliance reports when a minor 
discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered. This allowance for the 
correction of batch volume reports would apply to reporting for: RFG, 
anti-dumping, gasoline and diesel sulfur, MSAT2 and the RFS renewable 
volume obligation (RVO) (for RFS, this would only apply to the volume 
of fuels produced or exported that result in a RVO for obligated 
parties). We are proposing a new section 80.10 to define de minimis, 
for the purpose of this allowance, as no more than 500 gallons or by no 
more than 1 percent of the true batch volume in gallons, whichever 
value is less. We request comment on whether or not a different amount 
would be more appropriate.
viii. Amendments Related to RFS2 Annual Report Date
    Currently, the RFS2 final reporting date (last day of February) 
coincides with the RFG and Anti-dumping compliance deadline, which 
creates a staffing problem for regulated entities because the 
regulatory requirements are often handled by the same personnel. It was 
reported to EPA that this also creates an issue when small 
discrepancies in gasoline production or import volumes are realized, 
and can potentially trigger an increased RFS RVO and an ensuing 
scramble to obtain the necessary Renewable Identification Numbers 
(RINs) in real time. Delaying the RFS reporting date until after 
volumetric auditing would address this situation and would have no 
impact on emissions, air quality or compliance with the standard. As 
such, we are proposing to change the RFS2 reporting date in Sec.  
80.1451 to March 31. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the ability 
to transfer RINs in EMTS for satisfying RVOs under the previous 
compliance year should be extended from the last day of February to 
March 31 as well.
ix. Acceptance of Alternate Test Data Under the Gasoline Deposit 
Control Program
    The ``Top Tier'' deposit control gasoline standards developed by 
four major automakers are based on the premise that a more robust level 
of the control of vehicle engine and fuel systems beyond that provided 
by the EPA deposit control requirements is desirable.\404\ Several 
major gasoline marketers have adopted Top Tier for their gasoline. It 
is widely accepted that conformance with the Top Tier intake valve 
deposit (IVD) and fuel injector deposit (FID) control testing 
requirements is more challenging than complying with the EPA IVD and 
FID testing requirements. Yet additive packages must still be certified 
to EPA's less stringent standards on older test procedures. We believe 
that EPA could accept IVD/FID test data that complies with the Top Tier 
requirements in place of IVD/FID data that complies with the current 
EPA testing requirements without jeopardizing the emissions benefits 
from EPA's deposit control program. We are proposing that test data 
that complies with the Top Tier IVD performance standards at section 
1.3.1 could be used to satisfy EPA's IVD control requirements. We are 
also proposing that test data that complies with the Top Tier FID 
performance testing standards at section 1.3.3 could be used to satisfy 
EPA's FID control requirements. We believe that this allowance would 
provide significant saving to industry from reduced deposit control 
testing while maintaining the emissions benefits of EPA's gasoline 
deposit control program. These changes are being proposed in the 
regulations at Sec. Sec.  80.161(b), 80.163(a)(1)(iii), 80.164(a), 
80.165, 80.167(a), 80.176, and 80.177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \404\ The industry established ``Top Tier'' deposit control 
standards can be found at https://www.toptiergas.com/deposit_control.html. EPA's deposit control requirements are contained in 
Sec. Sec.  80.140 through 80.174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Broader Regulatory Streamlining Through Program Restructuring
    The current set of fuel regulations is the result of programs that 
have been established over the years to reduce emissions from mobile 
sources. These programs include gasoline volatility (RVP), reformulated 
gasoline and anti-dumping, sulfur control (which the Tier 3 program 
proposed today would revise), mobile source air toxics (MSAT1), benzene 
control (MSAT2), and the renewable fuel standards (RFS). Most of these 
regulations have been amended numerous times.

[[Page 29953]]

    The RFG and anti-dumping regulations in particular contain some of 
the more burdensome requirements on sampling, testing, and reporting. 
They also have some of the more stringent restrictions on gasoline use 
(e.g., restricting where fuel produced can be sold, what it may be 
commingled with, etc.). EPA used the RFG and anti-dumping rules as the 
foundation for many aspects of subsequently developed fuel regulatory 
programs. However, the subsequent rules, considered as a whole, have 
supplanted most of the RFG and anti-dumping standards. For this reason, 
we are proposing to streamline the regulations in several places as 
described above. Initial discussions with fuel industry representatives 
have indicated that a comprehensive review of the complete set of fuel 
regulations contained in Parts 79 and 80 (``Registration of Fuels and 
Fuel Additives'' and ``Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives,'' 
respectively) of the Code of Federal Regulations could lead to further 
streamlining of the regulations beyond the streamlining provisions 
proposed today.
    EPA expects that streamlining would result in more efficient and 
less costly compliance determinations for affected parties while 
maintaining the environmental benefits of the programs. Since such 
changes could require not just the removal or streamlining of existing 
provisions but also the replacement of several provisions with new, 
less onerous ones, we are not proposing such changes today. However, 
EPA requests comments on potential areas in the fuel regulations that 
may benefit from such a more comprehensive streamlining effort. For 
example, it may be possible for the RFG VOC standard to be met if a 
sufficiently stringent RVP level is attained. Under this scenario, 
sampling and testing requirements at the refinery would be reduced. 
Another potential scenario could involve consolidation of some RFG and 
anti-dumping rules; for example, a single set of rules governing the 
treatment of downstream ethanol blending and in-use surveys could 
provide greater efficiency and flexibility regarding fuel distribution.
2. Subpart I Technical Amendments

                     Table VI-3--40 CFR Part 80 Subpart I (Diesel Fuel) Technical Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Section                                                Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80.572(a)..................................  Amended to remove the requirement for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel
                                              pump labels beginning November 30, 2014, and to amend the title to
                                              reflect that the section includes labeling requirements for
                                              dispensers of motor vehicle diesel fuel.
80.584(b)(3)(i)............................  Amended to correct typographical error (``notc'' to ``not'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to remove the requirement for diesel fuel pump 
labels for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel. Beginning December 1, 2010, all 
highway diesel fuel was required to be 15 ppm or less; thus, highway 
diesel fuel labels are no longer needed to distinguish it from 500 ppm 
highway diesel fuel. However, we do recognize that it may confuse 
consumers who are accustomed to seeing the highway diesel fuel pump 
labels if those labels were to disappear, so we are also requesting 
comment on the removal of this labeling requirement. Note that if 
highway diesel fuel pump labels are no longer required by the 
regulations, retail and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities would 
be free to continue labeling to eliminate confusion if they so choose.
3. Performance-Based Measurement Systems (PBMS)

                                  Table VI-4--PBMS-Related Technical Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Section                                                Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80.46.......................................  Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for measuring
                                               gasoline parameters.
80.47.......................................  Added to extend the performance-based approach to other parameters
                                               besides diesel sulfur.
80.101(i)(1)(i)(A),(i)(3)(i)(C),              Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for measuring
 (i)(3)(ii)(C).                                gasoline parameters.
80.330(c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2)................  Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for sampling and
                                               testing.
80.370(a)(7)(iv)............................  Amended to require identification of the test method used to
                                               measure the sulfur content of a batch.
80.585(a) and (d)(4)........................  Amended to state the process for approval of test methods prior to
                                               and after adoption of PBMS for all fuel programs.
80.1348.....................................  Amended to state the sample retention requirements prior to and
                                               after adoption of PBMS for all fuel programs.
80.1354(b)(2)...............................  Amended to require identification of the test method used to
                                               measure the benzene concentration of a batch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with EPA's performance-based measurement system (PBMS) 
initiative (as discussed below), today we are proposing a PBMS for 
those chemical and physical properties of motor vehicle fuels regulated 
by EPA's motor vehicle fuel programs. Specifically, these are gasoline 
properties at Sec.  80.46, gasoline sulfur at Sec. Sec.  80.195 and 
80.1603, and diesel fuel properties at Sec.  80.2(z). This PBMS sets 
forth procedures and criteria by which laboratories making measurements 
to demonstrate compliance with fuels regulations may qualify 
alternative analytical test methods to those required in the 
regulations. It also sets minimum statistical quality control (SQC) 
requirements, following standard industry practices, by which 
laboratories must maintain and document the precision and accuracy of 
analytical methods used in the context of these programs. EPA envisions 
that the proposed PBMS would provide additional flexibility to the 
regulated industry in choosing test methods and foster innovation and 
improvement in the precision and accuracy of the measurement of motor 
fuel properties while not making any reductions in the emission 
benefits that result from motor fuel programs. It should also provide 
cost savings to the regulated industry by providing rapid access to 
newly-developed test methods with speed and ease of analysis. Some of 
these newer methods use smaller quantities of consumables and less-
expensive instrumentation that are easier to automate, thus reducing 
both operating costs and environmental impact.

[[Page 29954]]

a. Background
    Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing RFG, 
conventional gasoline and diesel fuel are required to test these fuels 
to determine the levels of various specified parameters. A designated 
test method is associated with each parameter to be tested (except for 
sulfur concentration in ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, which must meet 
performance-based requirements \405\) in 40 CFR part 80. Table VI-5 
lists the parameters/fuels and their corresponding designated test 
methods that we are proposing to update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \405\ See Sec. Sec.  80.580, 80.584 and 80.585.

                   Table VI-5--Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Fuel parameter                                    Designated analytical method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur in gasoline..........................  ASTM D 2622-10
Sulfur in butane............................  ASTM D 6667-10
500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel..................  ASTM D 2622-10
Olefins in gasoline.........................  ASTM 1319-10
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline.......  ASTM D 5191-10b, with the following correlation equation:
                                              RVP psi = (0.956 * X) - 0.347
                                              RVP kPa = (0.956 * X) - 2.39
                                              where:
                                              X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa.
Distillation in gasoline....................  ASTM D86-11a
Benzene in gasoline.........................  ASTM D 3606-10, except that instrument parameters shall be
                                               adjusted to ensure complete resolution of benzene, ethanol, and
                                               methanol peaks.
Aromatics in gasoline.......................  ASTM D 5769-10, except that sample chilling requirements in
                                               section 8 of this standard are optional.
Oxygen and oxygenate content in gasoline....  ASTM D 5599-00(2010)
Aromatics in diesel fuel....................  ASTM D1319-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the designated analytic methods for the parameters 
mentioned above, EPA has specified alternative test methods for some 
parameters. These alternative test methods may be used in lieu of the 
corresponding designated test methods, provided that all test results 
are correlated to the appropriate designated test methods. Alternative 
test methods have not been established for all regulated motor vehicle 
fuel parameters, however. Specifically, alternative test methods have 
been established for measuring the gasoline properties of aromatic 
content,\406\ oxygenate content,\407\ olefin content,\408\ and sulfur 
content \409\ as well as sulfur in butane.\410\ Currently, if a 
regulated party wishes to use an alternative test method that is not 
already approved, it must petition the Agency, and EPA must approve the 
use of this alternative method through a rulemaking process that on 
average, may take more than a year to complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \406\ ASTM D 1319-03[epsiv]\1\ (see Sec.  80.46(f)(3)).
    \407\ ASTM D 4815-04 (see Sec.  80.46(g)(2)).
    \408\ ASTM D 6550-05 (see Sec.  80.46(b)(2)(i)).
    \409\ ASTM methods D 5453-08a, D 6920-07, D 3120-06[epsiv]\1\, 
and D 7039-07 (see Sec. Sec.  80.46(a)(3)(i) through 
80.46(a)(3)(iv)).
    \410\ ASTM D 4468-85 (reapproved 2000) and ASTM D 3246-96 (see 
Sec. Sec.  80.46(a)(4)(i) and 80.46(a)(4)(ii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Approving new methods through rulemaking has been identified as a 
barrier to the use of innovative analytical test methods. In order to 
address these concerns and similar ones in other media areas, the 
Agency's Environmental Monitoring Management Council established a 
workgroup of scientists representing EPA's Headquarters and Regional 
offices to consider establishing a performance-based approach to 
specifying analytical testing requirements. On the recommendations of 
the workgroup, the Agency decided to incorporate the PBMS approach into 
its programs, to the extent feasible.
    EPA's practice, in recent rulemaking activities, of aligning its 
prescribed methods with those published by Voluntary Consensus-based 
Standards Bodies (VCSBs) \411\ is almost consistent with the PBMS 
policy and with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA).\412\ For example, in the nonroad diesel rulemaking, which 
controlled the sulfur content of diesel fuel,\413\ EPA required only 
that laboratories demonstrate their test methods' ability to meet a set 
performance criteria rather than prescribing that a single specific 
method be used. Today's proposal extends the diesel sulfur 
qualification approach to the chemical/physical properties measured in 
other motor vehicle fuel programs, with modifications appropriate to 
accommodate the differences among the fuel parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \411\ ASTM International (ASTM) is one such organization.
    \412\ Public Law 104-113, 104th Congress, March 7, 1996, H.R. 
2196.
    \413\ 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004. This rulemaking used standard 
materials with known chemical composition to evaluate the accuracy 
of candidate test methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Overview of Proposed Program Requirements
    In a June 29, 2004 rulemaking, EPA specified a performance-based 
approach to measuring diesel sulfur at 15 ppm and 500 ppm and removed 
the previous requirement of particular designated and alternative 
methods for 15 ppm diesel sulfur.\414\ We decided, in that rulemaking, 
to offer users two approaches to selecting test methods for diesel 
sulfur at the 500 ppm level. The first of these was to use either the 
designated test method or specific alternative test methods.\415\ The 
second option was to meet performance based requirements similar to 
those adopted for 15 ppm diesel sulfur.\416\ We are proposing today to 
extend the performance-based approach to method selection and 
qualification to other parameters besides diesel sulfur, with 
modifications appropriate to accommodate the differences among the fuel 
parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \414\ See Sec. Sec.  80.584 and 80.545.
    \415\ See Sec.  80.580(c)(2).
    \416\ See Sec. Sec.  80.584(a)(2), 80.584(b)(2)(i) through 
80.584(b)(2)(iii), and 80.585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, we are proposing requirements that laboratories would 
be required to demonstrate the

[[Page 29955]]

precision \417\ and accuracy \418\ of chosen fuel parameter measurement 
methods. Once implemented, this proposal would: (1) Require individual 
laboratories to demonstrate adequate measurement quality, (2) allow 
laboratories to choose methods that meet their own needs, provided they 
can meet prescribed criteria rather than specific methods,\419\ and (3) 
require all laboratories making regulatory measurements to establish 
and maintain a statistical quality control program. EPA intends that 
the measurement system resulting from this proposal would make no 
compromises on precision or accuracy relative to the system that exists 
under current regulations. We intend to incorporate the standards and 
practices of Voluntary Consensus Standards Body (VCSB) organizations 
wherever feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \417\ Precision--the amount of consistency in a set of 
measurements performed on the same material. ASTM repeatability and 
reproducibility are examples of measures of precision. ASTM 
Repeatability (``r'')--the difference between successive test 
results obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus under 
constant operating conditions on identical test material. ASTM 
Reproducibility (``R'')--the difference between two single and 
independent test results obtained by different operators working in 
different laboratories on identical test material using the same 
method.
    \418\ Accuracy--the closeness of a single measurement to its 
true value of what is being measured.
    \419\ For some parameters the criteria will be based on the 
laboratory's chosen method's ability to closely predict the 
measurements made by EPA's chosen or ``designated'' method. This 
approach is made necessary by the ``method-dependent'' definition of 
some of the parameters to be measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's PBMS approach applies to the qualification of analytical 
test instrumentation and methods used to measure various 
characteristics of individual fuel samples. It does not apply to 
sampling methods or in-line blending methods. While in-line blending 
certainly includes the use of analytical measurements, it is broader in 
scope than this proposal. Including in-line blending methodologies in 
this proposed rulemaking would raise issues that could not be 
adequately addressed in the context of this proposed rulemaking. 
Furthermore, in-line blending already has a certification process, as 
specified in regulations at Sec.  80.65(f), that sets forth 
qualification criteria that take into account the unique combinations 
of sampling, control, and analysis that are involved with in-line 
blending. However, we seek comment on potentially expanding our PBMS to 
include sampling or in-line blending methods.
c. How can we establish the accuracy of the measurement system (all 
qualified methods/installations) for each parameter?
    We are proposing to group the gasoline and diesel fuel parameters 
that must be measured (e.g., aromatics, sulfur, etc.), into two 
categories. These categories depend on whether it is feasible to 
construct and use gravimetric standards \420\ for defining the 
parameter and thus determining the accuracy of a measurement method. 
For some parameters it is difficult or perhaps impossible to make 
gravimetric standards. This is particularly true where the parameter is 
actually a class of chemical compounds (themselves containing multiple 
chemical compounds) that may have a very large number of members (e.g., 
aromatics in gasoline). Use of gravimetric standards for establishing 
accuracy may also be hindered if many of the potential measurement 
methods are sensitive to the chemical composition of the material that 
the analyte is added (often called the ``matrix'') and are thus prone 
to being ``confused'' into giving inaccurate answers. Where these two 
problems are not present, the use of gravimetric standards is the ideal 
way to establish the accuracy of the analytical test method. We will 
describe these as ``absolute'' parameters. The accuracy qualification 
test for a method measuring such parameters should center upon its 
being able to get the ``right'' answer for one or more gravimetric 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \420\ Gravimetric standards are test materials made by adding a 
carefully weighed (hence ``gravimetric'') quantity of the analyte of 
interest to a measured quantity of another substance known not to 
contain any of the analyte. The result is a solution with a very 
accurately known concentration of the analyte. The accuracy of 
gravimetric standard reference materials can be closely controlled 
and is not dependent on an analytical test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish the accuracy of methods measuring each parameter where 
gravimetric standards hindered, we are proposing to retain an EPA-
prescribed reference method or ``designated method'' that would, in 
effect, define the parameter as ``parameter X is, for federal 
regulatory purposes, whatever method Z measures.'' Parameters that 
require such treatment will be described as ``method-defined'' 
parameters. Establishing the accuracy of a method intended to measure 
such a parameter would be accomplished by relating its measurements on 
a particular set of test fuels to measurements made on the same fuels 
by a laboratory operating the designated method. This approach is often 
referred to as correlating the new method with the designated method. 
In other words, measurements from the new method (the ``candidate'' for 
qualification) would be used to predict the measurements that the 
designated method would get on the same fuels (with, perhaps, some 
offset or adjustment equation applied) and then these predictions would 
be compared with the actual measurements made from those fuels by the 
designated method. If the predictions are consistently close to the 
designated method measurements and evenly distributed above and below 
these reference values, then the laboratory and the method it proposes 
to use would have a good case for qualification with regard to 
accuracy. Such a correlative approach to qualification is dependent for 
its workability upon the test fuels used to establish the correlation. 
Such fuels must be sufficiently varied along all important dimensions 
so that day-to-day production laboratory operations are very unlikely 
to turn up some unusual fuels (or a new class of fuels produced, say, 
by some new refining process) for which the correlation equation 
derived earlier is not accurate and where the predictions of the 
designated method's results are quite erratic and inaccurate.
    In addition to the dependence of the method-defined approach upon 
the choice of fuels for establishing the correlation to the designated 
method, this approach also greatly elevates the importance of the 
designated method that is used. An increasingly obsolete designated 
method might need to be changed for practical reasons, but adoption of 
a new designated method could bring about a de facto change in the 
standard for the parameter in the absence of a prescribed correction 
equation designed to align the new designated method with the old. 
While the gravimetric approach to measurement has its own problems, it 
is free of the difficulties associated with any particular method.
    Our classification of parameters into the absolute or method-
defined categories is not entirely straightforward. Of the parameters 
subject to this proposal, only those with sulfur as the analyte fall 
into the absolute category. Sulfur is a single element rather than a 
compound (or, worse, a class of compounds with numerous members) and 
thus lends itself to the construction of gravimetric standards. The 
methods that are currently used to measure sulfur in gasoline and 
diesel fuel have been subject to intensive recent development work and 
are largely free of matrix effects. Sulfur in butane is even more

[[Page 29956]]

amenable to the absolute approach, since butane is a single compound 
rather than a constantly varying mixture of many compounds. We also 
note, as mentioned before, that the diesel sulfur rule used the 
absolute approach. For these reasons we are proposing to treat gasoline 
sulfur and sulfur in butane as absolute parameters.
    Beyond these two sulfur parameters, classification becomes more 
difficult. Where the analyte is a class of compounds, like aromatics, 
the construction of a gravimetric standard would have to be done by use 
of an agreed-upon conventional recipe that includes some group of the 
compounds in the class in proportions that approximate to what is found 
in the actual fuels that a method will measure. If the class has 
relatively few compounds and they are all available in reasonably pure 
form, then they could all be included in the standard, leaving only the 
issues of their respective concentrations (likely to vary among real 
fuels) and the question of ``matrix effects'' as discussed above. Where 
the class of compounds has many members and not all could be included 
in an artificially constructed standard, we are left with the question 
of which ones can be omitted on grounds that they are likely to occur 
only in very small concentrations and/or are not particularly important 
in emission formation. The result of these exclusions, for certain 
parameters, would likely be a directional bias toward underestimating 
the prevalence of the target class of compounds. The likely size of the 
bias will vary among parameters and among fuels on which measurements 
are made. Use of a complex recipe for such standards, where possible, 
may minimize the bias, but may add to the costs and difficulty of 
formulating a standard representative of all fuels.
    The distillation parameters (T50 and T90) seem to be largely 
resistant to a gravimetric approach that relies on pure compounds 
instead of the smooth curve that results from simple distillation of 
complex mixtures like gasoline and diesel fuel. Such gravimetric 
standards, incorporating only a very limited number of compounds out of 
practical necessity, would be likely to yield a kind of stair-step 
curve.
    Given these logical and practical difficulties with using a 
gravimetric approach to qualifying methods for parameters other than 
sulfur, EPA is today proposing that the method-defined or correlative 
approach be used for all parameters other than sulfur. We are 
especially interested in receiving comment on our categorization of 
fuel parameters as either absolute or method defined.
d. How would analytic methods be evaluated for qualification?
i. General provisions: To which methods and which parties do the 
proposed requirements apply?
    As discussed above, EPA believes that the interests of measurement 
quality are best served by evaluating most method installations for 
qualification at the level of individual laboratories instead of 
individual instruments. This approach was used in regulating diesel 
sulfur. We are proposing to require laboratories to qualify all methods 
that will be used to make measurements for regulatory purposes. EPA 
does not believe that a relatively simple qualification test will 
ensure continued measurement quality, but rather that this will greatly 
reduce the likelihood of a laboratory undertaking important 
measurements without some assurance that the instrument is in working 
order, that at least one operator \421\ in the laboratory understands 
the method for its use, and that it can be made to perform to meet 
acceptable criteria. We seek comment on requiring laboratories to 
qualify all methods used to take measurements for regulatory purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \421\ The intent behind the qualification process is to 
demonstrate the facility's capability with the method. Accordingly 
we are not proposing that each instrument used to implement a 
particular method be required to qualify (some labs may have several 
instruments implementing a single method) or that each operator be 
so required. We recommend, but are not proposing to require, that a 
laboratory rotate operators during the testing required for 
qualification, thereby both improving and testing the skills of all 
operators for a given method and strengthening its quality program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. How would laboratories demonstrate the precision and accuracy of 
methods for measuring ``absolute'' parameters and thus qualify the 
methods for use?
    We are proposing to require a separate qualification for test 
methods used to measure gasoline sulfur. As mentioned previously, the 
Agency has successfully implemented performance based requirements for 
sulfur in diesel fuel. The test methods typically used for gasoline 
sulfur (one of the two parameters we are proposing to consider 
absolute, as discussed above) are also frequently used for diesel 
sulfur and the ASTM test method designations for both are the same. 
However, examination of test method descriptions points toward 
substantial differences in how the test methods are used in the 
different matrices. One example is a requirement for recalibration when 
matrices shift. While we considered the possibility of allowing the 
diesel sulfur qualifications to be used also for gasoline sulfur, we 
believe the differences between a diesel fuel matrix and gasoline fuel 
matrix may be too great to permit such a sweeping exemption from 
qualification requirements. The process of reworking the test methods 
to measure gasoline sulfur will, in many cases, generate most of the 
data needed for qualification, and thus will not represent a major 
additional effort. So, despite the fact that ASTM test methods are the 
same for gasoline and diesel, we are proposing to require separate 
qualification for test methods used in measuring gasoline sulfur.
    Operational Description. We are proposing to require applications 
for qualification to include a complete operational description of the 
test method in question. A VCSB publication would satisfy this 
requirement for methods published by such organizations as ASTM. The 
description must include the scope of the test method, a summary, 
discussion of any interferences that are expected, apparatus needed, 
reagents, sampling and specimen preparation, calibration, test method 
procedure, calculations, and any test method-specific quality control.
    Precision Qualification. We are proposing requirements for 
precision qualification that are similar to requirements set forth in 
the nonroad diesel sulfur rule. That rule imposed a maximum value for 
the standard deviation \422\ of a series of at least 20 measurements 
over at least 20 days on a single fuel under site precision conditions. 
Specifically, the diesel rule used 1.5 times the repeatability standard 
deviation (ASTM ``r''/2.77) of what was the least precise of the then-
allowed methods. The factor of 1.5, expands the allowable variability 
from that of back-to-back tests (as in ASTM's definition of 
repeatability) to account for the sources of greater variability that 
find their way into a longer series of tests on the same material. In 
the qualification process for ultra-low sulfur diesel testing, the 
factor of 1.5 proved to be neither so tight that most laboratories were 
unable to meet it, nor so loose as to not be challenging at all. Thus 
we consider it to be reasonable on its face, as well as having proven 
to be workable in practice, and we have therefore retained it in this 
proposal. We request comments on the selection of a test method's 
repeatability to use as the basis of the qualification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \422\ Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of 
the population (formula uses ``N-1'' in the denominator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gasoline Sulfur Criterion. We are proposing to use the ASTM 
repeatability

[[Page 29957]]

standard deviation factor as discussed above from ASTM D7039-07 to set 
the precision criteria for gasoline sulfur. We note that there is a 
designated test method and four alternative test methods for gasoline 
sulfur. The larger repeatability among the test methods currently 
allowed for sulfur in gasoline is for ASTM D6920-07. This was obtained 
only when the substantially more variable of the two instrument models 
included in a small inter-laboratory study was included. Since the most 
variable instrument model had a repeatability of nearly twice that of 
the other test methods and over four times that of the other instrument 
model for the same method, we believe that ASTM D6920-07 should be 
represented, for this purpose, by the instrument model yielding the 
better performance of the two. Given that decision, ASTM D7039-07 is 
left with the largest repeatability of these test methods. And we are 
proposing to use its repeatability (1.76 ppm at 10 ppm) to set the 
precision criterion for this parameter. Thus the maximum allowable 
standard deviation of the twenty test results on a 10 ppm gasoline 
would be 0.95 ppm.\423\ Since we do not propose to prescribe the 
parameter level for the fuel used for these precision tests, this 
maximum limit will vary depending upon the repeatability number that 
the ASTM D7039-07 test method's repeatability formula yields, given the 
parameter value of the test fuel chosen. If a laboratory selected a 5 
ppm fuel to test instead of a 10 ppm fuel, the maximum limit for the 
standard deviation would be 0.67 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \423\ This number was determined by using the repeatability 
equation for ``r'' from ASTM D7039-07 for a 10 ppm sulfur gasoline 
to get 1.76 ppm, dividing the ``r'' in ppm by 2.77 to obtain the 
underlying standard deviation of 1.39 ppm, and multiplying the 
result by 1.5 (criterion used in diesel sulfur rule) to get 0.95 
ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sulfur in Butane Precision Criteria. There are three test methods 
currently allowed for measuring the sulfur content of butane for 
blending into gasoline. A new designated test method was adopted for 
this parameter (ASTM D6667-10) \424\ because the previous primary test 
method, D3246-11, had become somewhat obsolete. Given that D3246-11 is 
no longer widely available,\425\ though still an allowed alternative 
test method, and that the range of D4468-85 (reapproved 2006) extends 
only to 20 ppm, we are proposing a precision criterion based on the 
repeatability of D6667-10. This test method's repeatability at the 10 
ppm level is 1.15 ppm, so the calculations used above with gasoline 
sulfur yield an upper limit for the standard deviation of the 20 tests 
for sulfur in butane of 0.62 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \424\ 71 FR 16492 (April 3, 2006).
    \425\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0048-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Temporal Distribution of Precision Tests. With regard to spacing of 
the 20 precision tests, we are proposing 7 or fewer tests per week and 
2 or fewer tests per day. We believe this would prevent weekend testing 
while also precluding practices such as conducting one test on the 
first day and 19 tests on the 20th day. We believe that adequate 
spacing of testing is necessary if we are to have a meaningful standard 
for the longer-term stability of a particular test method in a 
particular laboratory installation. We are also taking comments on the 
following two options: (1) a requirement that 23 or more hours must 
elapse between tests (this option requires either testing on weekends 
or an extension of the 20 days); and (2) tests arranged into no fewer 
than five batches of five or fewer tests each, with only one such batch 
allowed per day.
    Accuracy Qualification. We are proposing accuracy criteria for 
absolute fuel parameters that are similar to the criteria for sulfur in 
diesel fuel. Applicants for qualification would be required to select 
two commercially available gravimetric standard reference materials and 
then to show that their laboratory and method are capable of getting an 
average of ten consecutive results that are very close to the Accepted 
Reference Value or ARV for each. How close to the ARV these averages 
must be is the stringency part, and we propose to use 0.75 times the 
precision criterion described above, which is the same value as the 
diesel rules. In the case of gasoline sulfur, for a gravimetric 
standard with ARV = 10 ppm, this would be 0.75 times 0.95 ppm or 0.71 
ppm. The corresponding numbers for sulfur in butane at the 10 ppm level 
would be 0.75 times 1.15 or 0.47 ppm. We are proposing that for other 
parameter that might come to fall into the absolute category, the 
precision and accuracy criteria would be determined as a function of 
the ASTM repeatability of one of the methods (selected by EPA) 
available for measuring that parameter.\426\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \426\ It is important to understand that the numerical examples 
presented in the text are entirely hypothetical, since use of 
precision testing material or gravimetric standards at levels other 
than those used in the examples would change all of the numbers. Use 
of a gasoline sulfur gravimetric standard at 5 ppm (instead of the 
10 ppm used in the example) would require computing the 
repeatability of the method at 5 ppm using the equation given in the 
method description, dividing it by 2.77, multiplying the result by 
1.5, and then multiplying that result by 0.75. As a short-cut, the 
accuracy criterion could be determined by multiplying the ASTM 
repeatability of the method at the level in question by 0.4061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. How would laboratories demonstrate the precision and accuracy of 
methods for measuring ``Method-Defined'' parameters and qualify the 
methods for use?
    Operational Description. For method-defined parameters we are 
proposing the same operational description as that for absolute 
parameters. The operational description of a proposed test method must 
be very complete. We consider publication of a test method by a VCSB 
organization such as ASTM to meet this criterion. For non-VCSB test 
methods this description must meet very high standards for completeness 
and clarity. Since non-VCSB test methods have not been fully vetted by 
a VCSB, a non-VCSB test method would require additional information. In 
particular, the underlying scientific measurement principles must be 
thoroughly explained and the apparatus described well enough that a 
trained outsider could successfully implement the non-VCSB test method 
and replicate the applicant's results.
    Precision Qualification Specifics. We are proposing the same 
precision qualification criteria as absolute parameters. For those 
method-defined parameters with alternative test methods that have been 
identified by regulations, preference will be given to the least 
precise of the allowed test methods. For reference installations we 
propose the additional requirements that the instrument must be shown 
to be in statistical control, as provided for in ASTM D6299-10\e1\ (and 
the SQC procedures to be discussed below); and that the applicant must 
submit control charts showing a record of in-control operation for at 
least five months. While these requirements would likely result in a 
delay between instrument setup and the ability to qualify it as a 
reference installation, we believe that the delay is necessary to 
demonstrate the stability of these critically important installations. 
Considering the number of long-established installations of these 
designated test methods, EPA expects no lack of laboratories capable of 
meeting these standards and able to provide this service commercially 
to any party interested in qualifying a new installation of an 
alternative test method for a method-defined parameter. Table VI-6 sets 
out our proposed precision criteria for the various method-defined fuel 
parameters with no alternative test method.
    Olefins in Gasoline Criterion. The designated method for this 
parameter, ASTM D 1319-10, is also the less

[[Page 29958]]

precise of the two methods currently allowed. As such, its 
repeatability statistics are proposed as the basis for precision 
qualification. Thus for a test fuel with olefins at, say, 9 volume 
percent, the repeatability is 0.972, and the underlying standard 
deviation is 0.972/2.77 = 0.351, and the precision criterion is 1.5 
times that, or 0.53 volume percent. A laboratory's standard deviation 
for the 20 tests could not exceed that value and still qualify for 
precision.
    Aromatics in Gasoline Criterion. We are proposing to use the 
repeatability standard deviation for D1319-10 to set the precision 
criteria for aromatics in gasoline. (e.g., 1.3 volume percent for a 
fuel with 32 volume percent aromatics). The cut off point for the 20-
test standard deviation using the test fuel would then be 0.70 volume 
percent. We note that D5769-10 is the current designated test method 
but that D1319-10 is still widely used. We also note that while not as 
precise as D5769-10, D1319-10 is the designated method for olefins, and 
has precision sufficiently close to that of the more modern designated 
method to make it still viable.
    Oxygen and Oxygenates in Gasoline Criterion. The two test methods 
allowed for oxygen are very close together in precision, at least for 
total oxygen content. The designated method, D5599-00(2010) is slightly 
less precise, leading us to propose that its repeatability be used to 
determine the criterion. So for a test gasoline with 3 mass percent 
total oxygen, the repeatability would be 0.083 mass percent and the 
criterion for precision in this example comes out to 0.045 mass 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \427\ Where maximum allowable standard deviation (SD) of 20 
tests is less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability (r) of 
the designated test method divided by 2.77 (SD of 20 tests <= 1.5 X 
(r/2.77)).

 Table VI-6--Method-Defined Precision Criterion for Fuel Parameters With
              No Alternatives to the Designated Test Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Example of fuel
                                    parameter level   Proposed precision
         Fuel Parameter            for demonstrating    criterion \427\
                                       precision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RVP in gasoline.................  RVP sample of       0.11 psi.
                                   gasoline equals
                                   6.8 psi.
Distillation in gasoline........  Gasoline sample     IBP = 1.54 [deg]C.
                                   with initial       E10 = 0.72 [deg]C.
                                   boiling point      E50 = 0.40 [deg]C.
                                   (IBP) of 20        E90 = 0.97 [deg]C.
                                   [deg]C and 90      FBP = 1.80 [deg]C.
                                   percent
                                   evaporated (E90)
                                   temperature of
                                   110 [deg]C.
Benzene in gasoline.............  Gasoline sample     0.02 volume
                                   containing 1        percent benzene.
                                   volume percent
                                   benzene.
Aromatics in diesel fuel........  Diesel sample       0.70 volume
                                   containing 35       percent.
                                   volume percent
                                   aromatics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accuracy Qualification. Test methods used to measure method-defined 
parameters can be grouped into three types: reference installations of 
designated methods intended for use in qualifying alternative methods; 
designated method installations intended for ordinary production 
measurements; and non-designated methods. Since these reference 
installations will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other test 
methods and to evaluate whether the need for the establishment of a 
correlation equation. We are proposing that such reference instruments 
must be shown to be near the middle of the distribution of the industry 
monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck program for at least five months 
prior to application.\428\ We are proposing that laboratories would 
specifically compute the difference between either the instrument's 
average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable standards or 
to the average value for the fuel type in the complex model and the 
robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non-outlier labs in 
the program. We are proposing that the differences would then be 
standardized by expressing it in robust standard deviation units. This 
standardized inter-laboratory cross check (ILCC) differences would be 
put into a moving average with a span of, for example, five months. We 
are also proposing to set the standard such that the instrument's 
moving average would be within the central 50 percent of the 
distribution of participating designated method labs. Because a robust 
standard deviation is used by the ILCC program, this percentage will 
have to be approximate. Such lab-specific qualification would be 
outside of the normal qualification of a lab for making regulatory 
measurements for certifying fuel and would pertain only to use of the 
instrument in certifying other methods. EPA requests comment on the 
nature and stringency of this proposed requirement. Specifically, we 
request comment as to whether this is a reasonable requirement that is 
likely to be met by instruments in the best qualified laboratories. 
Could the ``middle 50 percent'' requirement be further tightened 
without severely restricting the supply of potential reference 
installations? Are there computationally simpler ways to accomplish the 
general purpose of this requirement?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \428\ An alternative to this measure can be to use the D6299-
10\e1\ calculations. This would require statistical quality control 
(SQC) so that the instrument would have an acceptable quality of 
performance. This could reduce the burden of calculations and align 
this requirement better with the NTTAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Role of Voluntary Consensus Bodies in Qualifying Alternative 
Analytical Test Methods
    In February 1996, Section 12(d) of Public Law 104-113, Congress 
passed the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995'' 
(NTTAA), in order to establish the policies of the existing OMB 
Circular A-119 in law.\429\ The purposes of Section 12(d) of Public Law 
104-113 are: (1) To direct ``federal agencies to focus upon increasing 
their use of [voluntary consensus] standards \430\ whenever possible,'' 
thus reducing federal procurement and operating costs; and (2) to 
authorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as 
the ``federal coordinator for government entities responsible for the 
development of technical standards and conformity assessment 
activities,'' thus eliminating ``unnecessary duplication of conformity

[[Page 29959]]

assessment activities.'' \431\ Section 21(d) of Public Law 104-113 also 
gives agencies the discretion to use other standards in lieu of 
voluntary consensus standards where use of the latter would be 
``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' However, 
in such cases, the head of an agency or department must send to OMB, 
through NIST, ``an explanation of the reasons for using such 
standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \429\ See 142 Cong. Rec. H1264-1267 (daily ed. February 27, 
1996) (statement Rep. Morella); 142 Cong. Rec. S1078-1082 (daily ed. 
February 7, 1996) (statement Cong. Rockefeller); 141 Cong. Rec. 
H14333-34 (daily ed. December 12, 1995) (statements of Reps. Brown 
and Morella).
    \430\ This use of the word ``standards'' refers to test methods, 
calibration materials, etc.
    \431\ See Cong. Rec. H1262 (daily ed. February 27, 1996) 
(statements of Rep. Morella).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final revision of Circular A-119 defines Voluntary Consensus 
Standards as ``standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
bodies, both domestic and international'', and defines VCSB as 
``domestic or international organizations which plan, develop, 
establish, or coordinate voluntary consensus standards using agreed-
upon procedures and which possess the attributes of openness, balance 
of interest, due process, an appeals process, and consensus.'' Finally, 
Circular A-119 indicates that consensus means ``general agreement, but 
not necessarily unanimity, and includes a process for attempting to 
resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have 
been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of 
his or her objection(s) and the reasons why, and the consensus body 
members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing 
the comments.'' \432\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \432\ 63 FR 8546 (February 19, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency believes that VCSBs can play a valuable role in 
developing statistical tools for analytical test methodology 
description and evaluation, developing and describing new analytical 
test methodologies and organizing test programs to evaluate 
methodologies and assist laboratories to maintain quality measurement 
systems.
    EPA has frequently selected VCSB-developed methods as its 
designated methods for fuels programs. However, it has only adopted a 
particular version of each such method by incorporating it by reference 
in the Federal Register. In each case the Agency was endorsing and 
adopting test methods that were completely known and available for 
examination, rather than the unknown result of some future VCSB action. 
To simply say that any method approved by a VCSB is acceptable for all 
purposes, including compliance demonstrations would seem to invite such 
difficulties as: (1) multiple methods for a parameter, developed by 
different VCSB's and not correlated adequately with each other, or (2) 
methods that change over time (by publication of new versions, for 
example) in such a way that the definition of what is being measured 
changes and no longer corresponds to what was used in setting 
compliance to the environmental standard(s).
(2) Use of Reference Materials in Qualifying and Maintaining 
Alternative Analytical Techniques
    Depending on the qualification process chosen by the Agency, 
discussed in more detail below, the protocol proposed here for the 
qualification and maintenance of alternative test methods stops short 
of automatic acceptance of VCSB decisions and methods, but goes as far 
in that direction as we believe is consistent with the Agency's mission 
of ensuring compliance with motor vehicle fuel programs. It gives some 
preference to VCSB-approved methods because of our greater confidence 
that such methods have been positively evaluated by a broad user 
community rather than by a narrower array of users. We are proposing 
today to also make substantial use of VCSB-developed statistical 
protocols for comparing methods and for use by particular laboratories 
in keeping analytic methods under adequate statistical quality control.
    We consider Reference materials to be samples of the type of 
material to be tested (gasoline or diesel fuel in this case) that are 
known or thought to have a particular concentration of the substance to 
be measured. Laboratories may use these materials to calibrate and 
evaluate the performance of measurement systems. EPA is proposing the 
following three types of reference materials that would be used in 
establishing and maintaining the accuracy of both designated and 
alternative analytical test methods: (1) Gravimetric standards, (2) 
consensus-named fuels (gasoline or diesel fuel), and (3) locally-named 
standards.
    Additionally, some combinations of parameters and test methods 
limit the availability of some kinds of reference materials. This 
complicates the task of developing a methodology for qualifying 
alternative test methods. EPA recognizes the technical complexity and 
the likelihood that new analytical testing methods may emerge. 
Therefore, the Agency is also proposing to offer substantial 
flexibility in the choice of standard reference materials and the 
manner of their use, so long as they ensure accuracy and preserve the 
integrity of applicable fuel standards.
    Gravimetric Reference Standards. Gravimetric standards are test 
materials made by adding a carefully measured quantity of the analyte 
of interest to a measured quantity of another substance known not to 
contain any of the analyte. The result is a solution with a very 
accurately known concentration of the analyte. The accuracy of 
gravimetric standard reference materials can be closely controlled and 
is not dependent on an analytical test method. They do present certain 
practical problems in use. First, gravimetric reference materials 
cannot be made for all of the parameters under the RFG, CG and diesel 
fuel programs (e.g., distillation points and olefins). Second, there 
are ``matrix effects.'' As earlier explained, matrix effects are where 
components in real-world gasoline or diesel fuel other than the analyte 
of interest confuse the instrument and cause it to measure the analyte 
differently than it would when measuring the same concentration of the 
analyte in a gravimetric standard built in a matrix where the 
instrument is not sensitive. Matrix effects are problematic for certain 
analytical methods, whose underlying scientific operating principles 
make the analytical method unable to utilize gravimetric standards for 
calibration when other types of materials (gasoline or diesel fuel) 
will have to be measured accurately. The approach taken in this 
proposal, where the gravimetric standard reference materials would be 
used in establishing the accuracy of a reference implementation of the 
designated method, is an approach that should minimize matrix effect 
problems. This is because the designated methods were selected, among 
other criteria, for their relative freedom from matrix effects. Thus, 
EPA believes that such materials, offer the best tools for establishing 
the accuracy of analytical test methods. When feasible, EPA believes 
that gravimetric reference standard materials should form the basis for 
establishing accuracy through correlation with designated analytical 
test methods calibrated with gravimetric standards.
    Consensus-named Fuels. These are homogeneous quantities of fuel 
that have been analyzed by a number of different laboratories (by 
sending around small samples). The average concentration of some 
parameter of interest across all of the different laboratories is then 
used as the ``consensus name'' for that material.
    There are certain parameters that the Agency does not believe that 
gravimetric standard reference materials can be prepared. Aromatics are 
a class of numerous compounds that are produced by refinery processes 
in a mixture that is most likely impossible to duplicate in the 
laboratory with any consistency for all fuel because not all

[[Page 29960]]

refiners have the same configuration. For such parameters, it is 
therefore necessary to use consensus-named gasolines to control 
accuracy because they are the only reliable type of standard reference 
material that is available. The use of consensus-named gasolines may 
minimize matrix-related effects where they are used to establish the 
accuracy of different designated method implementations, though they 
may be less useful in evaluating alternative methods that have been 
adapted to measure a certain fuel matrix, but not sensitive enough to 
measure all fuel matrices the test method may encounter in use, 
otherwise known as ``adaptive learning'' technologies. The nominal 
concentrations in consensus-named gasolines can only be as accurate as 
the designated analytical test method used in the VCSB round robin 
study that named them. Consensus-named gasolines will also be costly 
and time-consuming to produce and will need to be periodically replaced 
(i.e., when the supply is exhausted or the shelf life expires) through 
either a new round robin study or some approach using overlapped 
testing of the old standard reference material with a new batch (which 
will not, of course, have exactly the same concentration of analytes).
    Locally Named Reference Materials. These materials are also 
sometimes referred to as quality control samples (e.g., octane testing 
reference fuel). These are gasoline or diesel fuels that usually come 
from the regular production of the facility. These reference materials 
are used in laboratory quality control efforts and have been analyzed 
using the designated method (either by the facility's lab or by a 
referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration. The fuels 
are then stored carefully by the lab to slow their deterioration. The 
advantage to these is that since a refinery may already have such fuels 
on site for octane or cetane testing purposes, these materials may be 
relatively inexpensive. Another advantage is that, since a refiner 
would produce these fuels at the same site where the alternative method 
will be qualified, their use should minimize any difficulties 
associated with matrix effects. These locally named reference fuels are 
not as accurate as the VCSB round robin process and are not assured by 
gravimetric standard reference material construction. Thus, a refiner 
could only use them for relating an alternative method to a carefully 
calibrated installation of the designated method whose accuracy has 
been established and controlled by other means.
    We request comment on the appropriateness of using the three types 
of standard reference materials for accuracy that have been discussed 
and on their applicability in the qualification process and statistical 
quality control process of analytical test methods.
(3) Qualification Criteria of Alternative Analytical Test Methods
    We are also proposing two options for refiners that wish to qualify 
an alternative test method as discussed in further detail in Sections 
VI.A.3.g.i and VI.A.3.g.ii of this proposal. For both of the proposed 
options the candidate test method must have precision at least equal to 
that of the designated analytical test method (though not defined in 
precisely the same way). And the alternative test method must be 
capable of correlation with the designated test method for the 
parameter such that the refiner may use the alternative test method 
results to produce predicted designated test method results that it can 
subsequently use in demonstrating compliance with the applicable fuel 
composition or performance standards.
(4) Statistical Quality Control Program
    An important element of today's proposed approach for the 
qualification of alternative analytical test methods is the description 
of a statistical quality control (SQC) program that may be applied to 
any analytical test method used in the regulatory programs covered by 
this proposal. We are proposing to require a SQC program as described 
below. EPA's objective with statistical quality control is not to 
impose a complete new system of quality control measures, but rather to 
adopt a subset of SQC procedures that are already widely in use. We 
anticipate that the measures we have selected would not require the 
generation of much additional data by the laboratories that elect to 
employ them and that the SQC program would improve the quality of 
measurement among those labs that adopt such measures.
e. Qualification Criteria for Designated Method Installations Used To 
Qualify Method-Defined Parameter Instruments
    Designated test method installations that will be used to qualify 
method-defined parameter instruments are reference installations. Since 
reference installations will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other 
alternative test methods and to establish correlation equations, EPA 
believes that these reference installations should be held to higher 
standards.
    First, we are proposing that reference instruments meet precision 
qualification requirements that are similar to the criteria set forth 
in the nonroad diesel sulfur rule. As explained earlier, that rule 
imposed a maximum value for the standard deviation \433\ of a series of 
at least 20 measurements over at least 20 days on a single fuel under 
site precision conditions. Specifically, the diesel rule used 1.5 times 
the repeatability standard deviation (ASTM ``r''/2.77) of what was the 
least precise of the then-allowed methods. For those ``method-defined'' 
parameters from Table VI-1 above that do not currently have 
alternatives test methods the precision criteria is based on the fuel 
parameter's designated test method. In each case the precision 
criterion is determined by (``r''/2.77) X 1.5 where ``r'' is the ASTM 
repeatability determined for the particular fuel that is being used for 
the purpose of demonstrating the test method's precision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \433\ Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of 
the population (formula uses ``N-1'' in the denominator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we are proposing that such reference instruments must be 
shown to be near the middle of the distribution of the industry monthly 
inter-laboratory crosscheck (ILCC) program for at least the five months 
prior to application.\434\ We are also proposing that laboratories 
would specifically compute the difference between the instrument's 
average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable standards (or 
to the average value for the fuel type in the complex model) and the 
robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non-outlier labs in 
the program. And then standardize this difference by expressing it in 
robust standard deviation units. These standardized inter-laboratory 
cross check differences would be put into a moving average with a span 
of, for example, five months. We are proposing to set the standard such 
that the instrument's moving average would be within the central 50 
percent of the distribution of participating designated method labs. 
Because a robust standard deviation is used by the ILCC program, this 
percentage will have to be approximate. Such lab-specific qualification 
would be outside of the normal qualification of a lab for making 
regulatory measurements

[[Page 29961]]

for certifying fuel and would pertain only to use of the instrument in 
certifying other methods. In essence, these designated method 
installations will serve as surrogates for the gravimetric standards 
that cannot be used in qualifying alternative methods for method-
defined parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \434\ An alternative to this measure can be to use the ASTM 
D6299-10\e1\ calculations. This would require SQC so that the 
instrument would have an acceptable quality of performance. This 
could reduce the burden of calculations and align this requirement 
better with the NTTAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for reference installations we propose that the reference 
instrument must be shown to be in statistical control, as provided for 
in ASTM D6299-10\e1\ (and the SQC procedures to be discussed below); 
and that the applicant must maintain control charts showing a record of 
in-control operation for at least five months. While these requirements 
would likely impose a delay between instrument setup and the ability to 
qualify it as a reference installation, we believe that the delay is 
necessary to demonstrate the stability of these critically important 
installations. Considering the number of long-established installations 
of these designated methods, EPA expects no lack of facilities capable 
of meeting these standards and able to provide this service 
commercially to any party interested in qualifying a new installation 
for a method-defined parameter.
f. Qualification Criteria for Designated Test Method Installations That 
Are ``Method-Defined'' Parameters Instruments and Not Used To Qualify 
Other ``Method-Defined'' Methods
    Refiners, importers and oxygenate blenders producing gasoline and 
diesel fuel are required to test these fuels to determine the levels of 
various specified parameters. A designated test method is associated 
with each parameter to be tested (except for sulfur concentration in 
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, which must meet performance-based 
requirements\435\) in 40 CFR Part 80. Table VI-5 of this preamble lists 
the fuel parameters and their corresponding designated test methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \435\ See Sec. Sec.  80.580, 80.584 and 80.585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing today that installations of designated methods 
must maintain records they meet statistical quality control 
requirements as detailed below in this preamble. Requiring all 
installations of all methods, including existing designated method 
installations, to implement statistical quality control, as we are 
proposing today, would likely suffice to homogenize and improve 
measurement quality in these already-stable and standardized methods.
g. Qualification Criteria for Method Defined Parameter Instruments 
Other Than Designated Test Methods
    As discussed above, the Agency is also proposing to have two 
options for refiners to qualify an alternative test method that is a 
method-defined fuel parameter. The first option would allow for 
qualifying methods that have been sponsored and published by a VCSB, 
such as ASTM (the VCSB approach). The second way involves qualification 
for a laboratory that has developed its own analytical test method but 
has decided not to offer it for evaluation and establishment through a 
VCSB-based organizational process (the non-VCSB approach). Both options 
require the candidate method to have precision at least equal to that 
of the designated analytical test method (though not defined in 
precisely the same way). The alternative method must also be capable of 
close correlation with the designated method for the parameter such 
that the refiner may use the alternative method results to produce 
predicted designated method results that it can subsequently use in 
demonstrating compliance with the applicable fuel composition or 
performance standards. The proposed criteria for both the VCSB and non-
VCSB approaches to qualify method-defined instruments are discussed in 
further detail below.
i. Qualification Criteria for VCSB Method-Defined Parameter Test 
Methods
    The first of these approaches to qualifying alternative methods 
applies only to methods that have been sponsored and published by a 
VCSB, such as ASTM. We are proposing that the VCSB must have fully 
described the analytical test method, so that it is replicable in 
different laboratories and understood by any technician. We would 
consider publication of a method by a VCSB organization such as ASTM to 
meet this criterion. The VCSB must have tested the candidate method in 
a round robin program against the designated method, must have 
published a determination that the method meets the criteria specified 
in the discussion below, and must have published the information 
necessary to correlate the alternative method to the designated 
method.\436\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \436\ This first approach assumes that a single such equation 
can be used for all labs using the method, an assumption that may 
not always hold. The more detailed discussion of the two approaches 
that follows this introduction explores this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing that an alternative analytical test method 
need not be qualified separately in each laboratory that adopts it. 
This is because by the time such a test method has been through the 
extensive development process typically required by a VCSB, the 
method's procedures would have been exhaustively described. At this 
point there will be little uncertainty about how the analytical test 
method is to be applied, and it will have been implemented in a variety 
of different laboratories and used on a variety of different types of 
fuels. Therefore the VCSB-based process gives EPA some confidence that 
the analytical test method is likely to be stable in use and can be 
implemented with very little ambiguity regarding instrumentation, 
materials, and procedures. Moreover, VCSB method evaluation protocols 
have been established; including a protocol for comparing methods 
provide means for establishing a proposed VCSB alternative method's 
precision parity with the designated method for the parameter and for 
determining whether the alternative method can be adequately correlated 
with the designated method.\437\ EPA is also proposing that VCSB 
method-defined test methods utilize ASTM D6708 to determine if a 
correlation equation is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \437\ ASTM D 6708-08, entitled, Standard Practice for 
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between 
Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a 
Material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Qualification Criteria for Non-VCSB Method-Defined Parameter Test 
Methods
    The second way a candidate alternative method may qualify does not 
involve the process by which a VCSB evaluates and officially establish 
methods through publication. EPA is proposing that a candidate method 
that follows the non-VCSB-based route for qualification must be 
qualified independently by each analytical laboratory that wishes to 
adopt the method. This is because such a method has not been shown to 
be capable of accurately measuring the parameter in different 
laboratories and across a variety of fuel matrices.
    The following is a discussion of the qualification criteria for 
non-VCSB method-defined parameter test methods. First, the Agency 
proposes to require a complete operational description of the non-VCSB 
test method, as described above in Section VI.A.3.d.ii and VI.A.3.d.iii 
of this preamble. The operational description must be thorough enough 
that a person lacking expertise in the operation of the test instrument 
would be able to replicate its results.

[[Page 29962]]

    Second, the Agency proposes that the candidate non-VCSB test method 
be tested on a range of fuels \438\ and by a qualified reference 
installation of the applicable designated test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \438\ Fuels, either consensus named fuels or locally named 
reference materials, used must be typical of those to be analyzed by 
the facility in practice and must meet the data requirements 
(variability, etc.) of ASTM D6708-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Agency proposes that the specific laboratory using the 
candidate non-VCSB test method must statistically establish through 
application of ASTM D6708-08 that the candidate method measures the 
same aspect of samples as the applicable designated test method.
    Fourth, the Agency is proposing to disqualify non-VCSB test methods 
with important sample-specific biases (matrix effects) that cannot be 
considered as random as determined by ASTM D6708-08. It is possible a 
situation may arise where a non-VCSB test method suspected by the 
applicant of being highly matrix-sensitive may be qualified on a 
narrowly circumscribed range of fuels (which must meet the D6708-08 
statistical variability criteria). In this situation, the types of 
fuels on which qualification was achieved and for which the method is 
to be approved must be specified in the method description. Fuels 
outside of this scope would have to be analyzed for regulatory purposes 
by some other method that was not this limited. The Agency believes 
that any restriction on the scope of fuels for which the method is to 
be qualified must be accompanied by a discussion of how the applicant 
plans to screen samples for conformity to the scope.
    Fifth, the Agency proposes that precision qualification be 
conducted in the form of cross-method reproducibility \439\ of the 
candidate and applicable designated test method, where the cross-method 
reproducibility must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the 
published reproducibility of the applicable designated test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \439\ Cross-method reproducibility is a quantitative expression 
of the random error associated with the difference between two 
results obtained by different operators using different apparatus 
and applying the two methods X and Y, respectively, each obtaining a 
single result on a identical test sample, when the methods have been 
assessed and an appropriate bias-correction has been applied. It is 
defined as the 95 percent confidence limit for the difference 
between two such single and independent results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency believes, that when ASTM D6708-08 is used in this manner 
(without joint round robin data) the cross-method reproducibility (Rcm) 
output by the program is not really a reproducibility in the usual 
sense, but rather indicates the expected value with uncertainty of the 
differences between the designated method and qualification candidate 
method. We believe that when used this way, Rcm from ASTM D6708-08 is 
more analogous to a site precision than to an inter-laboratory 
reproducibility.
    As described, this measure can reasonably be expected to fall 
between the published reproducibility (R) and repeatability (r) of the 
designated test method. Because qualified alternative test methods 
should be able to generally do as well as the designated test method 
Rcm be less than or equal to ``R''. Since ``R'' is typically 
established when the test method is first developed, and laboratory 
experience with it is limited, the real reproducibility for a method 
long in service is likely to be smaller than ``R.'' Moreover, as 
mentioned above, Rcm is more like a site precision number, for a well-
run installation, that must be smaller than ``R'' since the systematic 
component of the differences between the instruments has been adjusted 
out and the ``within-method-interlaboratory'' component of variance is 
not present. On the other end of the space between ``r'' and ``R,'' the 
published repeatability has far fewer sources of variability than any 
other measure of its kind, suggesting that the cut-point should be 
closer to ``R'' than to ``r''. The proposed 70 percent fraction of 
published reproducibility was selected because there is some evidence 
to suggest that site precisions for various methods/parameters tend to 
average around that fraction of the same method's published 
reproducibility. We are also requesting comment on the appropriate 
percentage of ``R'' that the ``cross-method reproducibility'' should be 
equal to or less than.
    Sixth, the Agency proposes that the applicant demonstrate, through 
the use of ASTM D6708-08, whether a correlation to the designated test 
method is necessary. ASTM D6708-08 can also be used to determine 
whether the candidate method's results are null compared to the 
designated test method and thus needs no adjustment or correlation, or 
whether some correction or correlation equation is required so the 
candidate method may predict designated method results. We are 
proposing the use of ASTM 6708-08 for corrections, if it is determined 
through the use of ASTM D6708-08 that the candidate method requires 
such a correction to predict designated test method results. The Agency 
proposes that the correction would be applied to the candidate 
instruments output to obtain measurements results for regulatory 
purposes.
    Finally, we are proposing to require that applicants for non-VCSB 
test methods secure an independent third party oversight and audit 
review of the data generated and used to qualify non-VCSB test methods. 
We are proposing that the independent third party would provide an 
overall assessment of the analytical technique and methodology and 
discuss any limitations in the scope of the method, as well as attest 
that all the requirements for non-VCSB test method qualification have 
been satisfied. The Agency believes this requirement would provide 
additional assurance that a non-VCSB test method is found to be 
adequate in use for compliance.
    We seek comments on all aspects of today's proposal. Additionally, 
the Agency is particularly interested in comments on the 
appropriateness of the qualification criteria for candidate method-
defined parameter non-VCSB test methods.
h. Statistical quality control: How can we ensure that test methods 
continue to deliver quality measurement in practice?
    As discussed previously, an important element of today's proposal 
is a statistical quality control program that may be applied to any 
analytical test method used in the regulatory programs covered by this 
proposal. Today, the Agency is proposing that every laboratory using 
test instruments to measure fuel parameters must implement and maintain 
a basic SQC program in order to satisfy EPA's reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements. We are proposing that every laboratory have 
a separate SQC program for each instrument used to make measurements 
for reporting or recordkeeping purposes.\440\ This is unlike the 
qualification criteria requirements, where only one of a set of 
essentially identical instruments implementing the same method in a 
laboratory must qualify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \440\ Such SQC programs are already an established part of VCSB 
protocols for analytical laboratory operation (as indicated by such 
practices as ASTM's D6299-10\e1\) and are likely to be part of most 
laboratories ''standard operating procedures.'' Thus, such a 
requirement very likely adds little or nothing in the way of burden 
for most laboratories. Laboratories that lack such programs and 
would have to expend significant effort to create them are those 
most at risk for poor measurements and for which the effort is most 
easily justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing that implementation of a SQC program by a 
laboratory would be a defense in any subsequent enforcement actions 
where the measurements are in use. We are proposing to adopt a subset 
of SQC procedures that are already widely in use from ASTM D6299-
10\e1\. We anticipate that the measures we are

[[Page 29963]]

proposing would not require the generation of much additional data by 
the laboratory that employs them and that the SQC program would improve 
the quality of measurement among those labs that adopt such measures. 
These SQC procedures used by laboratories would ensure that the test 
methods they have qualified and the instruments on which the methods 
are run are yielding results with appropriate accuracy and precision, 
e.g., that the results from a particular instrument does not ``drift'' 
over time to yield unacceptable values. The proposed minimum specific 
SQC requirements for laboratories that measures absolute parameters, 
and both VCSB and non-VCSB methods used to measure method-defined 
parameters, are discussed in further detail below.
i. Statistical Quality Control for Absolute Parameters
    We are proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for each 
instrument used to measure absolute parameters in the laboratory. We 
are proposing that every instrument would test a quality control 
(``QC'') material \441\ either of: once per 20 production tests or once 
per week and maintain both an ``I'' chart \442\ and an ``MR'' 
chart.\443\ We are proposing that any violations of the control 
limit(s) would be investigated by laboratory personnel, corrective 
action taken as required, and records kept of the incident for a period 
of 5 years. We are also proposing to follow the procedures of ASTM 
D6299-10\e1\ for making transition from one batch of QC material to 
another. We are a also proposing the use of Annex A1.9, entitled ``Q-
Procedure,'' of ASTM D6299-10\e1\ for validating new QC material. We 
are proposing that when QC material is soon-to-be-depleted, that a new 
batch of QC material is prepared and its value compared to the old QC 
material on a chart. The new batch of QC material would be tested 
concurrently with the soon-to-be-depleted old QC material. The results 
would be plotted from the ``old'' and ``new'' QC materials on its 
respective chart, and if no special-cause signals are noted, then the 
result for the new material would be considered valid.\444\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \441\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition 
and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, 
storage and use of reference material samples.
    \442\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for 
chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon 
corrective action.
    \443\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section A1.5.2 for chart 
construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should 
be investigated.
    \444\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Annex A1.9 Q-Procedure. Procedures 
differ depending whether an I-chart, MR chart, EWMA chart, Q-chart 
or a combination of these charts are utilized by the laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to require that every instrument tests a 
commercially available gravimetric standard reference material (SRM) 
(``check standard'' as defined in ASTM D6299-10\e1\) on a quarterly 
basis. The absolute difference between the mean of multiple back-to-
back tests of the SRM and ARV of the SRM greater than 0.75 times the 
published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by 
laboratory personnel, appropriate action taken, and records kept of the 
incident and investigation. We are proposing that records of the SRM 
measurements and investigations into any exceedances of these proposed 
criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. Additionally, we are 
proposing to require laboratories to pre-treat and assess results from 
the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions,\445\ 
construct ``MR'' and ``I'' charts \446\ with control lines, and 
maintain control charts, logging, investigating, and correcting the 
underlying causes of any control limit violations as discussed in ASTM 
D6299-10\e1\. We are proposing that records of such incidents and the 
underlying control charts must be kept by the facility for a period of 
5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \445\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and 
Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon whether a 
single check standard is used for multiple testing occasions or 
multiple check standards must be used.
    \446\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex 
sections for chart construction and guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Statistical Quality Control for VCSB-Approved Methods Used To 
Measure Method-Defined Parameters
    We are proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for every 
instrument used in VCSB-approved methods to measure method-defined 
parameters in the laboratory. With regard to precision, we are 
proposing the same SQC for instruments used for absolute parameters. We 
are proposing that every instrument test a quality control QC material 
\447\ once every 20 production tests or once per week whichever is more 
frequent. We are also proposing the maintenance of an ``I'' chart \448\ 
and a ``MR'' chart.\449\ We are proposing that violations of the 
control limit(s) in these charts would be investigated, corrective 
action taken as required, and records kept of the incident for a period 
of 5 years. We are also proposing that laboratories follow the 
procedures of ASTM D6299-10\e1\ for making the transition from one 
batch of QC material to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \447\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition 
and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, 
storage and use of reference material samples.
    \448\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for 
chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon 
corrective action.
    \449\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section A1.5.2 for chart 
construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should 
be investigated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to accuracy we are proposing that each laboratory 
perform a check standard \450\ for each instrument as defined in ASTM 
D6299-10\e1\ for each instrument on a quarterly basis. We propose that 
check standards for ``method-defined'' parameters must be ordinary 
fuels with levels of the parameter of interest close to either 
regulatory standards or to the average level of use. We also propose 
that ARVs of such standards must be determined through consensus 
methods \451\ on designated method instruments. The absolute difference 
between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the SRM and ARV of 
the SRM greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the 
test method must be investigated, appropriate action taken by 
laboratory personnel, and records kept of the incident and 
investigation. We are proposing that records of the SRM measurements 
and investigations into any exceedance of the criteria must be kept for 
a period of 5 years. Additionally, we are proposing that laboratories 
must pre-treat and assess results from the check standard testing after 
at least 15 testing occasions,\452\ construct ``MR'' and ``I'' charts 
\453\ with control lines, and maintain control charts, logging, 
investigating, and correcting the underlying causes of any control 
limit violations as discussed in ASTM D6299-10\e1\. We are proposing 
that records of such incidents and the underlying control charts must 
be kept by the laboratory for a period of 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \450\ As defined in ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 3,2,3, and 
further discussed in Section 6.2. Optimum use of materials that are 
consensus-named by a number of laboratories may be possible only if 
these materials are distributed in sufficient quantity that they may 
be used as check standards after their consensus-determined ARV is 
known by all laboratories. As mentioned in the text, only 
measurements made on the designated method for the parameter in 
question may be used in determining the ARV for this purpose.
    \451\ Following the guidelines of ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 
6.2.2.
    \452\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and 
Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon whether a 
single check standard is used for multiple testing occasions or 
multiple check standards must be used.
    \453\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex 
sections for chart construction and guidance.

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

[[Page 29964]]

iii. Statistical Quality Control for Non-VCSB Methods Used To Measure 
Method-Defined Parameters
    We are also proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for 
instruments used in non-VCSB methods to measure method-defined 
parameters in the laboratory. We are proposing precision requirements 
for instruments used in these types of test methods that are the same 
as those proposed for absolute parameters. We are proposing that every 
instrument be tested on a quality control ``QC'' material \454\ once 
per 20 production tests or once per week, whichever is more frequent. 
We are also proposing the maintenance of an ``I'' chart \455\ and a 
``MR'' chart.\456\ We are proposing that violations of the control 
limit(s) in these charts should be investigated, corrective action 
taken as required, and that records of the incident must be kept for a 
period of 5 years. We are proposing that laboratories follow the 
procedures of ASTM D6299-10\e1\ for transitioning from one batch of QC 
material to the next.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \454\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition 
and Section 6.1 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, 
storage and use of quality control samples.
    \455\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for 
chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon 
corrective action.
    \456\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section A1.5.2 for chart 
construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should 
be investigated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed accuracy requirement depends on whether the method-
defined parameter test method has minimal matrix interferences or 
whether the method-defined parameter test method is highly sensitive to 
matrix composition. The Agency believes that non-VCSB test methods are 
expected to vary considerably to the extent that their results are 
sensitive to fuel characteristics other than the level of the analyte 
of interest. For methods judged by their operators to be relatively 
insensitive to such matrix effects, EPA believes that the same SQC 
accuracy approach used with VCSB-approved methods measuring ``method-
defined'' parameters is appropriate. Where this is the case, a 
statement to this effect must be included in the application for 
qualification. Any decision to abandon this approach to SQC accuracy 
must be reported to EPA along with the data and reasoning that led to 
the conclusion.
    For non-VCSB methods used to measure method-defined parameters that 
are highly sensitive to matrix composition, we are proposing the same 
accuracy requirements that must be maintained as for other methods for 
method-defined parameters, except that the check standards will consist 
of production fuels, representative of those production fuels routinely 
analyzed by the laboratory, that have been submitted to a reference 
installation of the designated test method. We are proposing that the 
designated test method measurements should be replicated and the 
average of these results used as the ARV for the check standard. 
Additionally, we are proposing that the laboratory operating the 
alternative method is responsible for the qualification status and 
current stability of the reference method installation (for example, 
documentation on the identity of the reference installation and its 
control status must be maintained on the premises of the laboratory 
that is using the alternative test method).
    Also for non-VCSB methods, the Agency is proposing external checks 
on the accuracy of matrix-sensitive methods. Laboratories that have 
qualified such a method would be required to send a sample of each 20th 
production batch of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA's Ann Arbor 
laboratory, along with the lab's measurement results using the 
alternative method (the result used to certify the batch). The EPA lab 
may return such a sample on a blind basis for a required reanalysis by 
the originating laboratory at any time up to two months from EPA's 
receipt of the sample. This external control is an additional check on 
both the site precision of the alternative method and its accuracy. We 
request comments on all aspects of our proposal.
i. Agency Approval Options
    We are proposing to require qualification of only non-VCSB test 
methods for fuel parameters. We are also seeking comment on whether we 
should require qualification of all test methods for fuel parameters. 
We are also proposing a requirement for regulated parties to identify 
the test method used for each compliance measurement as part of the 
applicable record keeping and reporting. The following section contains 
a discussion of our proposal.
    We believe that the proposed approach to performance-based 
qualification of test methods goes considerably beyond the minimum 
requirements of the NTTAA in providing flexibility of method choice, 
and accomplish performance-based qualification without compromising 
measurement quality. We also believe that the primary tools for 
achieving the latter objective are lab-specific qualification of method 
installations and a requirement for across-the-board SQC. While EPA 
would benefit from finalizing today's proposal by no longer having to 
evaluate new alternative measurement methodologies, this benefit is not 
likely to offset the substantial and unpredictable resource costs 
involved in administering a qualification process and providing 
infrastructural support for laboratories' SQC programs.
i. Agency Approval of Only Non-VCSB Methods
    We are proposing that only non-VCSB test methods for fuel 
parameters would need to be qualified. We are proposing to exclude 
designated test methods that have been in operation 6 months prior to 
finalizing this rule, as discussed below, as well as test methods that 
are developed by VCSBs, like ASTM International or the International 
Organization for Standards (ISO). A laboratory that has developed a 
test method but has decided not to offer it for evaluation and 
establishment through a VCSB-based organizational process would be 
required to qualify the test methods using the process discussed 
earlier.\457\ We are proposing that such test methods must be qualified 
independently by each analytical laboratory that wishes to adopt the 
test method. This is because such a test method has not been shown to 
be capable of accurately measuring the parameter in different 
laboratories and across a variety of fuel matrices. The precision for 
the candidate analytical test method must be established by a medium-
term series of measurements on production fuels, the workability of the 
test method must be verified by at least one other laboratory, and its 
accuracy must be demonstrated by direct correlation to the designated 
analytical test method for the particular fuel parameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \457\ Reasons for not submitting a local method for VCSB 
evaluation may include the proprietary nature of software or 
apparatus or the fact that the method is highly matrix-sensitive and 
not likely to perform consistently when used to analyze fuels with 
widely varying properties. EPA recognizes that matrix sensitivities 
may be subtle and methods with such characteristics may have been 
sponsored and published by VCSB's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing the following requirements for test methods that 
have been sponsored and published by a VCSB such as ASTM or ISO. The 
test method must be fully described so that it is replicable in many 
different laboratories and so that its operation may be understood by a 
technician. The VCSB must have tested the candidate test method in a 
round robin program against the designated test method, must have 
published a determination that the

[[Page 29965]]

test method meets the performance criteria as discussed, and must have 
published the information necessary to correlate the alternative test 
method to the designated test method.\458\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \458\ This first approach assumes that a single such equation 
can be used for all labs using the method, an assumption that may 
not always hold. The more detailed discussion of the two approaches 
that follows this introduction explores this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing a system of self-qualification for VCSB-based 
alternative test methods. Thus, we are also proposing that a VCSB-based 
candidate alternative test method need not be qualified separately in 
each laboratory that adopts it. This is because by the time a VCSB-
based candidate alternative test method has been through the extensive 
development process typically required by a VCSB, the test method's 
procedures will have been exhaustively described. At this point there 
will be little uncertainty about how the analytical test method is to 
be applied, and it will have been implemented in a variety of different 
laboratories and used on a variety of different types of fuels. 
Therefore, the VCSB-based process gives EPA some confidence that the 
analytical test method is likely to be stable in use and can be 
implemented with very little ambiguity regarding instrumentation, 
materials, and procedures.
    VCSB method evaluation protocols have been established, including a 
recently developed protocol for comparing methods, which provide means 
for establishing a proposed VCSB alternative method's precision parity 
with the designated method for the parameter \459\ and for determining 
whether the alternative test method can be adequately correlated with 
the designated test method.\460\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \459\ ASTM D 6708-08, entitled, Standard Practice for 
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between 
Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a 
Material.
    \460\ ASTM D 6708-08, entitled, Standard Practice for 
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between 
Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a 
Material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also recognize that imposing this qualification requirement on 
existing test methods developed by a VCSB without adequate lead time 
may be problematic. We are thus proposing to give methods published and 
in operation when this proposal is published a grace period of one year 
from the effective date of a final rule before they meet these proposed 
requirements.
    We are also proposing to exempt existing (i.e., in use for six 
months prior to publication of this proposal) installations of 
designated test methods that are method-defined parameters from the 
qualification requirement. We presume these to be stable and capable 
methods in relatively experienced hands. Because they are already being 
used to certify fuels, requiring their qualification could be 
disruptive and burdensome to both their operators and to whoever 
manages the qualification process. Such installations would not benefit 
tangibly from this rule (as by obtaining access to a desired new 
method), but would nevertheless bear a newly-imposed burden.
    We are also proposing to require record keeping and retention 
requirements for both VCSB alternative and non-VCSB test methods. 
Parties would need to maintain qualification records for demonstrating 
compliance for a period of 5 years after they cease use of the 
particular test method. Parties must also maintain a complete 
description of the test method and data with statistical analysis that 
supports its qualification.
    We are also seeking comment on whether the Agency should require 
qualification of all analytical test methods for the fuel parameters at 
40 CFR 80. This would include each designated test method, all 
alternative test methods currently allowed by our regulations, as well 
as any other analytical test method regardless of whether the test 
method was developed by a voluntary consensus standards based 
organization, like ASTM, or if it is a proprietary analytical test 
method, that is, non-VCSB test method.
    We recognize that imposing the qualification requirement on 
existing and operational installations of all methods without adequate 
lead time may be problematic. We are thus proposing to give such 
laboratories (i.e., those in operation when this proposal is published) 
a grace period of one year from the effective date of the final rule 
before they must have qualified if they wish to continue in operation. 
We believe that a year should be enough time to determine whether an 
existing test method is likely to qualify or to adopt and qualify a 
replacement test method if it should fall short. New installations of 
previously accepted methods, including alternatives, would be required 
to qualify their laboratory before being put into service just like all 
other installations of new test methods in a laboratory.
4. Downstream Pentane Blending
    The current regulations at 40 CFR 80.82 reduce the burden of 
compliance with EPA gasoline quality requirements for parties that 
blend butane into conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline (RFG), 
or reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) downstream of 
a crude oil refinery. Parties that conduct such butane blending are 
considered a refiner, however, they are not subject to sampling testing 
requirements that would otherwise apply to a refiner provided they use 
butane of known quality and meet certain other requirements. Butane 
blending is not allowed into RFG or RBOB from April 1 through September 
30 or into any RFG or RBOB that is designated as VOC-controlled. Butane 
blenders must test to ensure that the volatility requirements of the 
final gasoline blend are met. Testing to demonstrate compliance with 
other gasoline compositional requirements is not required provided that 
the blender has documents from the supplier demonstrating the butane is 
``commercial grade.'' Commercial grade butane is currently defined as 
butane for which test results demonstrate that it is 95 percent pure 
and has the following properties: sulfur <= 30 ppm, benzene <= 0.03 
volume percent, olefins <= 1.0 volume percent, and aromatics <= 2.0 
volume percent. Documents from the supplier demonstrating the butane is 
``non-commercial grade'' may also be used to demonstrate compliance 
with gasoline quality requirements other than volatility provided the 
blender conducts a quality assurance program on the butane they blend. 
Non-commercial grade butane is currently defined as follows: sulfur <= 
30 ppm, benzene <= 0.03 volume percent, olefins <= 10.0 volume percent, 
and aromatics <= 2.0 volume percent. Today's action is proposing to 
amend these butane specifications to replace the current 30 ppm sulfur 
cap with a 10 ppm cap consistent with today's proposed 10 ppm refinery 
average sulfur standard.
    Butane blenders stated that broadening the downstream butane 
blending provisions to include pentane would help to increase the 
domestic supply of gasoline by providing a market for the pentane 
fraction of natural gasoline liquids. A substantial increase in the 
production of natural gasoline liquids is occurring as a by-product of 
increased domestic natural gas and crude oil production in the U.S. 
Given the lower volatility of pentane compared to butane, a greater 
volume of such domestically-available feedstocks could be blended into 
gasoline downstream of the refinery while still maintaining the 
gasoline quality specifications including RVP. We request comment on 
whether the provisions for butane blending might also be applied to 
pentane blending,

[[Page 29966]]

including the specifications for the fuel qualities noted above. 
Specific comment is requested on the potential vehicle emissions and 
operability effects from such pentane blending. To the extent that 
pentane blending might displace butane blending, there may be some 
decrease in evaporative emissions due to pentane's lower boiling point 
compared to butane. Therefore, we anticipate that allowing downstream 
blending of pentane would have a neutral or marginally beneficial 
effect on vehicle emissions. If we were to extend the downstream butane 
blending provisions to pentane, we also seek comment on whether any 
additional pentane quality specifications or blending requirements 
would be necessary to protect vehicle emissions and operability 
performance.

B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs

    We are proposing several technical amendments to existing 
regulatory requirements for motor vehicles and other types of vehicles 
and engines. These changes are intended to align with the Tier 3 
standards proposed in this rule and to make various adjustments and 
corrections to the regulations. We are also proposing to remove large 
portions of obsolete regulatory text and update cross references 
accordingly. We request comment on all these amendments. However, we 
are not requesting comment on the underlying regulatory requirements 
except as specifically described in this section.
1. Fuel Economy Labeling
    EPA adopted updated fuel economy labeling requirements in 40 CFR 
part 600 on July 6, 2011.\461\ The label displays a smog rating based 
on relative emission rates for certified vehicles. With new Tier 3 
standards, this rating scale becomes less useful, since the Tier 3 
standards would disallow certification to half of the existing smog 
ratings. We are therefore proposing a new smog rating scale starting in 
model year 2018. Manufacturers choosing to transition to the Tier 3 
NMOG+NOX standards based on a percentage phase-in could 
continue to meet Tier 2 standards for the ``phase-out'' fraction of the 
fleet through model year 2020, but would use a new smog rating scale 
that lines up, to the extent possible, the Tier 2 standards with the 
new Tier 3 scale. We believe it is appropriate to shift to the new 
scale in model year 2018 to reflect the start of Tier 3 program for the 
majority of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \461\ 76 FR 39478 (July 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The smog rating scale ranges from 1 to 10. The federal Tier 3 
program comprises seven different NMOG+NOX emission 
certification levels. In addition, the California ZEV program for 2018 
and later model years includes a unique TZEV category, which falls 
between a ZEV (Bin 0) and a SULEV20 (Bin 20), resulting in a total of 
eight emission standards.\462\ We propose to omit rankings 2 and 4, 
ranking the eight emission levels in order over the remaining ratings. 
Omitting ratings 2 and 4 helps convey the larger absolute differences 
in the g/mile standards between Bins 70 and 125 and Bins 125 and 160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \462\ https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/zev2012/fro2rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also propose to adjust the scale again in model year 2025 so 
that, consistent with the fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating, the 
middle of the scale (a smog rating of 5 or 6) is equivalent to the 
fleet average standard of 0.030 g/mile for NMOG+NOX. Using 
this approach, we would apply a smog rating of 8 for TZEVs and omit 9 
from the smog ratings. We request comment on applying smog ratings to 
TZEV vehicles; in particular, we request comment on any appropriate 
differentiation of TZEV vehicles, such as assigning different smog 
ratings based on the particular SULEV exhaust emission standards or the 
allowance value for different all-electric range values.
    We request comment on these and other alternative approaches to 
revising the specifications for the smog rating on the fuel economy 
label. We also request comment on whether one or more transition rating 
scales would be appropriate to gradually adjust the smog rating scale 
as the fleet average standards become more stringent.
2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text
    EPA regulations for highway and nonroad engines, vehicles, and 
equipment in many cases apply for a range of model years before being 
replaced by a new set of standards, requirements, and other provisions 
for implementing a program that changes to reflect technological 
innovation, changing environmental needs, new business dynamics, and 
other factors.
    We are proposing to take steps in this rulemaking to remove 
substantial portions of regulatory text that no longer have any 
regulatory significance, generally because they have been superseded by 
newer provisions. In many cases, this simply involves removing 
paragraphs or sections related to certifying products that no longer 
apply to 2004 or newer model years. In other cases, we can remove whole 
subparts that apply only to engines and vehicles that have reached the 
end of their useful lives for the purpose of regulation. For example, 
the in-use regulations from 40 CFR part 86, subpart H, applied only for 
1993 through 2003 model year light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 
and medium-duty passenger vehicles. Also, the National LEV standards in 
40 CFR part 86, subpart R (and in Appendix XIII through XVIII of part 
86), applied only for 1999 through 2003 model years. These subparts, 
and references to that content, can be removed from the CFR.
    Similarly, the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, applied to 
light-duty vehicles only through model year 2000 for light-duty 
vehicles and model year 2004 for light-duty trucks and chassis-
certified heavy-duty vehicles. Much of that subpart continues to apply 
for heavy-duty engines, so the obsolete portions must be removed more 
selectively. The proposal includes removal of substantial portions of 
40 CFR part 86, subpart A, to omit text that applies only for light-
duty vehicles or light-duty trucks, and additional portions that do not 
apply for any 2004 or newer model years.
    There are also instances where we are proposing to streamline the 
organization of regulatory sections in 40 CFR part 86. For those places 
where there is a new section for a given model year where all the old 
provisions continue to apply, and the new section introduces a narrow 
additional provision, we are proposing to copy the new paragraph into 
the section for the older model-year provisions, with descriptive 
language in place to say when the new provision applies. This 
consolidation would allow us to take out numerous sections that can 
lead to confusion for the reader.
    The following sections describe additional changes to remove 
material.
a. Certification Short Test and I/M Provisions
    Inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs have been implemented by 
state and local governments for many years. These programs have been 
effective at identifying vehicles that need some kind of repair to 
restore vehicles' emission control systems. In that context, they have 
also provided useful information to facilitate warranty coverage where 
defective components or systems were still covered by the 
manufacturer's warranty, as required by section 207 of the Clean Air 
Act. In 1993, EPA adopted a requirement for

[[Page 29967]]

the certification short test (``CST'' or ``cert short test'').\463\ The 
purpose of the cert short test was to correlate the vehicle 
manufacturer's certification and I/M testing. Under this approach, the 
vehicle manufacturer certifies that a properly maintained and operated 
vehicle will pass I/M testing. When such a vehicle fails I/M during the 
warranty period, the manufacturer is responsible for the cost of 
repairs necessary to correct the problem so the vehicle can pass the I/
M test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \463\ 58 FR 58382 (November 1, 1993)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA adopted requirements in 1993 for manufacturers to design and 
build their vehicles with OBD, which provides performance feedback for 
evaluating whether emission control systems are functioning properly. 
This rule, combined with fleet turnover, has resulted in vehicles 
subject to I/M being equipped with OBD. The standard protocol for I/M 
programs now depends on the OBD system instead of tailpipe tests to 
determine which vehicles need maintenance. Since vehicle manufacturers 
have to certify the performance of OBD systems as part of the 
certification process, the use of OBD for I/M testing also provides a 
basis for determining that emission repairs are covered by the 
manufacturer's warranty, when necessary. For many years, manufacturers 
have submitted a compliance statement for certification instead of 
submitting data to demonstrate that they meet the standards associated 
with the cert short test. Since emission measurements are no longer 
part of any standardized I/M testing, it has become clear that OBD 
systems have completely replaced the cert short test as the means of 
making warranty determinations for I/M testing. We are therefore 
proposing in this rule to entirely remove the cert short test standards 
and test procedures from 40 CFR part 86, subparts O and S, and to 
similarly remove the emission measurement procedures from 40 CFR part 
85, subpart W.
    The remaining regulatory text in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W, relates 
only to the role of OBD testing in the determination of manufacturers' 
warranty obligations resulting from I/M testing. In addition to 
removing material that no longer applies based on model years, we are 
proposing to update this remaining text in two ways. First, we are 
expanding the scope to include medium-duty passenger vehicles since 
these vehicles are now subject to both OBD certification requirements 
and I/M testing. Second, we are replacing all citations to SAE 
reference procedures with a cross-reference to 40 CFR 86.1806, where we 
already specify all the relevant OBD reference procedures. This avoids 
the possibility of changing the certification procedures in a way that 
departs from the I/M and warranty provisions. Since these programs are 
paired, there would never be a need to specify different reference 
procedures for the two programs.
b. Testing for Heavy-Duty Highway Engines
    We recently completed the migration of test procedures for heavy-
duty highway engines from 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, to 40 CFR part 
1065. Now that these manufacturers are all relying the new test 
procedures, we are proposing to eliminate the regulatory provisions 
that no longer apply. This involves large portions of text in 40 CFR 
part 86, subpart N, that have been superseded by analogous material in 
40 CFR part 1065, such as analyzer specifications, calibration 
procedures, calculation methods, and fuel specifications. The obsolete 
text also included several references to 40 CFR part 86, subpart D, 
which we are also proposing to no longer print in the CFR.
    We are keeping regulatory provisions in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, 
that serve as the ``standard-setting part'' for matters related to 
testing, such as the duty cycles and not-to-exceed test procedures. 
These provisions are unique to heavy-duty highway engines and are 
therefore not suitable for the general test specifications in 40 CFR 
part 1065.
    In the case of testing in-use engines that were originally 
certified using the procedures in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, we are 
including a regulatory provision that would allow EPA and manufacturers 
to continue to use the original certification procedures as a pre-
approved alternate procedure.
c. Testing for Heavy-Duty Highway Vehicles
    The regulations at 40 CFR part 85, subpart M, describe how to test 
heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to demonstrate compliance 
with evaporative emission standards. Most of these provisions are 
identical to those that apply under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B. This can 
better be accomplished with appropriate references to the procedures in 
subpart B instead of repeating text. Relying on references to subpart B 
would eliminate many pages of unnecessary printing, but it would also 
make it easier for us to maintain a consistent set of requirements. 
Changing a provision in subpart B would automatically apply for 
evaporative testing of heavy-duty vehicles without making that 
duplicate change in subpart M. In addition, as noted in Section IV.C, 
we are proposing to allow manufacturers of these vehicles to rely on an 
engineering analysis instead of performing new tests. This would 
further reduce the need to have separate requirements spelled out for 
these vehicles. The revised regulations preserve provisions that are 
specific to heavy-duty vehicle testing. In particular, the heavy-duty 
procedure involves testing with a different driving schedule and wider 
speed tolerances, testing does not involve ethanol-blended test fuel, 
and exhaust emissions are not measured during the drive preceding the 
two-day diurnal emission test.
    In some cases, the current regulations in subparts B and M include 
differences in test provisions that we are not preserving. Some of 
these differences arose from changes to subpart B that were 
inadvertently not carried over to subpart M. In other cases, there may 
have been an intentional distinction that no longer applies (such as 
provisions related to slippage on twin-roll dynamometers. Perhaps the 
most important of these include procedures for determining road load 
settings and for operating manual or automatic transmissions. 
Additional differences we are not preserving include gas divider 
specifications, SHED and dynamometer calibration procedures, and some 
provisions for alternative canister loading and vehicle 
preconditioning. We are also restoring paragraphs Sec.  86.1235(b) 
through (i) related to dynamometer operating procedures, which were 
inadvertently removed in an earlier rulemaking. This leaner approach 
for vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR is also consistent with our proposed 
change to waive evaporative testing requirements for certifying these 
vehicles.
d. Service Information Requirements for Light-Duty Vehicles
    The service information regulations were originally adopted for 
light-duty motor vehicles 40 CFR 86.038-96. These requirements applied 
for 1996 and later model year vehicles. Starting with the 2001 model 
year, these same requirements were copied into Sec.  86.1808-01. These 
two sets of requirements are identical except for the model year 
applicability and a variety of very minor stylistic differences. We are 
proposing to revise the service information regulations in Sec.  
86.1808-01 to apply also to 1996 through 2000 model year vehicles, and 
to correct several typographical and formatting errors. These changes 
should have no practical significance, since the

[[Page 29968]]

requirements are the same in both regulatory sections.
3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules
    The CFR includes two separate driving schedules for motorcycles. 
The first, for motorcycles at or above 170 cubic centimeters (cc), is 
identical to that used for light-duty vehicles except that the speeds 
are converted to kilometers per hour. The second driving schedule, for 
smaller motorcycles, is also identical except for a period of about 
three minutes of reduced-speed operation. To simplify this arrangement, 
and to make room for the new LA-92 driving schedule described in 
Section IV.B for heavy-duty vehicles, and also to allow for reference 
to m/s values as described above for light-duty vehicles, we are 
proposing to eliminate the identical portions of these drive schedules. 
This revised approach involves referencing the driving schedule for 
light-duty vehicles with instructions to convert to kilometers per hour 
and round the resulting speeds to the nearest 0.1 kilometers per hour, 
instead of repeating the driving schedule just to publish the same 
speed trace in different units. The unique portion of the driving 
schedule is laid out, with reference to the light-duty driving schedule 
for the portions that are unchanged. This is not intended to cause any 
change in the current requirements or practices for certifying 
motorcycles.
4. Updating Reference Procedures
    The regulations in 40 CFR part 1065 depend on a large number of 
reference procedures and technical standards from ASTM, SAE 
International, and ISO, among others. These reference procedures and 
technical standards are updated periodically to keep them current with 
ongoing developments in the field. Many times these changes include 
only minor corrections or clarifications. In other cases the updates 
incorporate new test methods, accommodate changing engine technologies, 
or other more substantive changes. Whether the updated reference 
documents involve major changes or not, it is important for the 
regulations to rely on documents that are readily available. Toward 
that end, we plan to update Sec.  1065.1010 with the latest versions of 
all the reference procedures and technical standards that we identify.
    In areas of the regulations other than part 1065, we intend to rely 
on the latest reference documents where we are changing or adding a 
provision that depends on one of these reference documents, but we do 
not plan in this rulemaking to make broad or universal changes to these 
references.
    One particular area of interest relates to rounding. As described 
in Section IV.F.3, we are proposing to define ``round'' for 40 CFR part 
86 to have the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1065.20, which spells out a 
detailed rounding protocol that is consistent with ASTM E29 and NIST 
SP811. The proposed definition of ``round'' will defer to existing 
references in part 86 so that the part 1065 protocol will apply only 
where we do not specifically refer to ASTM E29. This is not intended to 
change the policy for calculating or reporting numerical quantities, 
but rather to clarify the protocol and avoid the administrative 
complication of referencing multiple versions of the ASTM document.

VII. What are the cost impacts of the proposed rule?

    We have estimated the costs for both the proposed vehicle standards 
described in Section IV and the proposed fuel standards described in 
Section V. This section summarizes these costs, while further 
information on the methodology we used to develop these costs can be 
found in Chapters 2 and 5 of the draft RIA.
    Section VII.C provides a summary of total costs for the proposed 
vehicle and fuel programs together. We have also compared the proposed 
program costs to the projected emission reductions in Section VII.D and 
compared these cost-effectiveness estimates to those for other 
programs. For a comparison of the program costs to the monetized health 
and welfare benefits, see Section VIII.

A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle Standards

    To determine the cost for vehicles, we first determined which 
technologies were most likely to be applied by vehicle manufacturers to 
meet the proposed standards assuming gasoline sulfur levels were 
reduced to a 10 ppm average. These technologies were then combined into 
technology packages which reflected vehicle design attributes that 
directly contribute to a vehicle's emissions performance. The 
attributes considered included vehicle type (car or truck), number of 
cylinders, engine displacement, and the type of fuel used (gasoline or 
diesel). We also created separate packages for light-duty and heavy-
duty trucks and vans. In estimating both cost and technology 
application, we have relied on publicly available information (such as 
that developed by California), confidential information supplied by 
individual manufacturers and suppliers, and the results of our own in-
house testing. The technology packages that we developed represent what 
we consider to be the most likely average emissions control solution 
for each vehicle type.
    In general, we expect that the majority of vehicles would be able 
to comply with the Tier 3 standards which we are proposing through 
refinements of current emissions control components and systems. Some 
vehicles may require additional emission controls, such as large trucks 
with large displacement engines (in particular, LDT3s and LDT4s). 
Overall, smaller, lighter-weight vehicles will require less extensive 
improvements than larger vehicles and trucks. Specifically, we 
anticipate a combination of technology upgrades including:
     Catalyst Platinum Group Metal (PGM) Loading. Increased 
catalyst application of precious metals.
     Optimized Close-coupled catalyst: Improvements to the 
catalyst system design, structure, and packaging to reduce light-off 
time.
     Optimized Thermal Management: Overall thermal management 
of the emissions control system to improve to shorten the time it takes 
for the catalyst to light-off.
     Secondary Air Injection: Increased application of 
secondary air injection for some 6-cylinder and larger engines.
     Engine Calibration: Engine control and calibration 
modifications to improve air and fuel mixtures, particularly at cold 
start and/or to control secondary air and hydrocarbon adsorbers.
     Hydrocarbon Adsorber: Limited application of hydrocarbon 
adsorbers to trap hydrocarbons during cold start and release the 
hydrocarbons after the catalyst lights off.
     Evaporative Emissions Controls: Improved evaporative 
emissions systems, including canister scrubbers, more permeation-
resistant materials, and improved system integration.
    As stated above, we have developed our costs with respect to a 
given vehicle type and the type of engine with which it is equipped. 
Although the cost of achieving the proposed Tier 3 standards will 
increase with the size of the vehicle and the displacement of the 
engine, we have concluded that the cost for each engine type is 
independent of the type of vehicle in which it is equipped. For 
example, we estimate that the cost of catalyst loading for an in-line 
4-cylinder (I4) engine will be the same whether the engine is in a car 
or a truck. The final cost per vehicle is the result of not only the 
cost per technology, but also the application rate of that technology 
for each vehicle type. For example, while

[[Page 29969]]

the $199 (2010$) cost of secondary air injection is the same for both a 
6-cylinder (V6) and 8-cylinder (V8) application, we anticipate that 
only 25 percent of the V6 applications will require this technology, 
while 75 percent of the V8 applications will require it. Table VII-1 
below shows our estimate of the cost of each of the emission control 
technologies for the gasoline vehicles affected by this proposed rule. 
Table VII-2 provides the anticipated application rate of the technology 
by vehicle type. Note that all of the costs shown in this section are 
in 2010 dollars, are applicable for the 2017 MY and are marked-up by an 
Indirect Cost Multiplier (ICM) so they include both direct and indirect 
costs. (For details of regarding ICMs and their application refer to 
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.)

                      Table VII-1--2017MY Technology Costs by Gasoline Engine Type (2010$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Gasoline Engine Type \a\
                   Technology                    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        I4              V6              V8           HD \c\ V8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Loading................................             $72             $95            $119             $60
Optimized Close-coupled Catalyst................              24              48              72              72
Optimized Thermal Management....................              36              36              36              36
Secondary Air Injection.........................         N/R \b\             119             119             N/R
Engine Calibration..............................               2               2               2               2
Hydrocarbon Adsorber............................             N/R             N/R             201             N/R
Evaporative Emissions Controls..................              20              20              20              20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ I4--In-line 4-cylinder, V6: 6-cylinder, V8: 8-cylinder.
\b\ N/R--Not Required.
\c\ Heavy-duty.


                                             Table VII-2--Technology Application Rates for Gasoline Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Technology application rate by vehicle type
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Technology                              I4 LDV       V6 LDV       V8 LDV       I4 LDT       V6 LDT       V8 LDT       HD V8
                                                                (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Loading.............................................          100          100          100          100          100          100          100
Optimized Close-coupled Catalyst.............................           50           60           75           50           60           75            0
Optimized Thermal Management.................................           25           25           25           25           25           25           25
Secondary Air Injection......................................          N/R           25           75            0           25           75          N/R
Engine Calibration...........................................          100          100          100          100          100          100          100
Hydrocarbon Adsorber.........................................          N/R          N/R           15            0            0           15          N/R
Evaporative Emissions Controls...............................          100          100          100          100          100          100          100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs) were included in the light-
duty fleet as part of Tier 2. Given their current certification 
requirements for criteria pollutants, we have included the costs for 
MDPVs to meet the Tier 3 standards with the LDT4 cost estimates. We do 
not expect that the technologies required to meet the Tier 3 standards 
for MDPVs will be different from those applied to LDT4s, as in many 
cases identical powertrains and chassis exist between the LDT4 and MDPV 
platforms.
    We also expect that manufacturers will continue to build and sell 
light-duty diesel vehicles and certify those vehicles to Tier 3. All 
light-duty diesel vehicles currently being sold in the federal fleet 
are equipped with some means of controlling NOX emissions, 
either a Lean NOX Trap (LNT) or SCR system. As these systems 
are already very effective in controlling NOX emissions, we 
expect that they will remain the primary emissions control systems to 
meet Tier 3. Similar to gasoline engines, diesel powertrains may be 
required to improve the effectiveness of their emission control systems 
during cold start. Therefore, we have developed our costs for diesels 
with the expectation that the incremental costs will be realized to 
improve LNT and SCR systems during cold start. The improvements have 
been categorized as general SCR optimization, which include packaging 
changes to the SCR system to allow faster light off; Optimized Thermal 
Management, to reduce the thermal mass of the system and allow more of 
the combustion heat to reach the SCR system sooner; and the calibration 
work associated with both of these changes. Table VII-3 below describes 
both the cost of the technologies as well as their anticipated 
application rates.

  Table VII-3--2017MYTechnology Costs and Application Rates for Diesel
                                 Engines
                                 [2010$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Light-duty and
                                     Diesel engine        heavy-duty
           Technology              costs (all types)   application rate
                                                           (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimized Thermal Management....                 $36                  25
Engine Calibration..............                   2                 100
SCR Optimization................                  60                 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29970]]

    Costs have also been estimated for HDVs between 8,501 and 14,000 
lbs GVWR. Vehicles in this range are often referred to as Class 2b 
(8,5001-10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001-14,000 lbs) vehicles and are 
typically full-size pickup truck and work vans. We applied the same 
process to the heavy-duty vehicles as we did to the light-duty 
vehicles. Heavy-duty costs and application rates may be found in Table 
VII-1, Table VII-2, and Table VII-3 above.
    We have also considered the impacts of manufacturer learning on the 
technology cost estimates. We reflect the phenomenon of volume-based 
learning curve cost reductions in our modeling using two algorithms, 
depending on where in the learning cycle (i.e., on what portion of the 
learning curve) we consider a technology to be: the ``steep'' portion 
of the curve for newer technologies and ``flat'' portion of the curve 
for more mature technologies. The observed phenomenon in the economic 
literature which supports manufacturer learning cost reductions are 
based on reductions in costs as production volumes increase with the 
highest absolute cost reduction occurring with the first doubling of 
production. For additional information on technology learning refer to 
Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. Learning impacts have been considered on 
all of the technologies expected to be used with the assumption that 
all technologies are on the flat portion of the learning curve. We did 
not consider any of the technologies to be on the steep portion of the 
learning curve because none are being used for the first time in the 
2017-2025 timeframe.
    Finally, we have prepared our cost estimates for meeting the Tier 3 
standards using a baseline of Tier 2 Bin 5 technologies for all LDVs, 
LDTs, and MDPVs. The baseline fleet used for these cost estimates is 
the MY 2016 light-duty fleet predicted by the 2012-2016 GHG Rule. The 
2012 GHG Rule provides us with the clearest picture of what the light-
duty fleet may look like in MY 2017. Additional details on how the 2017 
MY fleet (i.e., the reference case fleet for this proposal) was 
developed can be found in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. In short, the 
2012-2016 GHG final rule is expected to result in considerable downsize 
of engines along with turbocharging to maintain performance. Since 
engines are expected to be downsized, the estimated Tier 3 costs are 
impacted since smaller engines are expected to incur lower costs as 
shown in Table VII-1.
    Since GHG standards for the 2017-2025 fleet have just recently been 
finalized, we were not able to reflect their potential impacts on the 
baseline fleet in this proposal. We do not expect the MYs 2017-2025 GHG 
standards will change the technologies that we project will be used to 
comply with the proposed Tier 3 standards. However, some of the changes 
to the vehicle fleet expected to result from the MYs 2017-2025 GHG 
standards, such as a greater penetration of downsized engines, could 
lower the cost of complying with Tier 3 standards. The final Tier 3 
rule will include the changes to the fleet associated with the GHG 
standards and the resulting impacts on cost.
    The evaporative emissions standards that we are proposing for LDVs, 
LDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs are feasible with relatively small cost impacts. 
We estimate the cost of system improvements, including indirect cost 
markups, to be about $20 (2010$) per vehicle, for all car classes. This 
incremental cost reflects the cost of moving to low permeability 
materials, reduced number of fuel-system connections, longer contiguous 
lengths of plumbing, and low-permeation connectors. We believe that 
learning is also appropriate for evaporative emissions control systems 
as described above and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. We 
request comment on this detailed analysis. In particular, we request 
comment on the completeness of the list of emission control components 
needed for meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, 
especially regarding purge and purge-assist technologies.
    We have used the individual technology costs discussed briefly here 
and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA to estimate package 
costs for each of the different gasoline and diesel engine types in the 
fleet (i.e., I4 passenger car, V6 passenger car, etc.). We have then 
multiplied these package costs by the project sales estimates for the 
years 2017 and later. The projected sales estimates used, as noted 
earlier, represent the reference case fleet mix rather than today's 
fleet mix. That fleet mix is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of 
the draft RIA. With these total annual costs, we then determined the 
sales weighted average cost increase for all passenger cars, light 
trucks and heavy-duty vehicles. Table VII-4 below provides our 
estimates of the incremental cost per vehicle (both light-duty and 
class 2b and 3 vehicles) by model year for both tailpipe and 
evaporative emissions standards. These values reflect the total direct 
and indirect manufacturing costs as well as the appropriate learning 
rates. As stated above, a large portion of the cost is incurred in the 
initial model years due to the adoption of the LEV III declining fleet 
average. Costs then continue to rise as the percentage of vehicles 
complying with the proposed standards increases through the 2025 MY.
    We have estimated costs consistent with the fact that manufacturers 
would be required to start the phase-in of Tier 3 standards in MY 2017 
for vehicles under 6,000 lbs GVWR and MY 2018 for vehicles greater than 
6,000 lbs GVWR. Based on the declining fleet averages for cars and 
trucks, we have apportioned our estimates for full compliance across 
the phase-in years as a percentage of the final standard. Manufacturers 
would be required to move from a Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in the 2017 
MY (for vehicles <6,000 lbs GVW). This results in a significant step in 
stringency. As a result, a large portion of the costs are expected to 
be incurred in the initial model years. It is also important to note 
that while we are aligned with CARB on the individual cost of each 
technology and their application rates, our costs are different from 
California's LEV III costs due to the fact that the California fleet is 
currently meeting slightly more stringent standards than the federal 
fleet. Thus, the incremental cost for California is less. Finally, 
manufacturers would have the opportunity in 2015 and 2016 MY to earn 
Tier 3 credits by producing a fleet that is cleaner than the current 
Tier 2 requirements. While we expect that most manufacturers would earn 
credits, either by selling California vehicles as 50 state vehicles or 
by certifying existing vehicles to lower Tier 2 bins, we have not 
reflected these credits in our cost analysis. In that way, we believe 
that our cost estimates are conservative.

                                                    Table VII-4--Per Vehicle Costs by Model Year \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Model Year                          2017       2018       2019       2020       2021       2022       2023       2024       2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$/car................................................        $78        $87        $92        $99       $103       $112       $111       $115       $118
$/truck..............................................          0        105        114        127        136        150        151        159        165
Light-duty Combined..................................         50         94        100        109        115        125        124        130        134

[[Page 29971]]

 
$/2b (Truck or Van)..................................          0         43         50         58         64         73         69         68         66
$/3 (Truck or Van)...................................          0         38         46         55         63         73         69         68         66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California.

    Total annual costs are shown below in Table VII-5. This table 
includes all costs associated with the proposed Tier 3 vehicle 
standards, i.e., both exhaust and evaporative emission standards, for 
both light-duty vehicles and 2b and 3 heavy-duty pickup trucks and 
vans. Also included are facility related costs associated with the 
proposed requirements to conduct more PM testing on gasoline vehicles. 
(Additional detail regarding the PM facility costs are described 
below.) We show the facility costs in the year 2016 even though the 
program does not begin until 2017. These costs represent the 
construction cost that would have to be done in advance of the first 
year of the standards in preparation for the testing efforts that would 
be required. The annual costs shown for each cost element are 
undiscounted annual costs for the years 2016 through 2025, then 2030, 
2040 and 2050. The present values shown are for the years 2012-2050 at 
both the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. We have shown present 
values in 2012 for comparison to EPA's 2012-2016 GHG final rule and the 
recent MYs 2017-2025 GHG rule and to more closely estimate the costs of 
the program today.

                Table VII-5--Undiscounted Annual Costs & Costs of the Vehicle Program Discounted Back to 2012 at 3% and 7% Discount Rates
                                                             [Millions of 2010 Dollars] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Exhaust                            Evap               Facilities
                                                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                 Light-                           Light-                                       Total
                                                                    duty       2b/3       All        duty       2b/3       All         All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016...........................................................         $0         $0         $0         $0         $0         $0       $22.5      $22.5
2017...........................................................        634          0        634       71.4          0       71.4        3.75        709
2018...........................................................      1,150       23.1      1,170        167       3.86        171        3.75      1,340
2019...........................................................      1,240       28.6      1,270        159       3.76        162        3.75      1,440
2020...........................................................      1,350       34.2      1,380        216       5.22        221        3.75      1,600
2021...........................................................      1,470       40.0      1,510        208       5.09        213        3.75      1,730
2022...........................................................      1,580       46.5      1,630        264       6.52        271        3.75      1,900
2023...........................................................      1,610       44.8      1,660        253       6.27        259        3.75      1,920
2024...........................................................      1,720       44.8      1,770        257       6.38        263        3.75      2,040
2025...........................................................      1,830       44.9      1,870        246       6.12        253        3.75      2,130
2030...........................................................      1,750       46.5      1,790        246       6.74        253        3.75      2,050
2040...........................................................      1,750       51.9      1,800        246       7.52        254        3.75      2,060
2050...........................................................      1,750       58.6      1,810        246       8.49        255        3.75      2,070
NPV, 3%........................................................     29,900        814     30,700      4,250        116      4,360        89.1     35,100
NPV, 7%........................................................     14,700        384     15,100      2,090       55.0      2,150        52.2     17,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California.

    In addition to considering the costs associated with improving the 
emission control systems on vehicles, we also expect that manufacturers 
may need to improve their capability to measure PM at the levels we are 
proposing. For additional information on the test procedure changes we 
are proposing, reference Section IV.F.
    We have used two sources of information to determine the 
appropriate costs for upgrading test facilities for PM measurement. The 
first was EPA's own cost to upgrade its PM measurement equipment; the 
second was information provided by vehicle manufacturers. The cost 
estimates ranged from $250,000 to $500,000 per PM test site.
    We recognize that the number of sites that a manufacturer would 
require is dependent on the number of vehicle models it expects to 
develop and certify in a given model year. As stated in Section IV.A, 
we have limited the number of certifications required per model year to 
25 percent of the represented durability groups, thereby potentially 
reducing the number of test sites that require upgrade. We believe that 
manufacturers with annual sales of one million units or less would 
require two facility upgrades at an average cost of $375,000. For 
manufacturers with greater than one million units per year annual sales 
we believe that four facility upgrades may be required to meet the Tier 
3 requirements. In addition to facility upgrades some manufacturers may 
require an additional employee for PM weigh room operation and/or PM 
data management. Therefore we have added the cost of 1 additional full 
time employee for all manufacturers. Our estimated costs for each 
manufacturer are shown below in Table VII-6.

[[Page 29972]]



                                         Table VII-6--PM Facility Costs
                                                  [2010 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of PM                       Total facility       Additional FTE
           Annual Volume                Sites to be      Cost per site    cost (one-time,     (annual, ongoing
                                         upgraded                          upfront cost)           cost)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=1 million........................                 2          $375,000          $750,000  1 @ $150,000 per
> 1 million........................                 4                           1,500,000   year.
    Total..........................  ................  ................        22,500,000  $3,750,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ FTE--Full Time Employee.

B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program

1. Overview
    The sulfur control program we are proposing today is expected to 
result in many refiners further investing in sulfur control hardware 
and changing the operations in their refineries to reduce their 
gasoline sulfur levels. The proposed sulfur control program requires 
refiners and importers to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels on 
average down to 10 ppm. The ABT provisions being proposed along with 
the 10-ppm average sulfur control standard would allow refiners that 
reduce their gasoline sulfur levels below 10 ppm to earn credits and 
transfer those credits to other refiners who would find it more 
expensive to reduce their sulfur levels down to the average standard. 
The ABT program would allow refiners to optimize their investments, 
which we believe would result in achieving the average sulfur control 
standard nationwide at lower costs. We are also proposing to either 
maintain the current 80-ppm sulfur cap at the refinery gate, or to 
lower it only as far as 50 ppm. We have modeled the impacts of the 80-
ppm cap, but believe that the results for a 50-ppm cap would be 
comparable due to the limits on credits resulting from the 10-ppm 
average. We estimate that the national average refinery costs incurred 
to comply with the fully phased-in Tier 3 sulfur control program with 
ABT program would be 0.89 cents per gallon, averaged over all gasoline. 
This estimate includes the capital costs, which are amortized over the 
volume of gasoline produced.
    In this section we summarize the methodology used to estimate the 
costs of Tier 3 sulfur control and our estimated costs for the program. 
A detailed discussion of all of these analyses is found in Chapter 5 of 
the draft RIA. We request comment on all aspects of the methodology 
described in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA used for estimating the cost of 
the program using the refinery-by-refinery cost model. In particular, 
we request comment on: the methodology for estimating the sulfur 
content of the FCC naphtha; how FCC naphtha sulfur levels are impacted 
by both an FCC pretreater and an FCC unit; to what extent 
desulfurization costs for complying with Tier 3 vary due to the sulfur 
level entering the existing FCC postreaters installed for Tier 2; the 
estimated level of hydrotreating of light straight run (LSR) naphtha 
and natural gas liquids (NGL) occurring today; the level of 
hydrotreating of LSR and NGLs expected to occur under this program and 
the magnitude of permitting-related costs in comparison to the overall 
project costs.
2. Methodology
a. Overview of the Sulfur Program Cost Methodology
    The basic methodology we used to estimate the cost of sulfur 
control for the proposed rule is similar to that for other rulemakings. 
Using a refinery-by-refinery cost model that we developed for this 
rulemaking, we projected the sulfur control technology expected to be 
used by each refinery, and the cost of each refinery's sulfur control 
step, to estimate compliance with the proposed sulfur control program. 
We aggregated the individual refinery costs to develop a national 
average cost estimate for the proposed sulfur control program. Based on 
the flexibilities offered by the ABT program, refiners are expected to 
come very close to achieving the 10-ppm sulfur standard on average.
Linear Programming Cost Model
    We considered performing our cost assessments using a linear 
programming (LP) cost model. LP cost models are based on a set of 
complex mathematical representations of refineries which, for national 
analyses, are usually conducted on a regional basis. This type of 
refining cost model has been used by the government and the refining 
industry for many years for estimating the cost and other implications 
of changes to fuel quality.
    The design of LP models lends itself to modeling situations where 
every refinery in a region is expected to use the same control strategy 
and/or has the same process capabilities. As we began to develop a 
gasoline sulfur control program with an ABT program, it became clear 
that LP modeling was not well suited for evaluating such a program. 
Because refineries have different equipment, process different crude 
oils and produce different products, refiners will choose different 
technologies and run those technologies differently for controlling 
gasoline sulfur. In addition, because of the flexibility afforded by 
the nationwide ABT program, we initiated development of a more 
appropriate refinery-by-refinery cost model, as described below. 
However, the LP model remained important for providing many of the 
inputs into the refinery-by-refinery cost model developed for this 
rulemaking.
b. Refinery-by-Refinery Cost Model
    In contrast to LP models, refinery-by-refinery cost models are 
useful when individual refineries are expected to respond to program 
requirements in different ways and/or have significantly different 
process capabilities. Furthermore, as is the case with sulfur control, 
such approaches are possible when the refinery changes required are 
primarily ``add on'' not impacting the fundamental operation at the 
refinery. Thus, in the case of modeling potential gasoline sulfur 
control programs, we needed a model that could accurately simulate the 
variety of decisions refiners will make at different refineries, 
especially in the context of a nationwide ABT program. For this and 
other related reasons, we developed a refinery-by-refinery cost model, 
built off the model developed for the MSAT2 rulemaking by Mathpro, 
specifically to evaluate the costs and other impacts of the proposed 
sulfur control program.
    Our refinery-by-refinery sulfur cost model incorporates the 
capacities of all the major units in each refinery in the country, as 
reported by the Energy Information Administration and in the Oil and 
Gas Journal. Regarding operational information, we know less about how 
specific refineries use the various units to produce gasoline and about 
such factors as octane and hydrogen costs for individual refineries.

[[Page 29973]]

We used previous LP modeling work as the basis for estimating these 
factors on a regional basis, and we applied the average regional result 
to each refinery in that region (Petroleum Administration for Defense 
District; PADD). We compared the gasoline volumes estimated by the 
model for each individual refinery to the 2009 gasoline volumes from 
the RFG data base, which was the most recent year for which data was 
available, and we were satisfied with the model's volumetric 
estimates.\464\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \464\ Our refinery-by-refinery analysis is better able to model 
the impacts of gasoline sulfur control than the refinery LP, yet, it 
is still limited by the lack of specific information on each 
refinery. Despite our commitment to accurately model the baseline 
operations of each refinery, we recognize that without detailed 
refinery-specific operations information at our disposal, actual 
individual refinery changes will vary from our predictions. 
Particular refineries may choose a different sulfur control path 
than that estimated by our analysis for a number of reasons, 
including differences in the baseline and our lack of knowledge for 
investment and ABT program use preferences for each refiner. We 
believe, though, that overall our refinery cost model captures the 
strategies and costs for complying with the sulfur control program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Refinery-by-refinery cost models have been used in the past by both 
EPA and the oil industry for such programs as the MSAT2 gasoline 
benzene control, highway and nonroad diesel fuel sulfur standards, and 
they are a proven means for estimating the cost of compliance for fuel 
control programs. While they will never precisely model and predict 
individual refinery operations and impacts, they provide both a better 
assessment of the overall market impacts than the LP model and of the 
variation of impacts across the refineries. For this refinery-by-
refinery sulfur cost model, we conducted a peer review process, and 
have received some comments on the design of our model. These comments 
are contained in the peer review reports placed in the docket. We 
intend on addressing the peer review comments, as well as any public 
comments that we receive on our cost analysis for the proposal, when we 
conduct the cost analysis for the final rule.\465\ The oil industry has 
also conducted a similar analysis using a refinery-by-refinery cost 
model, and we discuss the results of their analysis at the end of this 
chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \465\ Our review of most of the suggested changes recommended by 
the peer reviewers suggested that there would be little to no change 
in our desulfurization cost estimate (some of the changes would 
increase the estimated costs, while others would reduce the 
estimated costs). Also, we anticipate making other improvements to 
the cost analysis conducted for the final rule, which would 
necessitate a second round of peer review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refinery unit responsible for the greatest contribution of 
sulfur to gasoline is the fluidized catalytic cracker unit (FCC). The 
FCC processes a very heavy feedstock which contains high levels of 
sulfur.\466\ When the FCC cracks this heavy, sour feedstock, a portion 
of the sulfur in the feed to the FCC ends up in the FCC naphtha, an 
important gasoline blendstock stream.\467\ Before the Tier 2 sulfur 
control program was implemented, FCC naphtha contributed over 95 
percent of the sulfur to a refinery's gasoline, and now that Tier 2 has 
been fully implemented it still contributes roughly 80 to 90 percent 
for those refineries with FCC units. To comply with the Tier 2 sulfur 
control program, most refiners installed FCC naphtha hydrotreaters (FCC 
postreaters) and some refiners installed FCC feed hydrotreaters (FCC 
pretreater) to reduce that unit's sulfur contribution to their gasoline 
pool. The technologies installed include Axxens Prime G+, Exxon-Mobil 
Scanfining, CDTech's CDHydro and CDHDS, Phillips S-Zorb and UOP's ISAL 
(UOP now offers a postreating technology named Selectfining). Despite 
the much lower sulfur contribution to the gasoline pool by the FCC 
after complying with Tier 2, the vendors which supplied sulfur control 
technology for complying with Tier 2 sulfur control program have 
informed us that to comply with a more stringent sulfur standard 
refiners are expected to further reduce the sulfur in the FCC naphtha. 
We contacted each of those technology vendors and some of them provided 
information that we used to estimate the cost of lowering the sulfur in 
the FCC naphtha to allow each refinery to reduce the sulfur in its 
gasoline to 10 ppm. We also reviewed literature that is available on 
the Web to further educate ourselves of what would be involved to 
achieve a 10-ppm sulfur standard using postreating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \466\ A hydrocarbon stream which contains large amounts of 
sulfur is also referred to as being sour. In general, the heavier 
the hydrocarbon portion of crude oil, the higher the natural sulfur 
content.
    \467\ On average, the fluidized catalytic cracker supplies about 
35 percent of a refiner's gasoline output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gasoline desulfurization vendors were pessimistic that the 
operations of FCC pretreaters could be adjusted to enable those 
refineries which relied on those units to comply with the Tier 2 sulfur 
standard to meet a 10-ppm sulfur standard. For the refineries solely 
relying on FCC pretreaters to comply with Tier 2, desulfurization 
vendors project that most refineries in this situation will put in 
grassroots FCC postreaters to allow those refineries to comply with a 
10-ppm gasoline sulfur standard. However, since adding grassroots FCC 
postreaters is expensive for the amount of sulfur reduction obtained, 
the ABT analysis we conducted avoided many of these types of 
investments. Instead refineries with both pre- and postreaters today 
are quite able to achieve further gasoline sulfur reductions less than 
10 ppm at a relatively low incremental cost and selling the credits to 
those refineries who would otherwise be faced with grassroots FCC 
postreater investments.
    In addition to addressing the sulfur in the FCC naphtha, we believe 
that some refineries may need to reduce the sulfur in at least a couple 
of other gasoline blendstocks to ensure that it would be able to comply 
with a 10-ppm sulfur standard. One such gasoline blendstock is light 
straight run (LSR) naphtha. Most refiners hydrotreat the LSR before 
sending that stream to an isomerization unit and therefore that stream 
is very low in sulfur. However, some refineries don't have 
isomerization units and probably do not hydrotreat the LSR. If LSR is 
not hydrotreated, we estimate that LSR could contain anywhere between 
25 to 500 ppm sulfur. We believe that refiners that do not currently 
desulfurize their LSR could do so by either feeding it to their FCC 
postreater or their naphtha hydrotreater (the hydrotreater which 
desulfurizes the feed to the isomerization and reformer units). Because 
this stream does not contain any olefins, it is an easy stream to 
hydrotreat and actually improves the hydrotreating conditions within 
the FCC naphtha hydrotreater. The second stream that may have to be 
hydrotreated is butane. Butane is removed from the incoming crude oil 
and FCC naphtha and some of it is blended back into gasoline in the 
summertime to bring the gasoline pool up to the RVP limit. However, 
much of the butane is transported to storage for subsequent blending 
into the wintertime gasoline pool. We estimate that butane can range 
from 1 ppm to 140 ppm sulfur, but the typical sulfur level for butane 
is likely around 10 ppm. Because butane can be high in sulfur, we 
project that some refiners may add relatively inexpensive caustic 
extraction processes which can remove the types of sulfur present in 
the butane pool. However, addressing butane sulfur may only be 
necessary for those refineries that are reducing their gasoline sulfur 
levels down to 5 ppm to generate credits for sale to refiners seeking 
to purchase credits.
    The nationwide ABT program is intended to optimize sulfur reduction 
by allowing each refinery to individually choose the most cost-
effective means of complying with the program. To model this 
phenomenon, we first establish an estimated cost for each refinery for 
reducing its gasoline

[[Page 29974]]

sulfur down to 10 ppm and to 5 ppm. Next we ranked the sulfur control 
strategies for all the refineries in order from lowest to highest 
sulfur control cost per gallon of gasoline and estimated the impact of 
their projected sulfur control strategies on refinery sulfur levels. 
The model then follows this ranking, starting with the lowest-cost 
refineries, and adds refineries and their associated control 
technologies one-by-one until the projected national average gasoline 
sulfur level reaches 10 ppm. This modeling strategy projects the sulfur 
control technology that will be used by each refinery, as well as 
identifies those refineries that are expected to generate credits and 
those that are expected to use credits in lieu of investing in sulfur 
control. The sum of the costs of the refineries expected to invest in 
further sulfur control provides the projected overall cost of the 
program.
3. Summary of Costs Without ABT Program
a. Nationwide Costs of the Proposed Sulfur Control Program
    We used a refinery-by-refinery cost model to estimate the costs of 
the sulfur control program being proposed today. In general, the cost 
model indicates that further desulfurizing the FCC naphtha will be the 
most cost-effective means for achieving sulfur control. We accounted 
for additional costs to refiners for desulfurizing their light straight 
run naphtha, in the case where we estimate that the light straight run 
naphtha is not being desulfurized today.
    Based on the results of our cost analysis, we estimate that for 
each refinery to get to a 10-ppm average level, (without the benefit of 
trading) the proposed sulfur control program would cost 0.97 cents per 
gallon when it is fully phased-in, assuming that capital investments 
are amortized at a seven percent return on investment before taxes and 
expressed in 2010 dollars. Refiners would be expected to make $2,527 
million in capital investments to achieve this sulfur reduction.
    We also estimated annual aggregate costs, including the amortized 
capital costs, associated with the new fuel standard. When the 10-ppm 
gasoline sulfur standard would take effect in 2017, we estimate that 
the sulfur standard would cost $580 million per year.
b. Distribution of Refinery Costs
    The sulfur reductions estimated by the cost model and associated 
costs vary significantly refinery-by-refinery. Figure VII-1 summarizes 
the estimated per-gallon costs for complying with the sulfur control 
standard if no ABT program were implemented.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.003

Figure VII-1 shows that the sulfur control costs would vary from no 
cost to almost 6.5 cents per gallon. Some refineries have no FCC unit 
and thus, their gasoline is naturally low in sulfur and these 
refineries will not reduce their gasoline sulfur levels and not incur a 
sulfur control cost.
4. Summary of Costs With ABT Program
    The estimated costs described in Section VII.B.3 above assume that 
every individual refinery must achieve the proposed 10-ppm sulfur 
standard on an annual average basis. However, as described in Section 
V.A.4, we are also proposing an ABT program that is designed to ease 
the overall burden on the industry while still achieving the 10-ppm 
annual average sulfur standard for the nation as a whole. Under the 
proposed ABT program, refineries that can reduce sulfur below 10 ppm at 
a relatively low cost can generate credits which can then be obtained 
by refiners for whom the cost of attaining the 10-ppm sulfur standard 
would be relatively

[[Page 29975]]

high. The net effect of this credit trading would be to reduce the 
overall cost of the program.
    To estimate the impact that the ABT program could have on 
nationwide average fuel costs, we began with the refinery-by-refinery 
costs described in Section VII.B.2.b for sulfur reductions down to 
either 10 ppm or 5 ppm. We then determined the lowest cost option among 
three alternatives for each refinery:
    1. The refinery reduces its sulfur to 10 ppm.
    2. The refinery reduces its sulfur to 5 ppm and generates credits 
for the increment between 10 ppm and 5 ppm.
    3. The refinery does not lower sulfur, but instead relies on the 
purchase of credits to comply with the 10-ppm standard.
    A fourth category applied to refineries whose average gasoline 
sulfur levels are already below 10 ppm (there refineries don't have FCC 
units). All such refineries were assumed to generate credits for the 
increment between 10 ppm and their current sulfur level.
    To simplify the modeling of how an ABT program might operate, we 
focused on the circumstances that refineries would face in the longer 
term, specifically after 2020. This approach meant that the ABT program 
modeling did not consider the impact on gasoline sulfur levels of 
delayed compliance for small refiners and small volume refineries, nor 
did it consider the generation and use of any early sulfur credits. 
Moreover, our ABT modeling considered only gasoline sold for use 
outside of California, and only gasoline produced by domestic 
refineries (not importers).
    To optimize the nationwide average costs under an ABT program, we 
determined the credit price at which the total number of credits 
generated was equal to the total number of credits consumed. For an 
idealized scenario in which every refinery has the opportunity to make 
credit trades with every other refinery in the nation, we determined 
that more than 60 percent of refineries would be involved in either 
generating or consuming credits. The nationwide average cost of 
compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard would be reduced from 0.97 
cents per gallon to 0.79 cents per gallon.
    Such perfect nationwide trading, however, is not realistic. Under 
Tier 2 today, a significant fraction of Tier 2 sulfur credits are 
bought and sold within companies, but there is still a considerable 
amount of inter-company trading occurring. Under Tier 3, it would be 
more difficult to generate credits, and also more difficult to make up 
for deficits, consequently, we also investigated how more limited 
credit trading might affect the average cost of compliance with the 10-
ppm sulfur standard. For instance, to address unplanned equipment 
downtime or other circumstances that could make future compliance more 
difficult, individual companies might decide to bank credits for their 
own use, declining to make credits that they generate at one of their 
facilities available to other companies. To evaluate such a scenario, 
we modeled a situation wherein credit trading would only occur within 
companies that own more than one refinery. Of the 21 refining companies 
in this position, we estimated that credit generation and use would 
reduce compliance costs at six of them, with 18 refineries generating 
credits and 8 consuming credits. Under this scenario, total capital 
costs would be $2,203 million and the nationwide average cost of 
compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard would be 0.89 cents per 
gallon. We have chosen to utilize the costs from this intra-company 
trading analysis for the proposal. However, in reality, we expect that 
some inter-company credit transfers would still occur due to the 
financial incentive the highest cost refineries would provide. To the 
extent that some inter-company credit transfers do occur, our cost 
estimates can be viewed as somewhat conservative.
    A summary of the ABT results assuming nationwide credit transfers 
and intra-company credit transfers (costs used in the proposal) is 
shown in Table VII-7.

                                 Table VII-7--Impacts of Nationwide ABT Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             ABT with  intra-
                                                                              company credit        ABT with
                                                               No ABT           transfers      nationwide credit
                                                                              (proposed rule        transfers
                                                                                  costs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average fuel cost ([cent]/gal).........................               0.97               0.89               0.79
Total capital cost ($million)..........................           2,527              2,203              1,760
Number of refineries that generate credits.............               0                 18                 46
Number of refineries that consume credits..............               0                  8                 25
Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume              111                 85                 40
 credits...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost information available for this NPRM was limited to the 
costs of reducing sulfur to either 10 ppm or 5 ppm, and thus we were 
not able to estimate refinery-specific costs of reducing sulfur to 
other levels. As a result, our ABT modeling could not account for 
scenarios in which a refinery makes some capital investments to lower 
sulfur to some interim level, such as 20 ppm, and then purchases 
credits in order to demonstrate compliance with the 10-ppm standard. 
Our ABT analysis also could not account for credit generation at sulfur 
levels other than 5 ppm. Our ABT analysis, then, most likely 
underestimates the cost savings that could occur due to ABT since the 
greatest efficiencies are achieved when every refinery has the option 
of using any combination of capital investments and credits generation 
or use. For the final rule, we may investigate methods for expanding 
our ABT analysis to examine these types of scenarios.
a. Distribution of Refinery Costs
    The sulfur reductions estimated by the cost model and associated 
costs vary significantly refinery-by-refinery. Figure VII-2 summarizes 
the estimated per-gallon costs for complying with the sulfur control 
standard under an ABT program with intra-company credit transfers.

[[Page 29976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.004

While the distribution of costs shifts slightly under an ABT program 
with intra-company trading in comparison to no ABT program, Figure VII-
2 shows that the sulfur control costs would continue to vary from no 
cost to nearly 6.5 cents per gallon.
b. Distribution of Refinery Sulfur Levels
    We estimate that 85 out of 111 refineries would meet the 10-ppm 
sulfur standard without the use of credits under the intra-company 
trading scenario. As a result, only about 5 percent of gasoline would 
continue to have an annual average sulfur level above 10 ppm. These 
refineries tend to be smaller than average. The distribution of sulfur 
levels under this scenario is shown in Figure VII-3.

[[Page 29977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.005

5. Other Cost Estimates
    Three other cost studies were recently conducted to estimate the 
cost of additional reduction in gasoline sulfur. All of these studies 
show average costs of less than 2 cents per gallon.
    One of these studies was conducted in October 2011 by the 
International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT).\468\ ICCT 
retained Mathpro for this analysis. ICCT had Mathpro analyze a 10-ppm 
average gasoline sulfur standard in PADDs 1-4 (generally speaking, 
PADDs 1-4 represents the part of the U.S. east of, and including, the 
Rocky Mountain states). The cost presented by ICCT is that complying 
with a 10-ppm average sulfur standard would cost refiners on average 
0.8 cents per gallon. This cost was calculated based on a before-tax 7 
percent return on investment, the same capital amortization basis that 
we use for our cost analysis. The cost of a 10-ppm average gasoline 
sulfur control standard estimated by ICCT is very close to our cost 
estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \468\ Mathpro (October 2011). Refining Economics of a National 
Low Sulfur, Low RVP Gasoline Standard, Performed for The 
International Council for Clean Transportation, Available at: https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT04_Tier3_Report_Final_v4_All.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API retained Baker and O'Brien to study the cost of additional 
sulfur control using a refinery-by-refinery cost approach with Baker 
and O'Brien's Prism model. \469\ API studied a 10 ppm average gasoline 
sulfur standard, however, API included a very stringent 20 ppm cap 
standard which did not allow for an ABT program to optimize refinery 
investments and minimize overall costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \469\ Baker and O'Brien, Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost 
Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline; prepared for The 
American Petroleum Institute. March 2012. Available at: https://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/110715_LowerSulfur_LowerRVP_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API made a series of conclusions based on the study. Perhaps the 
most important conclusion is that no refinery would shut down as a 
result of the proposed 10 ppm gasoline sulfur control standard, even 
though API did not study the flexibilities of an ABT program and used 
excessively high capital costs for a grassroots FCC postreater (see 
below). API did not report average costs, but reported the marginal 
costs for the cost study. Marginal costs reflect the cost of the 
program to the refinery or refineries which would incur the highest 
costs, assuming that the highest cost refineries would set the price 
(or in this case, the price increase) of gasoline. The report concluded 
that marginal costs after the imposition of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur 
program would increase the price of gasoline by 6 to 9 cents per gallon 
in most markets. API did not define how its statement ``in most 
markets'' would apply to the U.S. gasoline supply. API also did not 
provide any justification why it assumed that the refineries that would 
experience the highest desulfurization cost under Tier 3 would also be 
the same refineries which sets the gasoline price in the gasoline 
market today.
    Although API did not provide an average gasoline desulfurization 
cost in its report, we could calculate an average cost based on the 
gasoline volume and total annual costs provided. The total cost 
reported in the report for the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard 
is $2390MM/yr and the non-California gasoline volume is 7343 thousand 
barrels per day. This results in an average per-gallon desulfurization 
cost of $0.89/bbl or 2.12 c/gal. The difference between the average 
cost and marginal cost (price increase) that API is projecting is 
profit. Thus, API's analysis would suggest that the oil industry would 
profit from 10 ppm low sulfur standard by roughly 4 to 7 cents per 
gallon, or roughly $4 to $8 billion dollars per year as a result of 
gasoline sulfur control.
    The average cost of the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard

[[Page 29978]]

described above was calculated using API's methodology for amortizing 
capital investments. To assess the costs consistent with OMB's guidance 
for our rulemakings and to allow a direct comparison between the API 
cost study and our cost study, we adjusted the API costs to be on a 
similar basis as our costs. We adjusted the API costs to reflect a 
before-tax 7 percent return on investment (ROI) for capital invested 
for the hydrotreaters and hydrogen plants instead of the after-tax 10 
percent ROI used by API. This lowered the API estimated costs from 2.12 
c/gal to 1.58 c/gal. API's 1.58 cents per gallon cost is still higher 
than our 0.89 c/gal cost with an ABT program that assumes intercompany 
trading of credits, and higher than our 0.97 c/gal for the case which 
assumes no ABT program. The remaining difference between our estimated 
costs and those by API are driven by API's assumptions for the capital 
costs that would be incurred for adding grassroots FCC postreaters, or 
revamping existing ones.
    While little detail is provided by API about what hardware 
comprises their desulfurization units, the inside battery limits (ISBL) 
and total capital costs for the FCC postreaters and FCC pretreaters are 
provided in API's report. API's FCC pretreaters capital costs are 
consistent with the capital costs that we have used for this unit. 
However, the FCC postreater costs used by API are much higher than what 
we used and have been used in the past by others. API's capital cost 
for a grassroots FCC postreater is $228 million for a 35,000 bbl/day 
unit, or $6540 per/bbl per day. API's capital cost includes the outside 
battery limit (OSBL) costs. In contrast, the ISBL capital cost that we 
used for a grassroots FCC postreater is $1500/bbl-day for a 30,000 bbl/
day grassroots unit, which increases to $1875/bbl/day when the offsite 
costs are added on. Thus, the API capital costs are about 3\1/2\ times 
higher than the capital costs that we are using for a grassroots FCC 
postreater. To check our capital costs, we found other capital cost 
estimates to which we could compare our costs, including the capital 
costs used by the National Petroleum Council when it studied the cost 
of gasoline desulfurization prior to Tier 2. Compared to the average of 
the rest of the capital cost estimates, the API capital cost for FCC 
postreater is about four times higher. Compared to the next highest 
cost estimate, which is the FCC postreater capital cost from the Jacobs 
data base in the Haverly refinery cost model that we use,\470\ the API 
capital costs are almost two times higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \470\ The installed capital cost for an FCC postreater from the 
Jacobs data base was adjusted to current year dollars. This 
estimated installed capital cost is several years old and may not 
represent Jacobs current cost estimate for a FCC postreater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important distinction must be made with respect to the severity 
of desulfurization for the capital cost comparison made for complying 
with Tier 2 versus Tier 3. For complying with the Tier 2 gasoline 
sulfur standard (Jacobs and NPC costs), a typical refinery would have 
installed an FCC postreater to desulfurize the FCC naphtha from about 
800 ppm down to about 75 ppm, a 725 ppm, or a 91 percent sulfur 
reduction. In the case of a grassroots postreater that would be 
installed for Tier 3, the postreater would treat FCC naphtha already 
low in sulfur due to the pretreater installed before the FCC unit 
(these refineries are currently complying with Tier 2 using an FCC 
pretreater). Thus, the new grassroots FCC postreater would only have to 
reduce the FCC naphtha from 100 ppm to 25 ppm, a much smaller 75 ppm or 
75 percent sulfur reduction. A grassroots FCC postreater installed for 
Tier 2 would typically remove 10 times more sulfur than one installed 
for Tier 3. This is important because a significant portion of the FCC 
postreater capital cost is devoted to avoiding the recombination 
reactions which occur when hydrogen sulfide concentrations are high and 
react with the olefins contained in the FCC naphtha. Thus, a grassroots 
FCC postreater installed for Tier 3 would be expected to be 
significantly lower in capital cost compared to a Tier 2 FCC 
postreater. When API presented the costs, they stated that their 
grassroots capital costs were based on an actual installation for the 
Tier 2 program. This could be one reason why the capital costs used by 
API for its cost study of the Tier 3 program are so high. Another way 
to assess the API capital cost for the FCC postreaters is to compare it 
to the FCC pretreater cost that API is using. FCC pretreaters are much 
higher pressure units and use more expensive metallurgy than FCC 
postreaters and, for these two reasons, are much more expensive than 
FCC postreaters on a per-barrel basis. However, API's FCC postreater 
capital costs are about 50 percent more expensive than its own FCC 
pretreater capital costs, which is inconsistent with the design 
requirements of the units.
    API's estimated range of capital cost for revamping an FCC 
postreater is also higher than our range of capital cost for revamping 
an FCC postreater, when assessing the revamped costs as a percentage of 
the capital cost for a grassroots unit. API estimates that revamping an 
FCC postreater would cost 30 to 70 percent of the capital cost for a 
grassroots FCC unit. Our capital cost estimate for revamping an FCC 
naphtha postreaters from 17 to 50 percent of the capital cost for a 
grassroots FCC postreater, however, most of the revamps are estimated 
to cost at the lower end of that range. Were we to adjust the API study 
capital costs, the projected costs would fall right in line with the 
other studies.
    Our assessment of the API study is supported by work performed by 
The Emissions Control Technology Association (ECTA) which retained 
personnel within Navigant Economics. That study assessed the costs of a 
10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard and also evaluated the ICCT and 
API cost studies.\471\ The authors made a number of conclusions. After 
reviewing both the ICCT and API studies, the authors found that a 
primary difference in estimated costs between the two studies was the 
capital costs. The authors contacted vendor companies that license FCC 
postreater technologies and surveyed the companies to find out what the 
capital costs are for a FCC postreater. As a result of the survey, the 
report authors concluded that API's capital costs were too high, and 
those used in the ICCT study were about right. The authors found that 
Baker and O'Brien has a history of exaggerating the economic impacts of 
EPA rules, citing the costs and other impacts of its analysis of the 
2007 on-highway heavy-duty proposed rulemaking. The authors concluded 
that the impact of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur standard on the average 
refining cost would likely be closer to the 1 cent per gallon estimate 
by the ICCT study. Furthermore, the report's authors also pointed out 
that the marginal cost analysis conducted by API did not consider the 
proposed averaging banking and trading (ABT) program that we were 
expected to propose, which would reduce the marginal costs of the Tier 
3 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \471\ Schink, George R., Singer, Hal J., Economic Analysis of 
the Implications of Implementing EPA's Tier 3 Rules, prepared for 
the Emissions Control Technology Association, June 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of Proposed Program Costs

    While the estimated costs for the separate proposed vehicle and 
proposed fuel programs are presented in Sections VII.A and VII.B, 
respectively, it is useful to present the combined cost estimates 
representing our full proposal. Such combined costs are also necessary 
in

[[Page 29979]]

calculating the cost-effectiveness of the standards in today's proposal 
as described more fully in Section VII.D below.
    We have chosen to use an annual, nationwide cost format to 
represent the combined vehicle and program costs because this approach 
provides the most straightforward means for comparing vehicle costs to 
fuel costs, and for demonstrating the total cost impact of our proposed 
program. This approach to combined costs also provides a basis for 
comparing the program costs to the projected benefits as described more 
fully in Section VIII.
    Table VII-8 below shows our estimated program costs by year. 
Complete details of this analysis can be found in the draft RIA.

                                             Table VII-8--Total Annual Vehicle and Control Costs, 2010$ \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Vehicle
                                                               Vehicle exhaust     evaporative       Facility costs      Fuel sulfur     Total proposed
                            Year                              emission control   emission control      ($Million)       control costs     program costs
                                                              costs ($Million)   costs ($Million)                        ($Million)        ($Million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016........................................................                $0               $0               $22.5               $322              $345
2017........................................................               634               71.4               3.75             1,289             1,998
2018........................................................             1,170              171                 3.75             1,288             2,628
2019........................................................             1,270              162                 3.75             1,285             2,725
2020........................................................             1,380              221                 3.75             1,284             2,884
2021........................................................             1,510              213                 3.75             1,287             3,017
2022........................................................             1,630              271                 3.75             1,289             3,189
2023........................................................             1,660              259                 3.75             1,288             3,208
2024........................................................             1,770              263                 3.75             1,289             3,329
2025........................................................             1,870              253                 3.75             1,291             3,421
2030........................................................             1,790              253                 3.75             1,320             3,370
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California.

D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced

    This section summarizes the cost per ton analysis conducted by EPA 
and its results. The emission reductions used to calculate the costs 
per ton reported here are consistent with those reductions presented as 
part of our inventory impacts analysis as described in Section III.B. 
The costs used to calculate the costs per ton are consistent with the 
vehicle and fuel control costs presented in Sections VII.A and VII.B, 
respectively. We have calculated the aggregate costs per ton which uses 
the costs and emission reductions for calendar years 2017 and 2030, 
consistent with the years that we evaluated for air quality analysis. 
For more information on how the cost per ton was calculated please 
refer to Section 8.2 of the draft RIA.
    Note that, even though we are setting new standards for PM, we 
believe that those standards would be met in complying with the 
NMOG+NOX standards with additional care being given to 
proper engineering/calibration, so there is no cost associated with the 
new PM standard and therefore no separate cost per ton analysis for PM. 
Likewise, as described more fully in Sections IV.A and IV.B, while we 
are also proposing new standards for CO and formaldehyde, we are not 
attributing any of the control costs to these pollutants since the 
technologies employed to meet the NOX+NMOG standards would 
also allow the CO and formaldehyde standards to be met.
    The total program costs, the NOX+VOC reductions, and 
results of our cost per ton analysis are provided in Table VII-9. The 
costs of the proposed program would be higher immediately after it is 
implemented than they would be after several years, since both vehicle 
manufacturers and refiners can take advantage of decreasing capital and 
operating costs over time. In addition, the reductions in 
NOX and VOC emissions would become greater as a larger 
percentage of the fleet contains the technologies required to meet the 
proposed standards.

                      Table VII-9--Costs per Ton of Emissions Reduced in 2017 and 2030 \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Total proposed
                                                         program cost       Total NOX + VOC   Cost effectiveness
                                                       ($Million, 2010$)   reductions (tons)        ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................................              $1,999             329,162              $6,072
2030................................................               3,367             750,818               4,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs associated with the proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel in all states except
  California.

VIII. What are the estimated benefits of the proposed rule?

    This section presents EPA's analysis of the criteria pollutant-
related health and environmental impacts that would occur as a result 
of the proposed Tier 3 standards. The vehicles and fuels subject to the 
proposed standards are significant sources of mobile source air 
pollution such as direct PM, NOX, SOX, VOCs and 
air toxics. The standards would affect exhaust and evaporative 
emissions of these pollutants from vehicles. Emissions of 
NOX (a precursor to ozone formation and secondarily-formed 
PM2.5), SOX (a precursor to secondarily-formed 
PM2.5), VOCs (a precursor to ozone formation and, to a 
lesser degree, secondarily-formed PM2.5) and directly-
emitted PM2.5 contribute to ambient concentrations of 
PM2.5 and ozone. Exposure to ozone, PM2.5, and 
air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as premature 
deaths as well as other important public health and environmental 
effects.
    For the proposal, we have estimated the health and environmental 
impacts in 2030, representing impacts associated with a year when the 
program is fully implemented and when most of the fleet is turned over. 
Overall, we estimate that

[[Page 29980]]

the proposed standards would lead to a net decrease in 
PM2.5- and ozone-related health impacts. The decrease in 
population-weighted national average PM2.5 exposure results 
in a net decrease in adverse PM-related human health impacts (the 
decrease in national population-weighted annual average 
PM2.5 is 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2030). The decrease in 
population-weighted national average ozone exposure results in a net 
decrease in ozone-related health impacts (population-weighted maximum 
8-hour average ozone decreases by 0.52 ppb in 2030).\472\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \472\ Note that the national, population-weighted 
PM2.5 and ozone air quality metrics presented in this 
Section represent an average for the entire, gridded U.S. CMAQ 
domain. These are different than the population-weighted 
PM2.5 and ozone design value metrics presented in Chapter 
7, which represent the average for areas with a current air quality 
monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the lower end of EPA's range of preferred premature mortality 
estimates (Pope et al., 2002 for PM2.5 and Bell et al., 2004 
for ozone),473 474 we estimate that by 2030, implementation 
of the proposed standards would reduce approximately 970 premature 
mortalities annually and yield approximately $9.5 billion in total 
annual benefits. The upper end of the range of avoided premature 
mortality estimates associated with the proposed standards (based on 
Laden et al., 2006 for PM2.5 and Levy et al., 2005 for 
ozone) 475 476 results in approximately 2,800 premature 
mortalities avoided in 2030 and yields approximately $27 billion in 
total benefits. Thus, even using the lower end of the range of 
premature mortality estimates, the health impacts of the proposed 
standards presented in this rule would clearly be substantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \473\ 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.
    \474\ Bell, M.L., et al. (2004). Ozone and short-term mortality 
in 95 U.S. urban communities, 1987-2000. Journal of the American 
Medical Association, 292(19), 2372-2378.
    \475\ Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 
(2006). Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. 
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173, 
667-672.
    \476\ Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. (2005). 
Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric bayes metaregression 
analysis. Epidemiology. 16(4), 458-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that of necessity decisions on the emissions and other 
elements used in the air quality modeling were made early in the 
analytical process for this proposal. For this reason, the Tier 3 
emission control scenario used in the air quality and benefits modeling 
includes emission reductions from Tier 3 across the nation, assuming no 
reductions associated with California's LEV III program (as opposed to 
including California's LEV III program and its associated emission 
reductions in the baseline scenario). This was because EPA had not 
granted California a waiver of preemption under CAA section 209 for the 
LEV III program at the time EPA conducted the air quality modeling. EPA 
did include California's fuel program, which independent of LEV III was 
already resulting in average gasoline sulfur levels of 10 ppm, in the 
baseline scenario. Since then, EPA granted a waiver for California's 
LEV III program (78 FR 2112, January 9, 2013) and ten states have 
adopted the LEV III program under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act. 
Based on this change in circumstances, we will conduct new air quality 
modeling for the final rule that will include emission reductions from 
California's LEV III program, both in California and in states that by 
that time have adopted the LEV III program, in the baseline scenario.
    Had we modeled the California LEV III emission impacts in the Tier 
3 air quality baseline, we estimate that benefits would decrease by 
approximately 12-16 percent, depending on the particular health impact 
functions used to characterize both PM- and ozone-related premature 
mortality.\477\ As a result, we estimate that in 2030, using the lower 
end of EPA's range of preferred premature mortality estimates (Pope et 
al., 2002 for PM2.5 and Bell et al., 2004 for ozone), the 
proposed standards would reduce approximately 820 premature mortalities 
annually and yield approximately $8.0 billion in total annual benefits. 
The upper end of the range of avoided premature mortality estimates 
associated with the proposed standards (based on Laden et al., 2006 for 
PM2.5 and Levy et al., 2005 for ozone) results in 
approximately 2,400 premature mortalities avoided in 2030 and yields 
approximately $23 billion in total benefits. These are rough estimates 
since, without new photochemical air quality modeling to reflect the 
revised baseline and control scenarios, we are unable to account for 
cross-state transport of pollution into or out of California or Section 
177 states. However, we believe this is a reasonable characterization 
of the small reduction in benefits had we modeled the emission 
reductions of the LEV III program in California and other state that 
adopt the LEV III program in the baseline. We believe our overall cost-
benefit conclusions do not materially change with or without the 
inclusion of emission reductions from California and in other states 
that adopt the LEV III program in our analysis. We will conduct new air 
quality modeling for the final rule that will include emission 
reductions from the LEV III program in California, and in states that 
have adopted the program, in the baseline scenario. The rest of this 
section presents benefits that include emission reductions from the LEV 
III program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \477\ To conduct this sensitivity analysis, we simply assumed no 
air quality change in the California portion of the CMAQ domain. We 
then exported the reference and control air quality surfaces to be 
used as inputs to BenMAP. Note that this simple approach is unable 
to account for legitimate emissions impacts related to cross-state 
transport of pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Overview

    We base our analysis of the program's impact on human health on 
peer-reviewed studies of air quality and human health effects.\478\ 
\479\ These methods are described in more detail in the draft RIA that 
accompanies this action. Our benefits methods are also consistent with 
rulemaking analyses such as the final 2012-2016 MY Light-Duty Vehicle 
Rule,\480\ the final Portland Cement National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) RIA,\481\ the final 2014-2018 MY 
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Rule,\482\ and the final 2017-2025 MY Light-Duty 
Vehicle

[[Page 29981]]

Rule.\483\ To model the ozone and PM air quality impacts of the 
proposed standards, we used the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) 
model (see Chapter 7.2.2 of the draft RIA that accompanies this 
preamble). The modeled ambient air quality data serves as an input to 
the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program version 4.0 
(BenMAP).\484\ BenMAP is a computer program developed by the U.S. EPA 
that integrates a number of the modeling elements used in previous 
analyses (e.g., interpolation functions, population projections, health 
impact functions, valuation functions, analysis and pooling methods) to 
translate modeled air concentration estimates into health effects 
incidence estimates and monetized benefits estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \478\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of 
Air and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
    \479\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Final Ozone 
NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Prepared by: Office of Air and 
Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved 
March, 26, 2009 at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
    \480\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Final 
Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Regulatory 
Impact Analysis, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-10-009, April 2010. 
Available on the internet: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf.
    \481\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2010). 
Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. Augues. Available on the Internet at <https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf >. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0472-0241
    \482\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Final 
Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel 
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and 
Vehicles: Regulatory Impact Analysis, Assessment and Standards 
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-11-
901, August, 2011. Available on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420r11901.pdf.
    \483\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Regulatory 
Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle 
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
Standards, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-R-12-016, August 2012. 
Available on the internet: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12016.pdf.
    \484\ Information on BenMAP, including downloads of the 
software, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The range of total monetized ozone- and PM-related health impacts 
in 2030 is presented in Table VIII-1. We present total benefits based 
on the PM- and ozone-related premature mortality function used. The 
benefits ranges therefore reflect the addition of each estimate of 
ozone-related premature mortality (each with its own row in Table VIII-
1) to estimates of PM-related premature mortality. The analysis of the 
proposed standards reflects EPA's work to characterize benefits prior 
to the most recent PM NAAQS.\485\ EPA will update its benefits 
analysis, and related uncertainty analysis, to be consistent with the 
final PM NAAQS for the final Tier 3 regulatory impact analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \485\ U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for Particulate Matter. https://www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf.

              Table VIII-1--Estimated 2030 Monetized PM- and Ozone-Related Health Benefits \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Total benefits
                                                           (billions, 2010$, 3%     Total benefits (billions,
Premature ozone mortality function        Reference         discount rate) \c\     2010$, 7% discount rate) \c\
                                                                    \d\                        \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   2030 Total Ozone and PM Benefits--PM Mortality Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis and Six-Cities
                                                  Analysis \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city analyses...............  Bell et al., 2004....  Total: $9.5-$21.....  Total: $8.7-$19.
                                                           PM: $7.7-$19          PM: $7.0-$17.
                                                           Ozone: $1.8           Ozone: $1.8.
                                    Huang et al., 2005...  Total: $10-$21......  Total: $9.5-$20.
                                                           PM: $7.7-$19          PM: $7.0-$17.
                                                           Ozone: $2.6           Ozone: $2.6.
                                    Schwartz, 2005.......  Total: $10-$22......  Total: $9.6-$20.
                                                           PM: $7.7-$19          PM: $7.0-$17.
                                                           Ozone: $2.7           Ozone: $2.7.
Meta-analyses.....................  Bell et al., 2005....  Total: $13-$24......  Total: $12-$23.
                                                           PM: $7.7-$19          PM: $7.0-$17.
                                                           Ozone: $5.5           Ozone: $5.5.
                                    Ito et al., 2005.....  Total: $15-$26......  Total: $15-$25.
                                                           PM: $7.7-$19          PM: $7.0-$17.
                                                           Ozone: $7.5           Ozone: $7.5.
                                    Levy et al., 2005....  Total: $15-$27......  Total: $15-$25.
                                                           PM: $7.7-$19          PM: $7.0-$17.
                                                           Ozone: $7.7           Ozone: $7.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. Had we
  modeled the California LEV III emission impacts in the Tier 3 air quality baseline, we estimate that benefits
  would decrease by approximately 12-16 percent, depending on the particular health impact functions used to
  characterize both PM- and ozone-related premature mortality. We will account for emissions in states that have
  adopted California's LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule.
\b\ Total includes premature mortality-related and morbidity-related ozone and PM[ihel2].[ihel5] benefits. Range
  was developed by adding the estimate from the ozone premature mortality function to the estimate of
  PM[ihel2].[ihel5]-related premature mortality derived from either the ACS study (Pope et al., 2002) or the Six-
  Cities study (Laden et al., 2006).
\c\ Note that total benefits presented here do not include a number of unquantified benefits categories. A
  detailed listing of unquantified health and welfare effects is provided in Table VIII-2.
\d\ Results reflect the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, as recommended by EPA's Guidelines for
  Preparing Economic Analyses and OMB Circular A-4. Results are rounded to two significant digits for ease of
  presentation and computation. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    The benefits in Table VIII-1 include all of the human health 
impacts we are able to quantify and monetize at this time. However, the 
full complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM 
and ozone remain unquantified because of current limitations in methods 
and/or available data. We have not quantified a number of known or 
suspected health effects linked with ozone and PM for which appropriate 
health impact functions are not available or which do not provide 
easily interpretable outcomes (e.g., changes in heart rate 
variability). Additionally, we are unable to quantify a number of known 
welfare effects, including reduced acid and particulate deposition 
damage to cultural monuments and other materials, and environmental 
benefits due to reductions of impacts of eutrophication in coastal 
areas. These are listed in Table VIII-2. As a result, the health 
benefits quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the 
total benefits attributable to the proposed standards.

[[Page 29982]]



     Table VIII-2--Unquantified and Non-Monetized Potential Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Effects not included in
           Pollutant/effects                  analysis--changes in:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone Health a.........................  Chronic respiratory damage b.
                                         Premature aging of the lungs b.
                                         Non-asthma respiratory
                                          emergency room visits.
                                         Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
Ozone Welfare..........................  Yields for:
                                            --commercial forests.
                                            --some fruits and
                                             vegetables.
                                            --non-commercial crops.
                                         Damage to urban ornamental
                                          plants.
                                         Impacts on recreational demand
                                          from damaged forest
                                          aesthetics.
                                         Ecosystem functions.
                                         Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
PM Health c............................  Premature mortality--short term
                                          exposures d.
                                         Low birth weight.
                                         Pulmonary function.
                                         Chronic respiratory diseases
                                          other than chronic bronchitis.
                                         Non-asthma respiratory
                                          emergency room visits.
                                         Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
PM Welfare.............................  Residential and recreational
                                          visibility in non-Class I
                                          areas.
                                         Soiling and materials damage.
                                         Damage to ecosystem functions.
                                         Exposure to UVb (+/-) e.
Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare  Commercial forests due to
                                          acidic sulfate and nitrate
                                          deposition.
                                         Commercial freshwater fishing
                                          due to acidic deposition.
                                         Recreation in terrestrial
                                          ecosystems due to acidic
                                          deposition.
                                         Existence values for currently
                                          healthy ecosystems.
                                         Commercial fishing,
                                          agriculture, and forests due
                                          to nitrogen deposition.
                                         Recreation in estuarine
                                          ecosystems due to nitrogen
                                          deposition.
                                         Ecosystem functions.
                                         Passive fertilization.
CO Health..............................  Behavioral effects.
HC/Toxics Health f.....................  Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
                                          formaldehyde, acetaldehyde).
                                         Anemia (benzene).
                                         Disruption of production of
                                          blood components (benzene).
                                         Reduction in the number of
                                          blood platelets (benzene).
                                         Excessive bone marrow formation
                                          (benzene).
                                         Depression of lymphocyte counts
                                          (benzene).
                                         Reproductive and developmental
                                          effects (1,3-butadiene).
                                         Irritation of eyes and mucus
                                          membranes (formaldehyde).
                                         Respiratory irritation
                                          (formaldehyde).
                                         Asthma attacks in asthmatics
                                          (formaldehyde).
                                         Asthma-like symptoms in non-
                                          asthmatics (formaldehyde).
                                         Irritation of the eyes, skin,
                                          and respiratory tract
                                          (acetaldehyde).
                                         Upper respiratory tract
                                          irritation and congestion
                                          (acrolein).
HC/Toxics Welfare......................  Direct toxic effects to
                                          animals.
                                         Bioaccumulation in the food
                                          chain.
                                         Damage to ecosystem function.
                                         Odor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The public health impact of biological responses such as increased
  airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute
  inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased susceptibility
  to respiratory infection are likely partially represented by our
  quantified endpoints.
b The public health impact of effects such as chronic respiratory damage
  and premature aging of the lungs may be partially represented by
  quantified endpoints such as hospital admissions or premature
  mortality, but a number of other related health impacts, such as
  doctor visits and decreased athletic performance, remain unquantified.
c In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of
  biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects
  including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms.
  The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly
  represented by our quantified endpoints.
d While some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be
  captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to
  short-term exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in
  this analysis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the
  expert elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of
  short term exposures.
e May result in benefits or disbenefits.
f Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this action are also hazardous
  air pollutants listed in the CAA.

    While there would be impacts associated with air toxic pollutant 
emission changes that result from the proposed standards, we do not 
attempt to monetize those impacts (Section III presents the estimated 
emission reductions associated with the proposal). This is primarily 
because currently available tools and methods to assess air toxics risk 
from mobile sources at the national scale are not adequate for 
extrapolation to incidence estimations or benefits assessment. The best 
suite of tools and methods currently available for assessment at the 
national scale are those used in the National-Scale Air Toxics 
Assessment (NATA). The EPA Science Advisory Board specifically 
commented in their review of the 1996 NATA that these tools were not 
yet ready for use in a

[[Page 29983]]

national-scale benefits analysis, because they did not consider the 
full distribution of exposure and risk, or address sub-chronic health 
effects.\486\ While EPA has since improved these tools, there remain 
critical limitations for estimating incidence and assessing benefits of 
reducing mobile source air toxics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \486\ Science Advisory Board. (2001). NATA--Evaluating the 
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996--an SAB Advisory. 
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and 
costs of the Clean Air Act,\487\ EPA conducted a case study analysis of 
the health effects associated with reducing exposure to benzene in 
Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act. While reviewing the 
draft report, EPA's Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 
concluded that ``the challenges for assessing progress in health 
improvement as a result of reductions in emissions of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs) are daunting . . . due to a lack of exposure-response 
functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background 
levels, the difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and 
the challenges of tracking health progress for diseases, such as 
cancer, that have long latency periods.'' \488\ EPA continues to work 
to address these limitations; however, we did not have the methods and 
tools available for national-scale application in time for the analysis 
of the proposed standards.\489\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \487\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2011). 
The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. 
Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. Available on the 
Internet at <https://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>.
    \488\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Science Advisory 
Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). (2008). Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions 
in Houston, 1990-2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-001. July. Available at 
.
    \489\ In April, 2009, EPA hosted a workshop on estimating the 
benefits or reducing hazardous air pollutants. This workshop built 
upon the work accomplished in the June 2000 Science Advisory Board/
EPA Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous 
Air Pollutants, which generated thoughtful discussion on approaches 
to estimating human health benefits from reductions in air toxics 
exposure, but no consensus was reached on methods that could be 
implemented in the near term for a broad selection of air toxics. 
Please visit https://epa.gov/air/toxicair/2009workshop.html for more 
information about the workshop and its associated materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Quantified Human Health Impacts

    Table VIII-3 and Table VIII-4 present the core estimates of annual 
PM2.5 and ozone health impacts, respectively, in the 48 
contiguous U.S. states associated with the proposed standards for 2030. 
For each endpoint presented in Table VIII-3 and Table VIII-4, we 
provide both the mean estimate and the 90 percent confidence interval.
    Using EPA's preferred estimates, based on the American Cancer 
Society (ACS) and Six-Cities studies and no threshold assumption in the 
model of mortality, we estimate that the proposed standards would 
result in between 800 and 2,100 cases of avoided PM2.5-
related premature mortalities annually in 2030. A sensitivity analysis 
was also conducted to understand the impact of alternative 
concentration response functions suggested by experts in the field. 
When the range of expert opinion is used, we estimate between 270 and 
2,700 fewer premature mortalities in 2030 (see Table 8.8 in the RIA 
that accompanies this action). For ozone-related premature mortality in 
2030, we estimate a range of between 170 to 770 fewer premature 
mortalities.

Table VIII-3--Estimated PM[ihel2].[ihel5]-Related Health Impacts \a\ \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2030 Annual reduction in incidence
            Health effect                       (5th%-95th%ile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality--Derived from
 epidemiology literature: \c\
    Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study                     800 (310-1,300)
     (Pope et al., 2002)............
    Adult, age 25+, Six-Cities Study                 2,100 (1,100-3,000)
     (Laden et al., 2006)...........
    Infant, age <1 year (Woodruff et                             3 (0-8)
     al., 1997).....................
Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26                        560 (100-1,000)
 and over)..........................
Non-fatal myocardial infarction                          980 (360-1,600)
 (adult, age 18 and over)...........
Hospital admissions--respiratory                            160 (77-230)
 (all ages) \d\.....................
Hospital admissions--cardiovascular                        380 (270-440)
 (adults, age >18) \e\..............
Emergency room visits for asthma                           600 (350-850)
 (age 18 years and younger).........
Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8-                      1,300 (0-2,500)
 12)................................
Lower respiratory symptoms                         16,000 (7,700-24,000)
 (children, age 7-14)...............
Upper respiratory symptoms                         12,000 (3,800-20,000)
 (asthmatic children, age 9-18).....
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic                     27,000 (3,000-74,000)
 children, age 6-18)................
Work loss days......................            100,000 (88,000-110,000)
Minor restricted activity days                 600,000 (500,000-690,000)
 (adults age 18-65).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits presented in this table include California emission
  reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in
  states that have adopted California's LEV III program in the baseline
  air quality modeling for the final rule.
\b\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent
  incidence within the 48 contiguous United States.
\c\ PM-related adult mortality based upon the American Cancer Society
  (ACS) Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) and the Six-Cities Study (Laden
  et al., 2006). Note that these are two alternative estimates of adult
  mortality and should not be summed. PM-related infant mortality based
  upon a study by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, (1997).\490\
\d\ Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for
  chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma.
\e\ Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total
  cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease,
  dysrhythmias, and heart failure.

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

    \490\ 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.

[[Page 29984]]



      Table VIII-4--Estimated Ozone-Related Health Impacts \a\ \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2030 Annual reduction in incidence
            Health effect                       (5th%-95th%ile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality, All ages \c\
Multi-City Analyses:
    Bell et al. (2004)--Non-                                170 (73-260)
     accidental.....................
    Huang et al. (2005)--                                  250 (120-380)
     Cardiopulmonary................
    Schwartz (2005)--Non-accidental.                       260 (110-410)
Meta-analyses:
    Bell et al. (2005)--All cause...                       540 (300-780)
    Ito et al. (2005)--Non-                              750 (500-1,000)
     accidental.....................
    Levy et al. (2005)--All cause...                       770 (560-970)
Hospital admissions--respiratory                       1,200 (160-2,200)
 causes (adult, 65 and older) \d\...
Hospital admissions--respiratory                           550 (290-810)
 causes (children, under 2).........
Emergency room visit for asthma (all                       580 (0-1,500)
 ages)..............................
Minor restricted activity days               970,000 (490,000-1,500,000)
 (adults, age 18-65)................
School absence days.................           350,000 (150,000-490,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits presented in this table include California emission
  reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in
  states that have adopted California's LEV III program in the baseline
  air quality modeling for the final rule.
\b\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent
  incidence within the 48 contiguous U.S.
\c\ Estimates of ozone-related premature mortality are based upon
  incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et
  al. (2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Bell et al. (2005);
  Ito et al. (2005); Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone-related
  premature mortality should therefore not be summed.
\d\ Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all
  respiratory causes and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia.

C. Monetized Benefits

    Table VIII-5 presents the estimated monetary value of changes in 
the incidence of ozone and PM2.5-related health effects. All 
monetized estimates are stated in 2010$. These estimates account for 
growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between the 
present and 2030. Our estimate of total monetized benefits in 2030 for 
the program, using the ACS and Six-Cities PM mortality studies and the 
range of ozone mortality assumptions, is $9.5 and $27 billion, assuming 
a 3 percent discount rate, or between $8.7 and $25 billion, assuming a 
7 percent discount rate. This represents the health benefits of the 
Tier 3 program anticipated to occur annually when the program is fully 
implemented and most of the fleet turned over.

Table VIII-5--Estimated Monetary Value of Changes in Incidence of Health
                       and Welfare Effects in 2030
                       [Millions of 2010$] \a\ \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Health endpoints              2030 (5th and 95th percentile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      PM2.5-Related Health Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality--Derived from
 Epidemiology Studies: c d
    Adult, age 30+--ACS study (Pope
     et al., 2002):
        3% discount rate............               $7,200 ($920-$18,000)
        7% discount rate............              $6,500 ($830--$17,000)
    Adult, age 25+--Six-Cities study
     (Laden et al., 2006):
        3% discount rate............            $18,000 ($2,600-$45,000)
        7% discount rate............            $17,000 ($2,300-$41,000)
    Infant Mortality, <1 year--                            $27 ($0-$100)
     (Woodruff et al. 1997).........
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and                     $310 ($25-$1,000)
 over)..............................
Non-fatal acute myocardial
 infarctions:
     3% discount rate...............                     $110 ($24-$260)
     7% discount rate...............                      $90 ($19-$210)
Hospital admissions for respiratory                     $2.5 ($1.2-$3.6)
 causes.............................
Hospital admissions for                                  $5.5 ($1.2-$10)
 cardiovascular causes..............
Emergency room visits for asthma....                 $0.24 ($0.13-$0.36)
Acute bronchitis (children, age 8-                    $0.61 ($0.00-$1.5)
 12)................................
Lower respiratory symptoms                           $0.34 ($0.13-$0.63)
 (children, 7-14)...................
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma,                  $0.40 ($0.12-$0.89)
 9-11)..............................
Asthma exacerbations................                   $1.6 ($0.17-$4.4)
Work loss days......................                       $16 ($14-$19)
Minor restricted-activity days                             $41 ($24-$59)
 (MRADs)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Ozone-Related Health Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality, All ages--
 Derived from Multi-city analyses:
    Bell et al., 2004...............                $1,700 ($220-$4,200)
    Huang et al., 2005..............                $2,500 ($340-$6,200)
    Schwartz, 2005..................                $2,600 ($330-$6,500)
Premature Mortality, All ages--
 Derived from Meta-analyses:
    Bell et al., 2005...............               $5,400 ($760-$13,000)
    Ito et al., 2005................             $7,400 ($1,100-$18,000)

[[Page 29985]]

 
    Levy et al., 2005...............             $7,600 ($1,100-$18,000)
Hospital admissions--respiratory                          $32 ($4.2-$56)
 causes (adult, 65 and older).......
Hospital admissions--respiratory                        $6.0 ($3.1-$8.9)
 causes (children, under 2).........
Emergency room visit for asthma (all                  $0.23 ($0.0-$0.57)
 ages)..............................
Minor restricted activity days                            $67 ($31-$110)
 (adults, age 18-65)................
School absence days.................                       $34 ($15-$48)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits presented in this table include California emission
  reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in
  states that have adopted California's LEV III program in the baseline
  air quality modeling for the final rule.
\b\ Monetary benefits are rounded to two significant digits for ease of
  presentation and computation. PM and ozone benefits are nationwide.
\c\ Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per
  capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2030).
\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.

D. What are the limitations of the benefits analysis?

    Every benefit-cost analysis examining the potential effects of a 
change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some 
extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as 
geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific 
and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. 
Limitations of the scientific literature often result in the inability 
to estimate quantitative changes in health and environmental effects, 
such as potential decreases in premature mortality associated with 
decreased exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics 
literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even 
to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. 
These general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics 
literature, which can lead to valuations that are higher or lower, are 
discussed in detail in the draft RIA and its supporting references. Key 
uncertainties that have a bearing on the results of the benefit-cost 
analysis of the 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 (including future year climate 
uncertainty);
     Uncertainty in the estimated relationships of health and 
welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations including the 
shape of the concentration-response function, the size of the effect 
estimates, and the relative toxicity of the many components of the PM 
mixture;
     Uncertainties in exposure estimation; and
     Uncertainties associated with the effect of potential 
future actions to limit emissions.
    As Table VIII-5 indicates, total benefits are driven primarily by 
the reduction in premature mortalities each year. Some key assumptions 
underlying the premature mortality estimates include the following, 
which may also contribute to uncertainty:
     Inhalation of fine particles is causally associated with 
premature death at concentrations near those experienced by most 
Americans on a daily basis. Although biological mechanisms for this 
effect have not yet been completely established, the weight of the 
available epidemiological, toxicological, and experimental evidence 
supports an assumption of causality. The impacts of including a 
probabilistic representation of causality were explored in the expert 
elicitation-based results of the PM NAAQS RIA.\491\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \491\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of 
Air and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 vehicle engines may differ significantly from PM 
precursors released from electric generating units and other industrial 
sources. However, no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting 
differential effects estimates by particle type.
     The C-R function for fine particles is approximately 
linear within the range of ambient concentrations under consideration. 
Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine 
particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM, including both 
regions that may be in attainment with PM2.5 standards and 
those that are at risk of not meeting the standards.
     There is uncertainty in the magnitude of the association 
between ozone and premature mortality. The range of ozone benefits 
associated with the coordinated strategy is estimated based on the risk 
of several sources of ozone-related mortality effect estimates. In a 
report on the estimation of ozone-related premature mortality published 
by the National Research Council, a panel of experts and reviewers 
concluded that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to 
contribute to premature deaths and that ozone-related mortality should 
be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone 
exposure.\492\ EPA has requested advice from the National Academy of 
Sciences on how best to quantify uncertainty in the relationship 
between ozone exposure and premature mortality in the context of 
quantifying benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \492\ National Research Council (NRC), (2008). Estimating 
Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling 
Ozone Air Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the uncertainties described above, we believe this analysis 
provides a conservative estimate of the estimated criteria pollutant-
related health and environmental benefits of the standards in future 
years because of the exclusion of potentially significant benefit 
categories that are not quantifiable at this time. Acknowledging 
benefits omissions and uncertainties, we present a best estimate of the 
total benefits based on our interpretation of the best available 
scientific literature and methods supported by EPA's technical peer 
review panel, the Science Advisory

[[Page 29986]]

Board's Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB-HES). The National Academies 
of Science (NRC, 2002) has also reviewed EPA's methodology for 
analyzing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air 
pollution. EPA addressed many of these comments in the analysis of the 
final PM NAAQS.493 494 This analysis incorporates this work 
to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \493\ National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Estimating the 
Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. The 
National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
    \494\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of 
Air and Radiation. Available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Illustrative Analysis of Monetized Impacts Associated With the 
Proposal in 2017

    For illustrative purposes, this section presents the total 
estimated monetized benefits associated with the proposed standards in 
2017. As presented in Section III.B, the emissions impacts of the 
proposed standards in 2017 are primarily due to the effects of sulfur 
on the existing (pre-Tier 3) fleet. For reasons explained in Chapter 
7.1.3.2.2 of the draft RIA, our analysis of the air quality impacts in 
2017 reflects an increase in direct PM emissions from vehicles (along 
with reductions in NOX, VOCs and other pollutants). This 
emissions increase results from a series of conservative assumptions 
and uncertainties related to fuel parameters in 2017, and is not 
expected to occur in reality. Because our air quality modeling assumes 
this increase, as well as increased direct PM emissions due to an 
emissions processing error (see Chapter 7.2.1.1.2 of the draft RIA), 
our illustrative benefits analysis in 2017 overestimates ambient 
concentrations of PM2.5 and underestimates the benefits of 
the proposed Tier 3 standards.
    Table VIII-6 presents total aggregate monetized benefits of the 
program in 2017, which includes the modeled direct PM increase 
described above. Monetized estimates are presented in 2010$. Our 
estimate of total monetized benefits associated with the proposed 
standards in 2017, using the ACS and Six-Cities PM mortality studies 
and the range of ozone mortality assumptions, is between $1.0 and $3.4 
billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $1.0 and $3.3 
billion, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Had our ambient air 
quality modeling of PM2.5 not included the increase in 
direct PM emissions, we estimate that benefits would increase by a 
range of $400 to $970 million (assuming a 3 percent discount rate) or 
increase by a range of $360 to $880 million (assuming a 7 percent 
discount rate), using current EPA benefit-per-ton estimates for direct 
PM.\495\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \495\ The PM2.5-related benefit-per-ton estimates 
provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of 
premature mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of 
directly emitted PM2.5. The benefit per-ton technique has 
been used in previous analyses, including the 2012-2016 Light-Duty 
Greenhouse Gas Rule (U.S. EPA, 2010. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Final Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. 
Office of Transportation and Air Quality. April. Available at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf. EPA-420-R-10-
009). The benefits-per-ton values are available at https://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/benmap/bpt.html. Note that the values on the 
Web site are presented in year 2006$; the values underlying the 
estimates here have been adjusted to 2010$ using the CPI-U ``all'' 
index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For a more detailed presentation of the quantified and monetized 
impacts of the proposal in 2017, please refer to Chapter 8 of the RIA 
that accompanies this preamble.

    Table VIII-6--Total Monetized Ozone and PM-Related Benefits Associated With the Proposed Program in 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)--PM mortality derived from the ACS and six-cities studies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       3% Discount rate                                         7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Mean total    Ozone mortality                     Mean total
   Ozone mortality function       Reference        benefits         function        Reference        benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city...................  Bell et al.,          $1.0-$1.8  Multi-city.....  Bell et al.,         $0.96-$1.7
                                2004.                                             2004.
                               Huang et al.,           1.2-1.9  ...............  Huang et al.,           1.2-1.9
                                2005.                                             2005.
                               Schwartz, 2005.         1.3-2.0  ...............  Schwartz, 2005.         1.2-1.9
Meta-analysis................  Bell et al.,            2.1-2.8  Meta-analysis..  Bell et al.,            2.0-2.7
                                2005.                                             2005.
                               Ito et al.,             2.6-3.4  ...............  Ito et al.,             2.6-3.3
                                2005.                                             2005.
                               Levy et al.,            2.7-3.4  ...............  Levy et al.,            2.6-3.3
                                2005.                                             2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
 Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)--PM mortality derived from expert elicitation (lowest and highest
                                                    estimate)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       3% Discount rate                                         7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Mean total    Ozone mortality                     Mean total
   Ozone mortality function       Reference        benefits         function        Reference        benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city...................  Bell et al.,         $0.68-$3.8  Multi-city.....  Bell et al.,         $0.67-$2.0
                                2004.                                             2004.
                               Huang et al.,          0.89-2.4  ...............  Huang et al.,          0.87-2.2
                                2005.                                             2005.
                               Schwartz, 2005.        0.93-2.4  ...............  Schwartz, 2005.        0.91-2.3
Meta-analysis................  Bell et al.,            1.7-3.2  Meta-analysis..  Bell et al.,            1.7-3.1
                                2005.                                             2005.
                               Ito et al.,             2.3-3.8  ...............  Ito et al.,             2.3-3.6
                                2005.                                             2005.
                               Levy et al.,            2.3-3.8  ...............  Levy et al.,            2.3-3.7
                                2005.                                             2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Alternatives Analysis

    As described throughout this preamble, we have considered a number 
of regulatory alternatives in the development of this proposal, 
including alternatives related to timing and stringency of the proposed 
standards, as well as program design (e.g., averaging, banking, and 
trading). This section summarizes the alternatives considered for both 
vehicle emission and fuel standards.

A. Vehicle Emission Standards

    The federal vehicle emission standards we are proposing are the 
most stringent feasible considering anticipated developments in motor 
vehicle emissions control technology.

[[Page 29987]]

As we considered options for these vehicle standards, one of the 
important factors we considered was harmonization with the CARB LEV III 
program. As a result, consideration of alternatives focused less on the 
level of the per-vehicle standards themselves and more on the phase-in 
schedule for the standards, which can have an important influence on 
the cost of the standards. Phase-in schedules directly impact costs 
depending on how they are aligned with other light-duty rules and 
product design cycles. In addition, phase-in schedules can impact the 
cost of available resources, specifically design, development and 
testing resources within vehicle manufacturers and emission control 
suppliers.
1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phase-in
    We originally considered requiring full implementation of the final 
NMOG+NOX final fleet average standard by MY 2022. However, 
we determined that this would have disrupted the manufacturer's normal 
product design cycles,\496\ and it would not have allowed manufacturers 
to use a consistent product design cycle for both the Tier 3 standards 
and the 2017 LD GHG standards, which reach full implementation in MY 
2025. We are proposing to extend the phase-in schedule to MY 2025 in 
order to allow vehicle manufacturers to better integrate the compliance 
with Tier 3 into their product design cycles, as well as take advantage 
of additional learning to reduce costs. We believe this implementation 
schedule for the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards would allow us to 
achieve the environmental objectives without imposing unnecessary cost 
and burden on the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \496\ A light-duty vehicle product design cycle is the number of 
years between major redesigns of a vehicle. Typically, major 
redesigns are completed every 5 to 6 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Longer NMOG+NOX Standards Phase-In Due to Early Credits
    In an effort to facilitate the step-down in fleet average 
stringency in the initial model years of the Tier 3 program, we 
considered allowing manufacturers to earn credits against the current 
Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average and use earned early credits without any 
limits for the first five years of the Tier 3 program. CARB, along with 
some vehicle manufacturers, noted that if a manufacturer were to 
substantially over comply with the Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average, these 
early credits might not only delay achievement of the Tier 3 emission 
levels, but also delay harmonization between the Tier 3 and LEV III 
programs for many years. To address this potential misalignment, we are 
proposing that the application of the early credits be capped starting 
in MY 2018 at a manufacturer's LEV III credits adjusted by the ratio of 
California and Section 177 state sales to federal sales. (See Section 
IV.A.7.a for more details.) This proposed approach would balance the 
need for some transition flexibility to avoid unnecessary costs, while 
still ensuring expeditious harmonization with LEV III and achievement 
of the environmental benefits of the Tier 3 standards.
3. Shorter PM Standards Phase-In
    As we considered potential PM phase-in schedules, we gave strong 
consideration to manufacturers' PM testing capabilities and product 
design cycles. We considered requiring manufacturers to certify 25 
percent of their fleet to the Tier 3 p.m. standards in MY 2017, ramping 
up to 100 percent by MY 2020. We initially believed that this schedule 
would allow manufacturers to focus engineering resources on ensuring 
their new products meet the proposed Tier 3 standards while other 
product lines, which we expect would be phased out due to the 2017 LD 
GHG standards, expire. However, based on further discussions with the 
vehicle manufacturers, we recognized that they need time to improve and 
expand their facilities to measure PM, not only for compliance 
determination but also for product development work prior to 
production. As a result, we are proposing a phase-in schedule for 
meeting the proposed Tier 3 p.m. standards that starts with 20 percent 
of the vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR in MY 2017 and ramps up to 
100 percent of the light-duty fleet in MY 2021. As with the 
NMOG+NOX phase-in discussed above, we believe this proposed 
phase-in schedule for the Tier 3 p.m. standards would allow us to 
achieve the environmental objectives without imposing unnecessary cost 
and burden on the industry.
4. NMOG+NOX Standards
    We believe that the fleet-average NMOG+NOX standards 
that we are proposing reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction 
achievable considering cost and technology, assuming that gasoline 
sulfur levels are reduced to the proposed 10-ppm average. We also 
believe the proposed implementation schedule for the NMOG+ 
NOX standards is as short as practicable, as explained 
above. As a result, we believe more stringent standards would not be 
justified based on the information currently available to EPA. 
Therefore, given our goal to harmonize our program with CARB's at the 
30 mg/mi level, we did not conduct any detailed analysis of a less 
stringent fleet average standard. Based on the work done to quantify 
the impacts of the 30 mg/mi standard, however, we can say that a fleet-
average standard of 50 mg/mi of NMOG+NOX would result in 
NMOG+NOX emissions in 2030 that are about 100,000 tons 
higher than the standards we are proposing. While costs would be lower 
because the emissions controls discussed in Section VII.A would be 
applied at a lower rate, such a standard would also not be harmonized 
with CARB LEV III standards.
5. PM Standards
    The FTP PM standards that we are proposing are the most stringent 
technically feasible standards within the implementation timeframe of 
this proposal. Although CARB has finalized a 1 mg/mi standard which 
will begin phasing in with MY 2025, they acknowledge that there is a 
need for continuing PM measurement method development prior to 
implementing this standard.\497\ The EPA believes that in order to 
propose a federal PM standard at this level, there should be 
established methods to reliably and consistently measure PM at levels 
at and below that standard that would be needed for ensuring 
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \497\ California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of 
Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider LEV III, December 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Fuel Sulfur Standards

    As explained in Section V.A.2., we believe that a 10-ppm annual 
average standard is sufficient to enable the vehicle fleet to meet the 
proposed Tier 3 standards and appropriately balances feasibility with 
costs. Other countries and California have also reduced the sulfur 
content of their gasoline; California's gasoline is already meeting our 
proposed 10-ppm average sulfur level, and Europe and Japan have a cap 
on the sulfur content of gasoline at 10 ppm. Because vehicle emission 
performance improves as sulfur is reduced, we considered imposing a 10-
ppm cap (i.e., no averaging, banking and trading), as well as lowering 
gasoline sulfur content below the 10-ppm average (see Section V.A.6).
    We considered expressing the standard as a cap similar to the 
standard in Europe and Japan. However, by allowing averaging to meet 
10-ppm, we believe that the most challenged refiners would be able to 
avoid what could be

[[Page 29988]]

cost-prohibitive investments, while still meeting 10 ppm across the 
fuel pool. As discussed in Section VII.B., we estimate that allowing 
averaging would reduce nationwide control costs by nearly 10 percent, 
and would still be sufficient to enable vehicles to meet the proposed 
Tier 3 standards.
    We also considered an even lower sulfur standard of 5 ppm. Based 
upon the results of our test programs and associated modeling, a sulfur 
standard of 5 ppm could reduce VOC+NOX emissions from the 
existing fleet by an additional 80,000 tons in 2017.
    However, we believe a 5 ppm standard would significantly increase 
both capital and operating costs. Such a standard would require: (1) 
More severe treatment of FCC gasoline; (2) more overcapacity and 
storage for reprocessing of off-specification product; (3) treatment of 
additional (non-FCC) gasoline blendstocks; (4) essentially all 
refineries to reduce sulfur to 5 ppm, thereby eliminating much of the 
benefit of the ABT provisions, and (5) controlling the contribution to 
gasoline sulfur from gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants, 
and contamination in the distribution system.
    In our analysis of the 10-ppm average standard and refineries that 
might reduce sulfur to 5 ppm in order to generate credits, we estimated 
that the sulfur control costs to achieve 5 ppm would be more than 50 
percent greater than for our proposed 10-ppm standard. This is more 
than twice as high on a cost per ppm-gallon basis. Additionally, as 
explained earlier, a 5 ppm standard would likely result in the 
elimination of the ability for refineries to trade credits. Without a 
viable trading program it could become prohibitively expensive for the 
more challenged refineries to comply, creating a financial hardship 
situation. Because the costs and other economic impacts rise 
dramatically as sulfur is reduced below 10 ppm, we believe that a 10-
ppm sulfur standard is the most stringent feasible standard considering 
technology and cost.
    In addition to lower average sulfur standards, we are also 
considering lower per-gallon cap standards, which are currently set 
under the Tier 2 program at 80 ppm sulfur at the refinery gate and 95 
ppm sulfur downstream. As discussed in Section V.A.3., in addition to 
proposing that these cap standards be maintained, we are co-proposing 
lowering them to 50 ppm and 65 ppm respectively. Given the stringency 
of the 10-ppm average standard, we do not anticipate that this would 
have a meaningful impact on either program costs or emission 
reductions. However, it would provide added assurance that individual 
vehicles would not be exposed to higher sulfur levels and the resulting 
impacts on emissions. Vehicle manufacturers have expressed concern that 
such exposure could impact not only individual vehicle emissions, but 
also vehicle operation, due to interference with sensors and feedback 
controls. To further address concerns of vehicle manufacturers, we are 
also requesting comment on the potential implementation of a refinery 
gate sulfur cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream sulfur cap as low as 
25 ppm. This would further constrain downstream contamination and limit 
the temporary exposure of vehicles in-use to sulfur levels that would 
significantly degrade their emission performance.

X. Economic Impact Analysis

A. Introduction

    The proposed rule would affect two sectors directly: Vehicle 
manufacturing and petroleum refining. For these two regulated sectors, 
the economic impact analysis discusses the market impacts from the 
proposed rule, the changes in price and quantity sold. In addition, 
although analysis of employment impacts is not part of a benefit-cost 
analysis (except to the extent that labor costs contribute to costs), 
employment impacts of federal rules are of particular concern in the 
current economic climate of sizeable unemployment. The recently issued 
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' 
(January 18, 2011), states, ``Our regulatory system must protect public 
health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic 
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation'' (emphasis 
added). For this reason, we are examining the effects of this proposal 
on employment in the regulated sectors.

B. Vehicle Sales Impacts

    This rule takes effect from MY 2017-2025. In the intervening years, 
it is possible that the assumptions underlying a quantitative analysis, 
as well as market conditions, might change. For this reason, we present 
a qualitative discussion of the effects on vehicle sales of the 
proposed standards at the aggregate market level. Vehicle manufacturers 
are expected to comply with the proposed standards primarily through 
technological changes to vehicles. These changes to vehicle design and 
manufacturing are expected to increase manufacturers' costs of vehicle 
production.
    Section VII.A estimates the increase in vehicle costs due to the 
proposed standards. These costs differ across years and range from $71 
to $102 for cars, $93 to $150 for trucks and $36 to $59 for Class 2b/3 
vehicles (see Section VII.A). These costs are small relative to the 
cost of a vehicle. In a fully competitive industry, these costs would 
be entirely passed through to consumers. However in an oligopolistic 
industry such as the automotive sector, these increases in cost may not 
fully pass through to the purchase price, and the consumers may face an 
increase in price that is less than the increased manufacturers' costs 
of vehicle production.\498\ We do not quantify the expected level of 
cost pass-through or the ultimate vehicle price increase consumers are 
expected to face, apart from noting that prices are expected to 
increase by an amount up to the increased manufacturers' costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \498\ See, for instance, Gron, A., and Swenson, D. (2000). Cost 
Pass-Through in the U.S. Automobile Market. Review of Economics and 
Statistics 82, 316-324 () who found significantly less than full-
cost pass-through using data from 1984-1994. Using full-cost pass-
through overstates costs and thus contributes to lower vehicle sales 
than using a lower estimate. To the extent that the auto industry 
has become more competitive over time, full-cost pass-through may be 
more appropriate than a result based on this older study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This increase in price is expected to lower the quantity of 
vehicles sold. Given that we expect that vehicle prices will not change 
by more than the cost increase, we expect that the decrease in vehicle 
sales will be negligible.
    The effect of this rule on the use and scrappage of older vehicles 
would be related to its effects on new vehicle prices and the total 
sales of new vehicles. The increase in price is likely to cause the 
``turnover'' of the vehicle fleet (i.e., the retirement of used 
vehicles and their replacement by new models) to slow slightly, thus 
reducing the anticipated effect of the rule on fleet-wide emissions. 
Because we do not estimate the effect of the rule on new vehicle price 
changes nor do we have a good estimate of the effect of new vehicle 
price changes on vehicle turnover, we have not attempted to estimate 
explicitly the effects of the rule on scrappage of older vehicles and 
the turnover of the vehicle fleet.

C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production

    The key change for refiners from the proposed standards would be 
more stringent sulfur requirements. This change to fuels is expected to 
increase manufacturers' costs of gasoline production by about 0.9 cents 
per gallon (see Section VII.B).
    In a perfectly competitive industry, this cost would be passed 
along

[[Page 29989]]

completely to consumers. In an imperfectly competitive industry, as 
noted above, full cost pass-through is not necessary: Firms may choose 
to reduce impacts on sales by not passing along full costs. In 2004, 
the Federal Trade Commission reported that ``concentration for most 
levels of the petroleum industry has remained low to moderate.'' \499\ 
Thus the assumption of competitive markets has some foundation in this 
industry. We do not estimate the price increase that consumers are 
likely to face, though we note that it should be positive and up to the 
increase in manufacturers' costs of gasoline production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \499\ Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics. (2004). The 
Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust 
Enforcement. Retrieved August 16, 2011 from Federal Trade Commission 
Web site: https://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/08/040813mergersinpetrolberpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effect of higher gasoline prices on gasoline sales is expected 
to be different over the short and long term. In the long run, in 
response to the increase in fuel costs, consumers can more easily 
change their driving habits, including where they live or what vehicles 
they use. Because of this, we expect that gasoline sales will decrease 
more in the long run compared to the short run as a result of the price 
increase due to the proposed rule. However, because manufacturers' 
costs are expected to increase less than one cent per gallon, we expect 
that the decrease in gasoline sales will be negligible over all time 
horizons.

D. Employment Impacts

    This section discusses changes in employment due to the proposed 
rule. We focus on the auto manufacturing sector and the refinery sector 
because they are directly regulated, and because they are likely to 
bear a substantial share of changes in employment due to this proposed 
rule. We partially quantify impacts in the auto sector, providing a mix 
of qualitative and quantitative discussion, following the methods used 
in the Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 
Standards.\500\ For the refinery sector we provide a qualitative 
analysis. We also include discussion of effects on the motor vehicle 
parts manufacturing sector because the auto manufacturing sector can 
either produce parts internally or buy them from an external supplier, 
and we do not have estimates of the likely breakdown of effort between 
the two sectors. For the same reasons, we discuss effects on producers 
of equipment that refiners would use to comply with the proposed 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \500\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the economy is at full employment, an environmental regulation 
is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. employment; 
instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector to another. 
These shifts in employment impose an opportunity cost on society, 
approximated by the wages of the employees, as regulation diverts 
workers from other activities in the economy. In this situation, any 
effects on net employment are likely to be transitory as workers change 
jobs (e.g., some workers may need to be retrained or require time to 
search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could 
bid up wages to attract workers).
    On the other hand, if a regulation comes into effect during a 
period of high unemployment, a change in labor demand due to regulation 
may affect net overall U.S. employment because the labor market is not 
in equilibrium. Schmalansee and Stavins point out that net positive 
employment effects are possible in the near term when the economy is at 
less than full employment due to the potential hiring of idle labor 
resources by the regulated sector to meet new requirements (e.g., to 
install new equipment) and new economic activity in sectors related to 
the regulated sector.\501\ In the longer run, the net effect on 
employment is more difficult to predict and will depend on the way in 
which the related industries respond to the regulatory requirements. As 
Schmalansee and Stavins note, it is possible that the magnitude of the 
effect on employment could vary over time, region, and sector, and 
positive effects on employment in some regions or sectors could be 
offset by negative effects in other regions or sectors. For this 
reason, they urge caution in reporting partial employment effects since 
it can ``paint an inaccurate picture of net employment impacts if not 
placed in the broader economic context.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \501\ Schmalensee, R., & Stavins, R. (2011). A Guide to Economic 
and Policy Analysis of EPA's Transport Rule'' White paper 
commissioned by Excelon Corporation ().
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We follow the theoretical structure proposed in a study by 
Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) \502\ of the impacts of regulation 
in employment in the regulated sectors. In particular, Morgenstern et 
al. (2002) identify three separate ways that employment levels may 
change in the regulated industry in response to a new or more stringent 
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \502\ Morgenstern, R., Pizer, W., & Shih, J. (2002). Jobs Versus 
the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective. Journal of 
Environmental Economics and Management 43, 412-436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Demand effect: Higher production costs due to the 
regulation will lead to higher market prices; higher prices in turn 
reduce demand for the good, reducing the demand for labor to make that 
good. In the authors' words, the ``extent of this effect depends on the 
cost increase passed on to consumers as well as the demand elasticity 
of industry output.''
    [ssquf] Cost effect: As costs go up, plants add more capital and 
labor (holding other factors constant), with potentially positive 
effects on employment; in the authors' words, as ``production costs 
rise, more inputs, including labor, are used to produce the same amount 
of output.''
    [ssquf] Factor-shift effect: Post-regulation production 
technologies may be more or less labor-intensive (i.e., more/less labor 
is required per dollar of output). In the authors' words, 
``environmental activities may be more labor intensive than 
conventional production,'' meaning that ``the amount of labor per 
dollar of output will rise,'' though it is also possible that ``cleaner 
operations could involve automation and less employment, for example.''
    The authors note that the demand effect is expected to have a 
negative effect on employment, the cost effect to have a positive 
effect on employment, and the factor-shift effect to have an ambiguous 
effect on employment.
    Morgenstern et al. (2002) estimated the effects on employment of 
spending on pollution abatement for four highly polluting/regulated 
industries (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining) 
using data for six years between 1979 and 1991. They concluded that 
increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a 
significant change in employment in those sectors. More specifically, 
their results showed that, on average across the industries studied, 
each additional $1 million (1987$) spent on pollution abatement 
resulted in a (statistically insignificant) net increase of 1.5 jobs. 
In the petroleum refining industry in particular, they found 
statistically significant and positive cost and factor shift effects 
and an insignificant demand effect, for a net (statistically 
significant) increase of 2.17 jobs per $1 million (1987$).
1. Employment Impacts in the Auto Sector
    Following the Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework, we consider 
three effects for the auto sector: The demand

[[Page 29990]]

effect, the cost effect, and the factor shift effect.
a. The Demand Effect
    The demand effect depends on the effects of this proposal on 
vehicle sales. If vehicle sales decrease, employment associated with 
these activities would decrease. As discussed in Section X.B, we do not 
make a quantitative estimate on the effect of the proposed rule on 
vehicle sales but we note that the decrease in vehicle sales is 
expected to be negligible. Thus we expect any decrease in employment in 
the auto sector through the demand effect to be small as well.
b. The Cost Effect
    The demand effect, above, measures the effect due to new vehicle 
sales only. The cost effect measures the impacts due to the changes in 
technologies for vehicles that would have been sold in the absence of 
the rule. We estimate the cost effect by multiplying the ratio of 
workers to each $1 million of expenditures in the auto sector by the 
cost estimates for complying with the rule.
    Some of the costs of this proposal would be spent directly in the 
auto manufacturing sector, but it is also likely that some of the costs 
would be spent in the auto parts manufacturing sector. We separately 
present the ratios for both the auto manufacturing sector and the auto 
parts manufacturing sector.
    There are several public sources for estimates of employment per $1 
million expenditures. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 
provides its Employment Requirements Matrix (ERM),\503\ which provides 
direct estimates of the employment per $1 million in sales of goods in 
202 sectors. The values considered here are for Motor Vehicle 
Manufacturing (NAICS 3361) and Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 
3363).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \503\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Requirements 
Matrix. https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_data_emp_requirements.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Census Bureau provides both the Annual Survey of Manufactures 
\504\ (ASM) and the Economic Census. The ASM is a subset of the 
Economic Census, based on a sample of establishments; though the Census 
itself is more complete, it is conducted only every 5 years, while the 
ASM is annual. Both include more sectoral detail than the BLS ERM: For 
instance, while the ERM includes the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 
sector, the ASM and Economic Census have detail at the 6-digit NAICS 
code level (e.g., light truck and utility vehicle manufacturing). While 
the ERM provides direct estimates of employees/$1 million in 
expenditures, the ASM and Economic Census separately provide number of 
employees and value of shipments; the direct employment estimates here 
are the ratio of those values. The values reported are for Motor 
Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 3361), Automobile and Light Duty Motor 
Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 33611), and Motor Vehicle Parts 
Manufacturing (NAICS 3363).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \504\ U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of Manufactures. https://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the cost effect, we use estimates from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics and the Census Bureau of the number of workers per $1 
million of expenditures in the sectors. The use of these ratios has 
both advantages and limitations. It is often possible to estimate these 
ratios for quite specific sectors of the economy: For instance, it is 
possible to estimate the average number of workers in the light-duty 
vehicle manufacturing sector per $1 million spent in the sector, rather 
than use the ratio from another, more aggregated sector, such as motor 
vehicle manufacturing. As a result, it is not necessary to extrapolate 
employment ratios from possibly unrelated sectors. On the other hand, 
these estimates are averages for the sectors, covering all the 
activities in those sectors; they may not be representative of the 
labor required when expenditures are required on specific activities, 
as the factor-shift effect indicates. For instance, the ratio for the 
motor vehicle manufacturing sector represents the ratio for all vehicle 
manufacturing, not just for emissions reductions. In addition, these 
estimates do not include changes in sectors that supply these sectors, 
such as steel or electronics producers. They thus may best be viewed as 
the effects on employment in the specific sectors due to the changes in 
expenditures in those sectors, rather than as an assessment of all 
employment changes due to these changes in expenditures.
    The values used here are adjusted to remove the employment effects 
of imports through use of a ratio of domestic production to domestic 
sales of 0.667.\505\ As discussed in the draft RIA, trends in the BLS 
ERM are used to estimate productivity improvements over time that are 
used to adjust these ratios over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \505\ To estimate the proportion of domestic production affected 
by the change in sales, we use data from Ward's Automotive Group for 
total car and truck production in the U.S. compared to total car and 
truck sales in the U.S. For the period 2001-2010, the proportion is 
66.7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table X-1 provides estimates of the cost effect of this rule on 
employment. Chapter 2.1 of the draft RIA discusses the vehicle cost 
estimates developed for this rule, discussed in Section VII.A, 
presented in the second column. The maximum value for employment 
impacts per $1 million (before adjustments for changes in productivity, 
after accounting for the share of domestic production) is 1.809 if all 
the additional costs are in the parts sector; the minimum value is 
0.402, if all the additional costs are in the light-duty vehicle 
manufacturing sector. Increased costs of vehicles and parts would, by 
itself, be expected to increase employment between 2017 and 2025 by 
somewhere between a few hundred to a few thousand jobs.
    While we estimate employment impacts, measured in job-years, 
beginning with program implementation, some of these employment gains 
may occur earlier as auto manufacturers and parts suppliers hire staff 
in anticipation of compliance with the standard. A job-year is a way to 
calculate the amount of work needed to complete a specific task. For 
example, a job-year is one year of work for one person.

            Table X-1--Employment Effects Due to Increased Costs of Vehicles and Parts, in Job-Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Minimum employment
                                                                          Maximum employment    effect (if all
                                                      Costs (millions of    effect (if all     expenditures are
                        Year                                2010$)         expenditures are    in the light duty
                                                                             in the parts         vehicle mfg
                                                                                sector)             sector)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016................................................                $ 23                   0                   0
2017................................................                 709               + 900                +200
2018................................................               1,340              +1,700                +400

[[Page 29991]]

 
2019................................................               1,440              +1,800                +400
2020................................................               1,600              +1,900                +400
2021................................................               1,730              +2,000                +400
2022................................................               1,900              +2,100                +400
2023................................................               1,920              +2,000                +400
2024................................................               2,040              +2,100                +400
2025................................................               2,130              +2,100                +400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. The Factor Shift Effect
    The factor shift effect looks at the changes in labor intensity 
associated with a regulation. As noted above, the estimates of the cost 
effect assume constant labor per $1 million in expenditures, though the 
new technologies may be either more or less labor-intensive than the 
existing ones. We have no evidence on the factor shift effect for the 
compliance technologies and therefore do not quantify it. An estimate 
of the factor shift effect would either increase or decrease the 
estimate used for the cost effect.
d. Summary of Employment Effects in the Auto Sector
    The overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector employment 
depends on the relative magnitude of the cost effect, the demand effect 
and the factor shift effect. Because we do not have quantitative 
estimates of the demand and factor shift effects we cannot reach a 
quantitative estimate of the overall employment effects of the proposed 
rule on auto sector employment or even whether the total effect would 
be positive or negative. However, given that the expected increase in 
production costs to the auto manufacturers is relatively small, we 
expect that the magnitudes of all these effects will be small as well. 
Additionally, the cost and demand effects are expected to work in 
opposite directions. Thus while we do not have an estimate of the 
direction of the overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector 
employment, we expect it will be imperceptible.
    Additionally, the proposed rule is not expected to provide 
incentives for manufacturers to shift employment between domestic and 
foreign production. This is because the increased standards of the 
proposed rule would apply to vehicles sold in the U.S. regardless of 
where they are produced. If foreign manufacturers already have 
increased expertise in satisfying the requirements of the proposal, 
there may be some initial incentive for foreign production, but the 
opportunity for the U.S. to sell in other markets might increase. To 
the extent that the requirements of this proposal might lead to 
installation and use of technologies that other countries may seek now 
or in the future, developing this capacity for domestic production now 
may provide some additional ability to serve those markets. This 
potential benefit would not apply if other countries are not likely to 
have similar standards.
2. Refinery Employment Impacts
    The Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework of demand effects, cost 
effects and factor shift effects can also be applied to the impact of 
the proposed rule on employment in the refinery sector. Here we use a 
fully qualitative approach. A qualitative discussion allows for a wider 
incorporation of additional considerations, such as timing of impacts 
and the effects of the rule on imports and exports. Because the 
discussion is qualitative, we do not sum the net effects on employment. 
The demand effect on refining sector employment is expected to be 
negative. The discussion in Section X.C above suggested that the 
proposed rule would cause a small decrease in the quantity of gasoline 
demanded due to higher production costs being passed through to 
consumers. This slightly reduced level of sales would likely have a 
negative impact on employment in the refining sector. While we do not 
quantify the level of job losses that could be expected here, recall 
that the quantity of gasoline sold as a result of the standards 
proposed here is expected to decrease by only a very small amount over 
any time horizon.
    The cost effect of the proposed rule on employment in the refining 
sector is expected to be positive as usual in the Morgenstern et al. 
(2002) framework. In order to satisfy the requirements of the proposed 
rule, firms in the refining industry are expected to need to perform 
additional work that will require hiring more employees, especially 
perhaps in the short run. Section V.A.2.c discusses the expected 
employment needed to reduce the sulfur content of fuels; as noted 
there, to meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are 
expected to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize 
approximately 1,000 front-end design and engineering jobs and 6,000 
construction jobs. As the petroleum sector employed approximately 
65,000 workers in 2009, this temporary increase in employment would be 
comparable to an increase of over 10 percent when compared to 2009 
levels.
    As with our analysis of the vehicle manufacturing sector, we do not 
have information on the direction the factor shift effect might take. 
It is unclear whether the refining industry would become more or less 
capital intensive as a result of the proposed rule. Thus the direction 
of the factor shift effect is ambiguous.
    This rule is not expected to provide incentives to shift employment 
between domestic and foreign production. First, the proposed standards 
would apply to gasoline sold in the U.S. regardless of where it has 
been produced. U.S. gasoline demand is projected to continue to decline 
for the foreseeable future in response to higher gasoline prices, more 
stringent vehicle and engine greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards 
as well as increased use of renewable fuels. As a result, this analysis 
of incentives to shift employment between domestic and foreign 
production focuses on investments for existing capacity instead of 
expanding capacity.\506\ In this case, what is relevant is whether the 
necessary modifications to comply with Tier 3 would be significantly 
cheaper overseas than in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \506\ While refinery capacity has been increasing around the 
world in recent years, it has been designed primarily to supply 
foreign markets other than the U.S. (e.g., increasing demand in 
China and India).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The main impacts on capital and operating costs to comply with Tier 
3

[[Page 29992]]

associated with adding hydrotreating capacity are likely to be similar 
overseas as in the U.S. This is particularly true when analyzing likely 
sources of U.S. imports. The majority of gasoline imported to the U.S. 
today comes into the East Coast and is sourced out of either Europe or 
refineries in Canada or the Caribbean that exist almost solely to 
supply the U.S. market. These Canadian and Caribbean refineries, by 
virtue of their focus on the U.S. market, are very similar to U.S. 
based refineries and would be expected to have to incur similar capital 
and operating costs as their U.S. based competitors meeting the 10 ppm 
standard. Furthermore, the European refineries are already producing 
gasoline to a 10 ppm sulfur cap for Europe. To the extent they have 
refinery streams that are more difficult to hydrotreat, the U.S. market 
currently serves as an outlet for their higher sulfur gasoline streams. 
As a result, they may incur capital and operating costs on a per gallon 
basis at least as high as for their U.S. based competitors for these 
remaining higher sulfur gasoline streams. Alternatively, they may 
instead choose to find markets outside the U.S., opening the way for 
increased U.S. based refinery demand.
    Finally, despite refining industry projections that previously 
imposed diesel rules would lead to greater U.S. reliance on imports 
through major negative impacts on domestic refining, the reverse has 
actually occurred. Over the last 8 years, imports of gasoline and 
diesel fuel have continued to be the marginal supply, and have even 
dropped precipitously so that the U.S. is now a net exporter of diesel 
fuel and is importing half the gasoline that it did at its peak in 
2006. With the projected decline in future gasoline demand in the U.S. 
as vehicle fuel efficiency improves, gasoline imports are expected to 
continue to decline.
    Thus it is expected that for the refining sector, the demand effect 
would lower employment, the cost effect would raise employment, and the 
factor shift effect would have an ambiguous effect on employment. As a 
whole then, it is not evident whether the proposed rule would increase 
or decrease employment in the refining sector. However, given the small 
anticipated reduction in quantity sold, it appears that the rule would 
not have major employment consequences for this sector.
    The petroleum industry is one of the four industries studied by 
Morgenstern et al. (2002) when they look at the effect of environmental 
expenditures on employment. They found a small but statistically 
significant increase in employment in this sector (2.17 jobs per 
million dollars of expenditures, using 1987$). Using this factor 
(adjusted to 2010$), the estimated sulfur fuel control costs in 2017 of 
$1,289 million would imply an increase of approximately 1,600 jobs in 
the refinery sector. We note that the regulations that this estimate is 
derived from are not directly comparable to the current proposed rule; 
it is based on the costs of reductions in refinery emissions instead of 
changing fuel properties, and therefore may not be applicable for the 
standards proposed here.
    Section 5.3 of the draft RIA contains some historical discussion 
regarding the impact on refineries and refining capacity of earlier 
rules which resulted in higher costs for refiners. Over the period 
2003-2011, when a number of rules were being implemented, EIA data show 
a net of two net refinery closures on its Web site. Meanwhile, over 
this same period the average size of U.S. refineries increased from 
113,000 barrels per day to 123,000 barrels per day, and total U.S. 
refining capacity increased by six percent. Thus, historically during a 
time when rules with much larger expected impacts were being 
implemented (the 2003 ultra-low sulfur nonroad diesel proposal alone 
was expected to have a cost impact on refineries more than five times 
greater than the current proposed rule), U.S. refining capacity 
increased even as the number of U.S. refineries slightly fell. While 
closing refineries has a negative effect on industry employment, it is 
likely that the increased refining capacity at many of the remaining 
plants had a positive effect on industry employment.
    The proposed rule is also likely to have a positive impact on 
employment among producers of equipment that refiners will use to 
comply with the standards. Section V.A.2.c notes that some refiners are 
expected to need to revamp their current treatment units, and others 
will need to add additional treatment units. Producers of this 
equipment would be expected to hire additional labor to meet this 
increased demand. We also note that the employment effects may be 
different in the immediate implementation phase than in the ongoing 
compliance phase. It is expected that the employment increases through 
the cost effect from revamping old equipment and installing additional 
equipment should occur in the near term, when current unemployment 
levels are high, and the opportunity cost of workers is relatively low. 
Meanwhile, the employment decreases in the refining sector from the 
demand effect would not start until 2017, when compliance would be 
required, and when unemployment is expected to be reduced; in a time of 
full employment, any changes in employment levels in the regulated 
sector are mostly expected to be offset by changes in employment in 
other sectors.

XI. 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?

    Public comments on this proposal must be received on or before June 
13, 2013. If you have an interest in the proposed program described in 
this document, we encourage you to comment on any aspect of this 
rulemaking. We also request comment on specific topics identified 
throughout this proposal.
    Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and 
detailed supporting rationale, data, and analysis. Commenters are 
especially encouraged to provide specific suggestions for any changes 
to any aspect of the regulations that they believe need to be modified 
or improved. You should send all comments, except those containing 
proprietary information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES in the first 
part of this proposal) before the end of the comment period.
    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the 
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are 
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after 
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not 
required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or information that is 
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in 
Section XI.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, 
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-2011-0135. You may claim information that you submit to

[[Page 29993]]

EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if 
you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM 
the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not 
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comments that include 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comments 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.

C. 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.

D. Will there be a public hearing?

    Public hearings for this proposal were held on April 24, 2013 and 
April 29, 2013; EPA has announced more information regarding the public 
hearing locations in a supplemental Federal Register Notice.

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 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 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) 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 
Sections VII and VIII of this preamble and in Chapter 8 of the draft 
RIA. A copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents prepared by EPA have 
been assigned EPA ICR number 0783.63 for the vehicles provisions and 
EPA ICR 2482.01 and ICR 2459.01 for the fuels provisions.
    This proposed rule also contains reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for refiners and importers of motor vehicle gasoline, 
producers of gasoline additives, and producers of denatured fuel 
ethanol and other oxygenates. The proposed recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for refiners and importers of motor vehicle gasoline are 
the same requirements that exist under the Tier 2 sulfur program.\507\ 
The recordkeeping and Product Transfer Document (PTD) requirements for 
gasoline additive producers and PTD retention requirements for 
downstream parties under the proposed Tier 3 program are new but should 
be minimal since we expect that they are already followed as part of 
normal business practices. Finally, there are new recordkeeping and PTD 
requirements for producers of denatured fuel ethanol under the proposed 
Tier 3 program. EPA estimates the total number of respondents to be 
2,675, the total burden hours to be 84,000 and the total cost to 
respondents to be $6,300,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \507\ 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000; OMB Control Number: 2060-
0437; EPA ICR 1907.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule also contains reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for refiners and importers of motor vehicle gasoline. The 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these entities under the 
proposed Tier 3 program are the same requirements that exist under the 
Tier 2 sulfur program.\508\ The recordkeeping and Product Transfer 
Document (PTD) requirements for gasoline additive producers and PTD 
requirements for downstream parties under the proposed Tier 3 program 
are new but should be minimal since we expect that they are already 
followed as part of normal business practices. Finally, there are new 
recordkeeping and PTD requirements for producers of denatured fuel 
ethanol under the proposed Tier 3 program. EPA estimates the total 
number of respondents to be 1,500, the total burden hours to be 76,743 
and the total cost to respondents to be $5,908,504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \508\ 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000; OMB Control Number: 2060-
0437; EPA ICR 1907.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, this proposed rule also contains provisions for 
qualifications of laboratories on test methods. We have proposed 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would apply to fuel 
testing laboratories. The collected data will permit EPA to: (1) 
Qualify laboratories to use test methods based upon accuracy and 
precision criteria supported by industry; and (2) Ensure that various 
fuels meet the standards required under the regulations at 40 CFR part 
80 and that the associated benefits to human health and the environment 
are realized. We estimate that 750 laboratories may be subject to the 
proposed information collection. This estimate is based upon our 
experience with qualification of laboratories under the existing diesel 
sulfur program. We estimate an annual reporting burden of 95 hours per 
respondent and an annual recordkeeping burden of 104 hours, yielding a 
total of 199 hours. For those laboratories that elect to be reference 
installations, the annual reporting burden would be 95 hours and the 
annual recordkeeping burden would be 128 hours.
    Supporting statements for all 3 ICRs can be found in Docket ID 
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
    Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information unless it

[[Page 29994]]

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers 
for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this rule, which includes these ICR numbers, under Docket ID number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 
this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB 
at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 
Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 21, 2013, 
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it by June 20, 2013. 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. Overview
    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 today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201 (see table below); (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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Defined as small
                                    NAICS \a\ Code     entity by SBA if
            Industry                    (2007)        less than or equal
                                                              to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline fuel refiners and        324110............  1,500 employees.
 importers.
Ethanol producers...............  325193............  1,000 employees.
Gasoline additive manufacturers.  325199............  1,000 employees.
                                  325998............  500 employees.
                                  424690............  100 employees.
Transmix processors.............  Varied............  1,500 employees.
Petroleum bulk stations and       424710............  100 employees.
 terminals.
Other warehousing and storage--   493190............  $25.5 million
 bulk petroleum storage.                               (annual
                                                       receipts).
Light-duty vehicle and light-     336111, 336112....  1,000 employees.
 duty truck manufacturers.
Independent commercial importers  811111, 811112,     $7 million (annual
                                   811198.             receipts).
Alternative fuel converters.....  335312............  1,000 employees.
                                  336312............  750 employees.
                                  336322............  ''
                                  336399............  ''
                                  811198............  $7 million (annual
                                                       receipts).
On-highway heavy-duty engine &    333618............  1,000 employees.
 vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR)        336120............  ''
 manufacturers.
                                  336211............  ''
                                  336312............  750 employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
\a\ North American Industrial Classification System.

2. Background
    EPA's Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, which was 
finalized in February 2000, took a systems-based approach to motor 
vehicle pollution by setting standards for both passenger vehicles and 
their fuel (gasoline). The program set stricter tailpipe and 
evaporative emissions standards for criteria pollutants from vehicles 
beginning with model year (MY) 2004 and phasing in through 2009. The 
program also lowered the sulfur content of gasoline, to a 30-ppm 
refinery average, 80-ppm per-gallon cap, and 95-ppm downstream cap; 
beginning in 2004 and phasing in through 2008. The potential to extend 
the phase-in for small refiners and approved Gasoline Phase-In Area 
(GPA) refiners through the end of 2010 was provided in the Highway 
Diesel Rule \509\ in exchange for early compliance with the diesel 
program. Similar to the Tier 2 rule, the Tier 3 rule being proposed 
today is a comprehensive, systems-based approach to address the impact 
of light-duty vehicles and certain heavy-duty vehicles on air quality 
and health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \509\ 66 FR 5136 (January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that 
could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the 
rulemaking docket (in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA) and is summarized 
below.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA 
also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of 
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject 
to the rule's requirements.
    Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated 
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to 
elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel Report is included in the 
docket for this proposed rule, and a summary of the Panel process, and 
subsequent Panel recommendations, is summarized below.
3. Reason for Today's Proposed Rule
    This rule proposes to establish more stringent vehicle emissions 
standards and reduce the sulfur content of

[[Page 29995]]

gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a systems approach in addressing 
the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public 
health. The proposed gasoline sulfur standard would make emission 
control systems more effective and enable more stringent vehicle 
emissions standards, and the proposed vehicle standards would reduce 
vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions. This would result in 
significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, 
and air toxics. For a more detailed discussion of the reasoning for 
today's proposed rule, please see Sections II and III of this preamble. 
The proposed vehicle and fuel programs are further discussed in 
Sections IV and V, respectively.
4. Legal Basis for Agency Action
    The Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to establish emissions 
standards for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA 
also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air 
pollution. The authority for the proposed vehicle emission standards 
comes from CAA section 202(a), Section 202(k) provides EPA with 
authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative 
emissions of hydrocarbons from gasoline-fueled motor vehicles, and 
section 206(d) authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures for 
testing whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with 
section 202 requirements. The authority for the proposed fuel standards 
comes from section 211(c).
    For more detailed information on our legal authority for today's 
proposal, please see Sections II.A and V.G of this preamble.
5. Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
    The table above lists industries/sectors potentially affected by 
the proposed rule. For businesses potentially impacted by the Tier 3 
vehicle standards, this includes vehicle manufacturers, alternative 
fuel converters, and independent commercial importers. For businesses 
potentially impacted by the Tier 3 fuel standards, this includes 
gasoline refiners and importers, distributors, fuel additive 
manufacturers, transmix producers, and ethanol producers.
    EPA used a variety of sources to identify which entities are 
appropriately considered ``small.'' EPA used the criteria for small 
entities developed by the Small Business Administration under the North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as a guide. Information 
about these entities comes from sources including the Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) within the U.S. Department of Energy, 
oil industry literature, EPA's certification data, and previous 
rulemakings that have affected these industries. EPA then found 
employment information for these companies using the business 
information database Hoover's Online (a subsidiary of Dun and 
Bradstreet). These entities fall under the categories listed in the 
table.
    To gauge the impact of the proposed standards on small businesses, 
EPA employed a cost-to-sales ratio test to estimate the number of small 
businesses that would be impacted by less than one percent, between one 
and three percent, and above three percent. Overall, EPA projects that 
13 small businesses will be impacted by less than one percent, 13 small 
businesses will be impacted by one to three percent, and 5 small 
businesses will be impacted by more than three percent. A more detailed 
description of the inputs used for each affected industry sector and 
the methodology used to develop the estimated impact on small 
businesses in each industry sector is included in the IRFA as presented 
in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA for this rulemaking.
6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance
    For any emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the 
regulated products will meet the standards. The program that EPA is 
considering for manufacturers subject to this proposal will include 
testing, reporting, and record keeping requirements for manufacturers 
of vehicles covered by the proposed Tier 3 regulations. Testing 
requirements for these manufacturers could include certification 
emission (including deterioration factor) testing, in-use testing, and 
production line testing. Reporting requirements would likely include 
emission test data and technical data on the vehicles. Manufacturers 
would have to keep records of this information.
    For any fuel control program, EPA must have assurance that fuel 
produced, distributed, sold and used meets the applicable standard. EPA 
expects that the recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance provisions of 
the proposed rule would be fairly consistent with those in place today 
for other fuel programs. Further, we expect to use existing 
registration and reporting systems that parties in the fuel production 
and distribution industry are already familiar with.
7. Related Federal Rules
    The primary federal rules that are related to the proposed Tier 3 
rule under consideration are: The Tier 2 Vehicle/Gasoline Sulfur 
rulemaking (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), the 2017 Light-duty 
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) rule (77 FR 62623), and the Petroleum Refinery 
Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards 
rule (RTR/NSPS; 77 FR 41051).
    The 2017 LD GHG rule is a coordinated effort by EPA and the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) taking steps to 
enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles, through 
reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on-road 
vehicles and engines.
    The rules to address Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology 
Review (RTR) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) focus on 
developing updated emissions standards for petroleum refineries for 
multiple pollutants, including GHGs. The rules are based on results of 
the RTR analyses for both Maximum Achievable Control Technology 
standards (MACT 1 and 2). The technology review would be conducted to 
identify any new practices, processes, or control technologies for the 
industry and cost-effective emission control options. EPA is developing 
uniform standards for some emission sources in the petroleum refining 
sector that may serve as the basis for these technology reviews. The 
rules also review the standards and rule provisions to determine 
whether other changes may be needed during periods of start-up, 
shutdown, and malfunction to ensure the standards are consistent with 
recent court opinions and other CAA programs. With regard to NSPS, the 
rules address remaining NSPS issues under reconsideration from the 
promulgation of existing NSPS and other NSPS rules affecting the 
refining sector, and include the regulation of GHGs and the development 
of emission guidelines for existing sources.
8. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach
a. Significant Panel Findings
    The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel) 
considered regulatory options and flexibilities to help mitigate 
potential adverse effects on small businesses as a result of this rule. 
During the SBREFA Panel process, the Panel sought out and received 
comments on the regulatory options and flexibilities that were

[[Page 29996]]

presented to SERs and Panel members. The recommendations of the Panel 
are described below and are also located in Section 9 of the SBREFA 
Final Panel Report, which is available in the public docket.
b. Panel Process
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we 
also conducted outreach to small entities and convened an SBAR Panel to 
obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small 
entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. 
On August 4, 2011, EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened a 
Panel under Section 609(b) of the RFA. In addition to the Chair, the 
Panel consisted of the Division Director of the Assessment and 
Standards Division of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, 
and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. As part of the SBAR 
Panel process, we conducted outreach with representatives of small 
businesses that would potentially be affected by the proposed 
rulemaking. We met with these Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to 
discuss the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to 
decrease the impact of the rulemaking on their industries. We 
distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these materials included 
background on the rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, and 
possible rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met with SERs from the 
industries that would be directly affected by the Tier 3 rule on August 
18, 2011 to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the 
approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet (the Panel 
also met with SERs on June 28, 2011 for an initial outreach meeting). 
The Panel received written comments from the SERs following the meeting 
in response to discussions had at the meeting and the questions posed 
to the SERs by the Agency. The SERs were specifically asked to provide 
comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the 
rule's impact on small businesses.
    The Panel's findings and discussions were based on the information 
that was available during the term of the Panel and issues that were 
raised by the SERs during the outreach meetings and in their comments. 
It was agreed that EPA should consider the issues raised by the SERs 
and discussions had by the Panel itself, and that EPA should consider 
comments on flexibility alternatives that would help to mitigate 
negative impacts on small businesses to the extent legally allowable by 
the Clean Air Act. Alternatives discussed throughout the Panel process 
included those offered in previous or current EPA rulemakings, as well 
as alternatives suggested by SERs and Panel members. A summary of these 
recommendations is detailed below, and a full discussion of the 
regulatory alternatives and hardship provisions discussed and 
recommended by the Panel can be found in the SBREFA Final Panel Report. 
A complete discussion of the provisions for which we are requesting 
comment and/or proposing in this action can be found in Sections IV.E 
and V.D of this preamble. Also, the Panel Report includes all comments 
received from SERs (Appendix B of the Report) and summaries of the two 
outreach meetings that were held with the SERs. In accordance with the 
RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the aforementioned 
materials and SER comments on issues related to the IRFA. The Panel's 
recommendations from the Final Panel Report are discussed below.
    It should be noted that during the Panel process, two additional 
issues were discussed with SERs that were under consideration by the 
Agency for the Tier 3 proposal. As noted in Section IV.D.5, EPA was 
considering extending the new certification fuel specifications to all 
regulatory categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel system 
components that use gasoline. This would have included a wide range of 
additional applications, including small nonroad engines used in lawn 
and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as ATVs and 
snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, on-highway motorcycles, 
and heavy-duty gasoline engines. In addition, EPA considered new 
volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP) standards for in-use gasoline. 
Neither of these issues is being proposed in today's notice. Therefore, 
the following discussion of the Panel recommendations does not address 
these issues. The reader is directed to the Panel Report, located in 
the rulemaking docket, for more information on both of these issues.
c. Panel Recommendations
i. Tier 3 Fuels
    The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility alternatives 
with SERs for small businesses in the gasoline production and 
distribution, fuel additive manufacturing, and ethanol production 
industries subject to the proposed fuel requirements. Panel 
recommendations on these approaches are discussed below.
(1) Lead Time--Sulfur
    The Panel recommended that EPA propose a delay option, similar to 
previous fuels rulemakings, in the Tier 3 proposed rule. The Panel 
recommended that EPA allow small refiners to postpone their compliance 
with the Tier 3 program for up to three years. Small refiners choosing 
this flexibility option would have from January 1, 2017 through 
December 31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average 
sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). 
Compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur standard would begin on January 1, 
2020. Any small refiner choosing this proposed option would be allowed 
to continue use of their Tier 2 gasoline sulfur credits through 
December 31, 2019 to meet the refiner average 30-ppm sulfur standard.
    The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on case-by-case 
hardship provisions that would provide additional relief for any 
refiner experiencing extreme difficulty in compliance with the Tier 3 
requirements, as discussed below in Section XII.C.6.c.i.(6).
(2) Provisions for Additive Manufacturers
    The Panel recommended that EPA provide flexibilities for gasoline 
additive manufacturers. Following discussion with EPA, the Panel 
suggested that EPA propose the following flexibilities:
     For additives used downstream of the refiner: 
Differentiating bulk additives based on whether they meet a 20- or 25-
ppm sulfur standard.
     For aftermarket consumer additives: Allow for aftermarket 
additives to meet either a 20-ppm or 25-ppm sulfur cap.
     For additives not meeting a 10-, 20-, or 25-ppm sulfur 
limit: Allow for the use of volume accounting reconciliation (VAR) 
records for additives that would not be able to meet a 25-ppm sulfur 
cap to show that use of the additive would not cause the sulfur level 
of the finished fuel to exceed 10 ppm (similar to the Nonroad Diesel 
Rulemaking, 69 FR 39088, June 29, 2004), and require product labeling 
for aftermarket additives.
(3) Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps
    With regard to the 20-ppm refinery gate cap discussed in Section 3 
of the Panel Report, the Panel had concerns that such a standard could 
cause operational problems for small refiners

[[Page 29997]]

during a refinery turnaround or an upset, because a cap of this level 
could result in a refiner not being able to produce gasoline (as noted 
in their comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report). The Panel likewise 
had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm could cause problems for 
small downstream entities, such as transmix processors, because they 
may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline down to this level (also 
noted in their comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report).
    Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on 
retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80 
and 95 ppm, respectively, to help provide maximum flexibility and avoid 
system upsets for the entire refining and distribution system. Thus, 
the SBA and OMB Panel members recommend that EPA propose retaining the 
80-ppm and 95-ppm caps.
    The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on additional 
refinery gate and downstream caps above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm. 
Additionally, the Panel recommended that EPA allow the current Tier 2 
80-ppm sulfur refinery gate cap and 95-ppm sulfur downstream cap in 
Alaska to remain at these levels indefinitely.
(4) Hardship Provisions
    During the Panel process, EPA stated its intent to propose hardship 
provisions (for all gasoline refiners and importers) similar to those 
in prior EPA fuels programs: (a) The extreme unforeseen circumstances 
hardship provision, and (b) the extreme hardship provision. A hardship 
based on extreme unforeseen circumstances is intended to provide short 
term relief due to unanticipated circumstances beyond the control of 
the refiner, such as a natural disaster or a refinery fire. An extreme 
hardship is intended to provide short-term relief based on extreme 
circumstances (e.g., extreme financial problems, extreme operational or 
technical problems, etc.) that impose extreme hardship and thus 
significantly affect a refiner's ability to comply with the program 
requirements by the applicable dates. In the context of the proposal, 
the Panel agrees that such relief could consider long-term relief on 
the sulfur cap (similar to that for Alaska) if the circumstances both 
warrant it and can be structured in a way to allow for it. The Panel 
agrees with the proposal of such provisions and recommended that EPA 
include them in the Tier 3 proposed rulemaking.
ii. Tier 3 Vehicles
    As discussed in Section 5 of the Panel Report, in addition to 
vehicle manufacturers, two distinct categories of businesses relating 
to highway light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks would be covered 
by the new vehicle standards: independent commercial importers (ICIs), 
and alternative fuel vehicle converters. As discussed below, EPA's 
expectation at the time of the Panel process was to propose a set of 
flexibilities that would be available to all small entities in these 
three business categories as well as any businesses in these categories 
that sell less than 5,000 vehicles per year. The Panel identified a 
number of entities covered by the vehicle standards that qualify as 
small businesses under the SBA definition. Six of these companies 
participated as SERs.
    The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility alternatives 
with SERs for small businesses that certify vehicles subject to the 
proposed Tier 3 emission standards. As described in Appendix A (and 
similar to provisions in the Tier 2 rule), EPA sought comment from the 
SERs on allowing small entities to simply comply with the proposed 
emission standards with 100 percent of their vehicles during the last 
year of the phase-in period. In addition, EPA sought comment on the 
following flexibilities: (1) A hardship provision that would allow 
these businesses to apply for additional time to meet any of the 100 
percent phase-in requirements, (2) use of assigned deterioration 
factors for certification purposes, and (3) reduction in the number of 
tests required in the manufacturer in-use verification testing program 
(see 40 CFR 86.1845-04). SERs were generally supportive of these 
flexibility provisions. However, one SER requested that EPA consider 
providing relaxed standards for exhaust emissions in addition to the 
delay and another SER requested that we consider eliminating some of 
the evaporative emission testing requirements.
    Panel recommendations on these approaches are discussed below.
(1) Exhaust Emission Standards and Lead Time
    In the types of businesses subject to the potential Tier 3 
standards, small businesses have limited resources available for 
developing new designs to comply with new emission standards. In 
addition, it is often necessary for these businesses to rely on vendor 
companies for technology. Moreover, percentage phase-in requirements 
pose a dilemma for a small manufacturer that has a limited product line 
(e.g., the manufacturer certifies vehicles in only one or two test 
groups). Thus, similar to the flexibility provisions implemented in 
previous vehicle rules, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small 
businesses the following flexibility options for meeting the potential 
Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards.
    The Panel recommended that small businesses be given additional 
lead time to comply with the potential Tier 3 exhaust standards and 
allow small businesses to comply with the standards with 100 percent of 
their vehicles starting in model year 2022. (This is similar to the 
Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small manufacturers to wait until the end 
of the phase-in to comply with the Tier 2 standards.) During the Panel 
process, the proposed Tier 3 rule was expected to have several 
different phase-in schedules; with the final dates varying from model 
year 2021 for the new exhaust PM standards and use of the new E15 
certification fuel, to model year 2022 for the new evaporative emission 
standards, to model year 2025 for the new exhaust gaseous pollutant 
standards. The Panel noted that requiring all small businesses to 
comply with the full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model year 2022 
should provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and 
implement the technology changes needed to comply with the Tier 3 
standards.
    One of the SERs recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust 
standards for small manufacturers. The SER noted that the exhaust 
emission averaging program being proposed by EPA would allow large 
manufacturers that have many engine families to certify their small, 
niche products at levels numerically higher than the standards. Small 
manufacturers that typically do not have more than one or two emission 
families generally cannot use averaging to the same extent because of 
their limited product offerings. The SER's concern was that the high-
performance vehicles produced by large manufacturers which they compete 
against would be able to certify at numerically higher levels at less 
cost than the SER would incur. While EPA was planning to propose the 
same standards for all manufacturers, the Panel recommended that EPA 
request comment on allowing small manufacturers to meet relaxed exhaust 
emission standards. This could also be included as part of the hardship 
provision discussed below. The Panel recommended that EPA request 
comment on the relaxed standards recommended by the SER. The SER-
recommended relaxed NMOG+NOX

[[Page 29998]]

standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 0.125 grams/mile in 
model year 2020 and 0.070 grams/mile in model year 2025. In addition, 
the Supplemental FTP standards would be the standards for the 
corresponding bins which the manufacturer selected for complying with 
the FTP standards. For example, if the manufacturer certified to the 
proposed Tier 3 Bin 125 standards over the FTP, the manufacturer would 
have to comply with the corresponding Tier 3 Bin 125 standards for the 
Supplemental FTP.
(2) Evaporative Emission Standards and Lead Time
    The Panel recommended that small businesses comply with the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards, including the leak standard, with 100 
percent of their vehicles starting in model year 2022. For evaporative 
emissions, where the Tier 3 standards could begin as early as 2017 and 
phase-in through 2022, this provision would allow small businesses and 
SVMs to wait until the last year of the Tier 3 phase-in period for 
evaporative emission standards for all of their vehicles. This start 
date is consistent with the start date described above for the Tier 3 
exhaust emission requirements being recommended by the Panel for small 
businesses.
(3) Assigned Deterioration Factors
    Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their 
vehicles comply with the emission standards throughout the ``useful 
life'' period. This is generally done by testing vehicles at low-
mileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission 
levels. The deterioration factors are determined by aging new emission 
control systems and then testing the aged systems again to determine 
how much deterioration in emissions has occurred. In order to reduce 
the testing burden on small manufacturers, EPA suggested that small 
manufacturers could use deterioration factor values assigned by EPA 
instead of performing the extended testing. A manufacturer would apply 
the assigned deterioration factors to its low-mileage emission level to 
demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards. EPA 
currently allows this flexibility for small manufacturers. The Panel 
recommended that EPA propose that small businesses be allowed the 
option to use EPA-developed assigned deterioration factors in 
demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative 
emission standards. In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor 
data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned DFs for small 
manufacturers. EPA would expect to follow a similar procedure to 
determine the assigned DFs for the Tier 3 standards once large 
manufacturers start certifying their Tier 3 designs. Given that larger 
manufacturers would begin phasing in to the Tier 3 standards in model 
year 2017, EPA should have a significant set of emissions deterioration 
data upon which to base the assigned DFs for small businesses within 
the first few years of the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that assigned 
DFs need to be determined well in advance of model year 2022 in order 
to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether or 
not to use the assigned DFs for certification purposes.
(4) Reduced Testing Burden
    Under EPA's regulations, manufacturers must perform in-use testing 
on their vehicles and demonstrate their in-use vehicles comply with the 
emission standards. The current in-use testing regulations provide for 
reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers, including no testing 
in some cases. EPA suggested that these provisions should continue for 
small manufacturers with the Tier 3 program. The Panel recommended that 
EPA propose that small businesses be allowed to have reduced burden 
under the in-use testing program for Tier 3 vehicles.
    One SER requested that EPA eliminate some of the evaporative 
emission testing requirements for small businesses based on its belief 
that some of the tests may be duplicative. While EPA noted (during the 
Panel process) that it understood the reasons behind the manufacturer's 
suggestion, EPA believed it may be premature to consider such an option 
in the Tier 3 rule given the impact of the CO2 emission 
standards on engine and fuel system development. Currently, it is 
generally understood that the 2-day diurnal test drives the purge 
characteristics of evaporative control systems, while the refueling 
test, and to a lesser degree the 3-day test, drive the capacity 
requirement of evaporative canisters. Prospectively, due to expected 
changes in engine and fuel system designs in response to upcoming 
CO2 emission standard requirements, this may not be the 
case. Therefore, at the time of the Panel process, EPA noted its belief 
that it is appropriate to retain all of the evaporative test 
procedures. It can be noted that under current regulations, EPA does 
allow manufacturers to waive 2-day diurnal testing for certification 
purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829-01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2-day 
diurnal test as part of the in-use testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845-
04(c)(5)(ii)). These provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program. 
In general, EPA noted that it is open to changes that reduce test 
burden while maintaining the environmental effectiveness of its 
programs and could consider changes like those suggested by the SER in 
the future as the impacts of the future regulations on engine and 
vehicle design become clearer. EPA also stated that it intends to 
request comment in the Tier 3 proposal on streamlining the current test 
procedures for small businesses in ways that would still maintain the 
overall stringency of the tests.
(5) Hardship Provisions
    The Panel recommended that hardship provisions be provided to small 
businesses for the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. 
Under the hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to 
apply for additional time to meet the 100 percent phase-in requirements 
for exhaust and evaporative emissions. All hardship requests would be 
subject to EPA review and approval. Appeals for such hardship relief 
would be required to be made in writing and submitted well before the 
earliest date of noncompliance. The request should identify how much 
time is being requested. It must also include evidence that the 
noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's best efforts to 
comply, and must contain evidence that severe economic hardship would 
be faced by the company if the relief is not granted. The above 
provision should effectively provide the opportunity for small 
businesses to obtain more time to comply with the new Tier 3 standards. 
(The existing hardship provisions limit the extra time that can be 
requested to 1 year, but such a limit may or may not be included in the 
proposed Tier 3 hardship provisions.)
(6) Applicability
    Under EPA's current Tier 2 regulations, EPA provides a number of 
flexibilities for small volume manufacturers. The criteria for 
determining if a company is a small volume manufacturer is based on the 
annual production level of vehicles and is based on whether the company 
produces less than 15,000 vehicles per year. Unlike EPA's small volume 
manufacturer criteria noted above, SBA defines which manufacturers are 
small businesses (and therefore should be considered under the SBAR 
Panel process) based on the number of

[[Page 29999]]

employees for vehicle manufacturers and annual revenues for ICIs and 
alternative fuel converters. For example, SBA defines small business 
vehicle manufacturers as those who have less than 1,000 employees. 
Similarly, SBA defines small business ICIs as those who have annual 
revenues of less than $8 million per year.
    The Panel recommended that EPA propose to allow all small 
businesses that meet the SBA criteria be eligible for the flexibilities 
described above. In addition, in the Panel Report, EPA stated that it 
is expecting to propose that manufacturers that meet a specified sales-
based criterion to be eligible for the flexibilities described above. 
It is relatively easy for a manufacturer to project and ultimately 
determine sales. Determining the annual revenues or number of employees 
is less straightforward. In the recent rule setting the first light-
duty vehicle and truck CO2 emission standards, EPA adopted 
provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000 
vehicles per year as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is 
used in the Tier 2 program. In the Panel Report, EPA noted that it 
expects to propose a small volume manufacturer definition based on the 
5,000 vehicle per year level for the Tier 3 program. EPA believes the 
5,000 unit cut-off for small volume manufacturers would include all of 
the small business vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel 
converters that meet the applicable SBA definition as well as some 
additional companies that have similar concerns to small businesses. 
Lastly, EPA noted in the Panel Report that it expects to propose the 
flexibilities described above to be available to any manufacturer that 
meets either the SBA small business criteria or the sales-based 
criteria.
    EPA invites comment on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts 
on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule 
contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 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. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a 
statement of the cost-benefit analysis as required by section 202 of 
the UMRA; this statement can be found in Sections VII and VIII of this 
preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA. Before promulgating an EPA 
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA 
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the 
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective 
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the 
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Consistent with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. These alternatives are 
described above in Sections IV, V, and IX of this preamble.
    This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA 
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. The rule imposes no enforceable 
duty on any State, local or tribal governments. EPA has determined that 
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this 
proposal contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of 
$100 million or more for the private sector in any one year, however 
EPA believes that the proposal represents the least costly, and most 
cost-effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the 
rule. The costs and benefits associated with the proposal are discussed 
above in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of 
the draft RIA, as required by section 202 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It 
would 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. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA did consult with 
representatives of various State and local governments in developing 
this rule. EPA has also consulted with representatives from the 
National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, representing state 
and local air pollution officials), Northeast States for Coordinated 
Air Use Management (NESCAUM, the Clean Air Association of the Northeast 
States), and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC, a multi-state 
organization created under the CAA responsible for advising EPA on 
transport issues and for developing and implementing regional solutions 
to the ground-level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 
regions).
    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 action 
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed 
rule would be implemented at the Federal level and would impose 
compliance costs only on those in the gasoline production, 
distribution, and additive industry and in the highway and nonroad 
engine, vehicle, and equipment industries. Tribal governments would be 
affected only to the extent they purchase and use regulated fuels, 
vehicles, and equipment. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from 
tribal officials.

[[Page 30000]]

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined 
by EO 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health or safety 
risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or 
safety effects of air pollutants affected by the proposed standards on 
children. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section II.B 
and associated references.
    Children are more susceptible than adults to many air pollutants 
because of differences in physiology, higher per body weight breathing 
rates and consumption, rapid development of the brain and bodily 
systems, and behaviors that increase chances for exposure. Even before 
birth, the developing fetus may be exposed to air pollutants through 
the mother that affect development and permanently harm the individual.
    Infants and children breathe at much higher rates per body weight 
than adults, with infants under one year of age having a breathing rate 
up to five times that of adults.\510\ In addition, children breathe 
through their mouths more than adults and their nasal passages are less 
effective at removing pollutants, which leads to a higher deposition 
fraction in their lungs.\511\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \510\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). 
Metabolically-derived ventilation rates: A revised approach based 
upon oxygen consumption rates. Washington, DC: Office of Research 
and Development. EPA/600/R-06/129F. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=202543.
    \511\ Foos, B.; Marty, M.; Schwartz, J.; Bennet, W.; Moya, J.; 
Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2008) Focusing on children's inhalation 
dosimetry and health effects for risk assessment: An introduction. J 
Toxicol Environ Health 71A: 149-165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to children 
as well. For example, mutagenic carcinogens such as benzene and 1,3-
butadiene have a larger impact during young life stages, given the 
rapid development of the corporal systems.\512\ Exposure at a young age 
to these carcinogens could lead to a higher risk of developing cancer 
later in life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \512\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Supplemental 
guidance for assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to 
carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-03/
003F. https://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The adverse effects of individual air pollutants may be more severe 
for children, particularly the youngest age groups, than adults. The 
Integrated Science Assessments and Criteria Documents for a number of 
pollutants affected by this rule, including those for NO2, 
PM, ozone and CO, describe children as a group with greater 
susceptibility. Section II.B.5 discusses a number of childhood health 
outcomes associated with proximity to roadways, including evidence for 
exacerbation of asthma symptoms and suggestive evidence for new onset 
asthma. In general, these studies do not identify the specific 
contaminants associated with adverse effects, instead addressing the 
near-roadway environment as one containing numerous exposures 
potentially associated with adverse health effects.
    In addition to their underlying biological susceptibility, as 
discussed in Section II.B.1, children may be more vulnerable to the 
effects of air pollution because of their high levels of outdoor 
activity. As discussed in that section, greater impacts of ozone have 
been reported among children who are more active outdoors.
    Section III.C describes the ambient air quality changes resulting 
from the proposed standards, which represent levels to which the 
general population is exposed. Children are not expected to experience 
greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than the general 
population. However, because of their greater susceptibility to air 
pollution and their increased time spent outdoors, it is likely that 
the proposed standards would have particular benefits for children's 
health.
    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed 
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to the air 
pollutants affected by the proposed standards.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of 
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain 
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of 
Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any 
action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that 
promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule 
or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of 
proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is 
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any 
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is 
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.'' Given the 
flexibilities being proposed for entities in the gasoline production 
and distribution system, we believe that these mitigate any potential 
adverse effects on gasoline supply and distribution. Although EPA does 
not expect this rule to have significant adverse effects on the supply 
or distribution of gasoline, we have prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects for this action as follows.
    This proposal's potential effects on energy supply, distribution, 
or use have been analyzed and are further discussed above in:
     Section V--fuel provisions of the proposed rule and 
flexibilities, including hardship provisions.
     Section V.2.c--discussion on proposed refinery lead time.
     Section X--proposed economic impacts (specifically, 
Section X.C for fuel economic impacts, and Section X.D on employment 
impacts).
     Section VII.B--estimated costs of the proposed fuel 
program.
    Given the estimated costs and impacts of the proposed rule, as 
discussed in these areas of this preamble, we do not expect this rule 
to have any adverse effect on the supply or distribution of gasoline. 
Further, we do not believe that there are any reasonable alternatives 
to the control of sulfur in gasoline which would provide the level of 
reduction of emissions, considering cost-benefit analyses, given by the 
reduction in sulfur being proposed in this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (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. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

[[Page 30001]]

    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA is 
proposing to update a number of regulations which already contain 
voluntary consensus standards to more recent versions of these 
standards. EPA is proposing to use the ASTM International (ASTM) 
standards listed in Table XII-1 below. The standards may be obtained 
through the ASTM Web site (www.astm.org) or by calling ASTM at (610) 
832-9585.
    This proposed rulemaking also involves environmental monitoring or 
measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement 
System (``PBMS''), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, 
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use 
of any method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS 
approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the 
regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in 
analytical technology and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding 
the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus 
standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria 
specified.

 Table XII-1--Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel
                                  Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Fuel parameter                Designated analytical method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur in gasoline.....................  ASTM D 2622-05.
Sulfur in butane.......................  ASTM D 6667-01.
500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel.............  ASTM D 2622-05.
Olefins in gasoline....................  ASTM 1319-03 [egr]1.
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline..  ASTM D 5191-07, with the
                                          following correlation
                                          equation:
                                            RVP psi = (0.956 * X) -
                                             0.347
                                            RVP kPa = (0.956 * X) - 2.39
                                             where: X = total measured
                                             vapor pressure in psi or
                                             kPa.
Distillation in gasoline...............  ASTM D86-07b.
Benzene in gasoline....................  ASTM D 3606-07, except that
                                          instrument parameters shall be
                                          adjusted to ensure complete
                                          resolution of benzene,
                                          ethanol, and methanol peaks.
Aromatics in gasoline..................  ASTM D 5769-04, except that
                                          sample chilling requirements
                                          in section 8 of this standard
                                          are optional.
Oxygen and oxygenate content in          ASTM D 5599-00(2005).
 gasoline.
Aromatics in diesel fuel...............  ASTM D1319-03 [egr]1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.
    This proposed rule would reduce emissions from all vehicles across 
the nation, both new vehicles (beginning in model year 2017, when the 
vehicle standards start to apply) and existing vehicles (as soon as the 
lower-sulfur gasoline becomes available in 2017 or earlier). As such, 
this proposal would increase the level of environmental protection for 
all populations. As discussed in Section III.B.7, there is evidence 
that minority populations and low-income populations live 
disproportionately near high-traffic roadways, where concentrations of 
many air pollutants are elevated. We expect this proposed rule to 
increase the level of environmental protection for these populations.
    Thus, this proposed rule would not have a disproportionately high 
adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low-income 
populations.

XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for this action comes from sections 202, 203-
209, 211, 213, 216, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 
7414, 7521, 7522-7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, and 7601. 
Additional support for the procedural and compliance related aspects of 
this proposal, including the proposed recordkeeping requirements, comes 
from sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 
sections 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 79

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Diesel fuel, 
Energy, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, 
Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Diesel fuel, 
Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by reference, 
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 85

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.

[[Page 30002]]

40 CFR Part 86

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel 
economy, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Confidential business information, Environmental protection, 
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Research.

    Dated: March 29, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 79--REGISTRATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 USC 7414, 7524, 7545, and 7601.

0
2. Section 79.5 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a).
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text.


Sec.  79.5  Periodic reporting requirements.

    (a) Fuel manufacturers. (1) For each calendar quarter (January 
through March, April through June, July through September, October 
through December) commencing after the date prescribed for a particular 
fuel in subpart D of this part, fuel manufacturers shall submit to the 
Administrator a report for each registered fuel showing the range of 
concentration of each additive reported under Sec.  79.11(a) and the 
volume of such fuel produced in the quarter. Reports shall be submitted 
by the required deadline as shown in Table 1 to Sec.  79.5 on forms 
supplied by the Administrator upon request.

          Table 1 to Sec.   79.5--Quarterly Reporting Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Time period       Quarterly report
        Calendar quarter               covered             deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarter One....................  January 1-March 31  June 1.
Quarter Two....................  April 1-June 30...  September 1.
Quarter Three..................  July 1-September    December 1.
                                  30.
Quarter Four...................  October 1-December  March 31.
                                  31.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) Fuel manufacturers shall submit to the Administrator a report 
annually for each registered fuel providing additional data and 
information as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section in 
the designation of the fuel in subpart D of this part. Reports shall be 
submitted by March 31 for the preceding year, or part thereof, on forms 
supplied by the Administrator upon request. If the date prescribed for 
a particular fuel in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D, or the later 
registration of a fuel is between October 1 and December 31, no report 
will be required for the period to the end of that year.
    (b) Additive manufacturers. Additive manufacturers shall submit to 
the Administrator a report annually for each registered additive 
providing additional data and information as specified in paragraphs 
(c) and (d) of this section in the designation of the additive in 40 
CFR part 80 subpart D. Additive manufacturers shall also report 
annually the volume of each additive produced. Reports shall be 
submitted by March 31 for the preceding year, or part thereof, on forms 
supplied by the Administrator upon request. If the date prescribed for 
a particular additive in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D, or the later 
registration of an additive is between October 1 and December 31, no 
report will be required for the period to the end of that year. These 
periodic reports shall not, however, be required for any additive that 
is:
* * * * *

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
3. The authority citation for part 80 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C., 7414, 7521(l), 7545, and 7601(a).

0
4. Section 80.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d).
0
b. Revising paragraph (w).
0
c. Revising paragraph (z).
0
d. Adding paragraphs (vvv), (www), (xxx), (yyy), (zzz), and (aaaa).


Sec.  80.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (d) Previously certified gasoline, or PCG, means gasoline, RBOB or 
CBOB that previously has been included in a batch of gasoline for 
purposes of complying with the standards of 40 CFR part 80 that apply 
to refiners and importers.
* * * * *
    (w) Cetane index or ``Calculated cetane index'' is a number 
representing the ignition properties of diesel fuel oils from API 
gravity and mid-boiling point, as determined by ASTM International 
standard method D976-06(2011), entitled, ``Standard Test Method for 
Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels'', approved October 1, 
2011. ASTM International test method D976-06(2011) is incorporated by 
reference. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr 
Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copies may be inspected 
at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC, 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.
* * * * *
    (z) Aromatic content is the aromatic hydrocarbon content in volume 
percent as determined by ASTM International standard test method D1319-
10, entitled, ``Standard Test Method for

[[Page 30003]]

Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator 
Adsorption'', approved May 1, 2010. ASTM International test method 
D1319-10 is incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference 
was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from ASTM 
International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 
Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 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.
* * * * *
    (vvv) Denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) means an alcohol of the chemical 
formula C2H6O which contains a denaturant to make 
it unfit for human consumption, that is used as an additive in 
gasoline, and that meets the requirements of Sec.  80.1610.
    (www) Oxygenate manufacturer means any person who owns, leases, 
operates, controls, or supervises an oxygenate production facility.
    (xxx) Oxygenate production facility means any facility where 
oxygenate is produced.
    (yyy) CBOB means gasoline blendstock that becomes conventional 
gasoline solely upon the addition of oxygenate.
    (zzz) Natural gas liquids (NGL) means the components of natural gas 
(primarily propane, butane, pentane, hexane, and heptane) that are 
separated from the gas state in the form of liquids in a natural gas 
production facility, in a gas processing plant, or in a natural gas 
pipeline. NGL is sometimes also referred to as ``natural gasoline''.
    (aaaa) Natural gas means a mixture of hydrocarbon gases that occurs 
with petroleum deposits, principally methane together with varying 
quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and other gases.
    5. Section 80.8 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  80.8  Sampling methods for gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel additives, 
and renewable fuels.

    The sampling methods specified in this section shall be used to 
collect samples of gasoline, diesel, fuel additives and renewable fuels 
for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this 
part.
    (a) Manual sampling. Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall 
be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM 
International (ASTM) standard practice D4057 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).
    (b) Automatic sampling. Automatic sampling of petroleum products in 
pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures 
specified in ASTM International (ASTM) standard practice D4177 
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).
    (c) Sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement. 
Samples to be analyzed for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall be collected 
and handled according to the applicable procedures in ASTM standard 
practice D5842 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (e) of this 
section).
    (d) Sample compositing. Composite samples shall be prepared using 
the applicable procedures in ASTM standard practice D5854 (incorporated 
by reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).
    (e) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the 
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the 
documents listed in this section 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, under EPA docket ID 
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. 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. For further information on these test methods, 
please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734-214-4582.
    (1) ASTM International material. Anyone may purchase copies of 
these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International 
customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of 
service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of https://www.astm.org.
    (i) ASTM International standard practice D4057-06 (Reapproved 2011) 
(``ASTM International D4057''), Standard practice for Manual Sampling 
of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved June 1, 2011.
    (ii) ASTM International standard practice D4177-95 (Reapproved 
2010) (``ASTM International D4177''), Standard Practice for Automatic 
Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2010.
    (iii) ASTM International standard practice D5842-04 (Reapproved 
2009) (``ASTM International D5842''), Standard Practice for Sampling 
and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement, approved June 1, 
2009.
    (iv) ASTM International standard practice D5854-96 (Reapproved 
2010) (``ASTM International D5854''), Standard Practice for Mixing and 
Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, 
approved May 1, 2010.
    (2) [Reserved]
0
6. A new Sec.  80.10 is added to subpart A to read as follows:


Sec.  80.10  Correction of batch volume reports.

    For purposes of compliance with the reporting requirements of this 
part, parties required to submit batch reports are not required to 
correct unintentional errors in reporting batch volume on previously 
submitted batch reports where all of the following circumstances apply:
    (a) The reporting violation pertains solely to the volume of the 
batch.
    (b) The volume of the batch is incorrect by no more than 500 
gallons or by no more than 1 percent of the true batch volume, in 
gallons, whichever value (in gallons) is less.
    (c) Reporting the true volumes of all the batches for the reporting 
period would not result in a higher annual average sulfur or benzene 
value than reported using the incorrect values after rounding to the 
applicable digit for reporting.
    (d) Reporting the true value for any batch would not result in a 
reduced number of gallons for a violation of any per-gallon standard or 
a violation of any other requirement of the Clean Air Act.
    (e) The reporting party certifies that the conditions in paragraphs 
(a) through (d) of this section have been met.
    (f) For subpart M of this part, this section applies only to the 
volume of fuels produced or exported that result in a renewable volume 
obligation under subpart M of this part for obligated parties.
0
7a. Section 80.46 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) introductory text.

[[Page 30004]]

0
d. Revising paragraph (c).
0
e. Revising paragraph (d).
0
f. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2), and adding a new paragraph 
(e)(3).
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3)(i).
0
h. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(i).
0
i. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and paragraph (h)(1).


Sec.  80.46  Measurement of reformulated gasoline and conventional 
gasoline fuel parameters.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Through November 29, 2014, the sulfur content of gasoline must 
be determined by ASTM International standard method D2622 (incorporated 
by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by one of the 
alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 
Beginning November 30, 2014, the sulfur content of gasoline must be 
determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (2) Through November 29, 2014, the sulfur content of butane must be 
determined by ASTM International standard method D6667 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by one of the 
alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (3) Through November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may use any 
of the following methods for determining the sulfur content of gasoline 
provided the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the 
method specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
    (i) ASTM International standard test method D5453 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
    (ii) ASTM International standard test method D6920 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
    (iii) ASTM International standard test method D3120 (incorporated 
by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
    (iv) ASTM International standard test method D7039 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
    (4) Beginning November 30, 2014, the sulfur content of butane must 
be determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47. Through 
November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may determine the sulfur 
content of butane using any one of the following methods; provided the 
refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section:
    (i) ASTM International standard method D4468 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
    (ii) ASTM International standard method D3246 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section).
    (b) * * *
    (1) Through November 29, 2014, olefin content must be determined 
using ASTM International standard method D1319 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning November 30, 
2014, the olefin content of gasoline may be determined by a test method 
approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (2)(i) Through November 29, 2014, any refiner or importer may 
determine olefin content using ASTM International standard method ASTM 
D6550 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) 
for purposes of meeting any testing requirements involving olefin 
content, provided that:
* * * * *
    (c) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). (1) Through November 29, 2014, Reid 
Vapor Pressure must be determined using ASTM International standard 
method D5191 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this 
section), except the following correction equation must be used:

    RVP psi = (0.956 * X) - 0.347
    RVP kPa = 0.956 * X) - 2.39

    Where:

X = Total measured vapor pressure, in psi or kPa.

    (2) Beginning November 30, 2014, RVP may be determined by a test 
method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (d) Distillation. Through November 29, 2014, distillation 
parameters must be determined using ASTM International standard method 
D86 ((incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). 
Beginning November 30, 2014, the distillation parameters may be 
determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (e) * * *
    (1) Through November 29, 2014, benzene content must be determined 
using ASTM International standard method D3606 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except that:
    (2) Instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete 
resolution of the benzene, ethanol and methanol peaks because ethanol 
and methanol may cause interference with ASTM International D3606 
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) when 
present.
    (3) Beginning November 30, 2014, the benzene content may be 
determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (f)(1) Through November 29, 2014, aromatic content must be 
determined using ASTM International standard method D5769 (incorporated 
by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except the sample 
chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard method are 
optional. Beginning November 30, 2014, the aromatic content may be 
determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (2) * * *
    (3)(i) Through November 29, 2014 any refiner or importer may 
determine aromatics content using ASTM International standard method 
D1319 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) 
for the purposes of meeting any test requirement involving aromatic 
content; provided that:
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Through November 29, 2014, oxygen and oxygenate content must be 
determined using ASTM International standard method D5599 (incorporated 
by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning November 
30, 2014, oxygen and oxygenate content may be determined by a test 
method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (2)(i) Through November 29, 2014, when oxygenates present are 
limited to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-amyl alcohol and C1 to C4 
alcohols, any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender may determine 
oxygen and oxygen content using ASTM International standard method 
D4815 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) 
for purposes of meeting any testing requirement; provided that:
* * * * *
    (h) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the 
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the 
documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 
CFR 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, under EPA docket ID Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. 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. For further information on these test methods,

[[Page 30005]]

please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734-214-4582.
    (1) ASTM International material. Anyone may purchase copies of 
these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International 
customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of 
service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of https://www.astm.org.
    (i) ASTM International standard method D3606-10 (``ASTM 
International D3606''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas 
Chromatography, approved October 1, 2010.
    (ii) ASTM International standard method D1319-10 (``ASTM 
International D1319''), ``Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Absorption'', 
approved May 1, 2010.
    (iii) ASTM International standard method D6550-10 (``ASTM 
International D6550''), ``Standard Test Method for the Determination of 
Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography'', 
approved October 1, 2010.
    (iv) ASTM International standard method D4815-09 (``ASTM 
International D4815''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to 
C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography'', approved 
October 1, 2009.
    (v) ASTM International standard method D2622-10 (``ASTM 
International D2622''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'', 
approved February 15, 2010.
    (vi) ASTM International standard method D2622-10 (``ASTM 
International D2622''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'', 
approved February 15, 2010.
    (vii) ASTM International standard method D3246-11 (``ASTM 
International D3246''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry'', approved June 1, 2011.
    (viii) ASTM International standard method D5599-00(2010) (``ASTM 
International D5599''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame 
Ionization Detection'', approved October 1, 2010.
    (ix) ASTM International standard method D5769-10 (``ASTM 
International D5769''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame 
Ionization Detection'', approved October 1, 2010.
    (x) ASTM International standard method D86-11a (``ASTM 
International D86''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure'', approved July 1, 2011.
    (xi) ASTM International standard method D5453-09 (``ASTM 
International D5453''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel 
Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence'', approved 
June 15, 2009.
    (xii) ASTM International standard method D6920-07 (``ASTM D6920''), 
Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Naphthas, Distillates, 
Reformulated Gasolines, Diesels, Biodiesels, and Motor Fuels by 
Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical Detection, approved December 
1, 2007.
    (xiii) ASTM International standard method D3120-08 (``ASTM 
International D3120''), ``Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of 
Sulfur in Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative Microcoulometry'', 
approved December 15, 2008.
    (xiv) ASTM International standard method D7039-07 (``ASTM D7039''), 
Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by 
Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, 
approved May 1, 2007.
    (xv) ASTM International standard method D6667-10 (``ASTM 
International D6667''), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum 
Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence'', approved October 1, 2010.
    (xvi) ASTM International standard method D4468-85(2006) (``ASTM 
International D4468''), ``Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in 
Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry'', approved 
June 1, 2006.
* * * * *
0
7b. Section 80.47 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  80.47  Performance-based Analytical Test Method Approach.

    All sample handling, testing procedures and tests must be conducted 
using good laboratory practices.
    (a) Definitions. As used in this subpart:
    (1) Performance-based Analytical Test Method Approach means a 
measurement system based upon established performance criteria for 
accuracy and precision with use of analytical test methods. As used in 
this subpart, a measurement system used by laboratories to demonstrate 
that a particular analytical test method is acceptable for 
demonstrating compliance.
    (2) Accuracy means the closeness of agreement between an observed 
value from a single test measurement and an accepted reference value.
    (3) Precision means the degree of agreement in a set of 
measurements performed on the same property of identical test material.
    (4) Absolute fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which a 
gravimetric standard is practical to construct and use. Sulfur content 
of gasoline, butane, or diesel fuel are examples of an absolute fuel 
parameter.
    (5) Gravimetric standard means a test material made by adding a 
carefully weighed quantity of the analyte to a measured quantity of 
another substance known not to contain any of the analyte, resulting in 
a solution with an accurately known concentrate of the analyte.
    (6) Consensus named fuels are homogeneous quantities of fuel that 
have been analyzed by a number of different laboratories (by sending 
around small samples). The average concentration of some parameter of 
interest across all of the different laboratories is then used as the 
``consensus name'' for that material.
    (7) Locally-named reference materials are gasoline or diesel fuels 
that are usually from the regular production of the facility where they 
are used in laboratory quality control efforts and have been analyzed 
using the designated method (either by the facility's lab or by a 
referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration.
    (8) Method-defined fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which 
an EPA-prescribed primary test method or designated method defines the 
regulatory standard. Examples of method-defined fuel parameters include 
olefin content in gasoline, Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline, 
distillation parameters of gasoline, benzene content of gasoline, 
aromatic content of gasoline

[[Page 30006]]

and diesel fuel, and oxygen/oxygenates content of gasoline.
    (9) Reference Installations are designated test method 
installations that are used to qualify the accuracy of other method-
defined parameter instruments. Reference installations of the 
designated test method will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other 
method-defined alternative test methods and to establish correlation 
equations if necessary.
    (10) Correlation equation is a correction equation as determined by 
the use of ASTM International standard practice D6708 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). This standard practice 
determines whether the comparison between the alternative test method 
and the designated test method is a null result. If the comparison is 
not null, then the standard practice provides for a correlation 
equation that predicts designated test method results from the 
applicable method-defined alternative test method.
    (11) Statistical quality control (SQC) means a planned system of 
activities whose purpose is to provide a level of quality that meets 
the needs of compliance with the standards of this part. This subpart 
prescribes specific SQC requirements for both absolute and method 
driven fuel parameters for both VCSB and non-VCSB regulated parties.
    (12) Voluntary consensus-based standards body (VCSB) means a 
domestic or international organization that plans, develops, 
establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using agreed-
upon procedures and which possesses the attributes of openness, balance 
of interest, due process, and consensus, as explained in OMB Circular 
A-119 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, 
P.L. 104-113, sec. 12(d).
    (13) Non-Voluntary consensus-based standards body (non-VCSB) means 
a domestic or international regulated party who has developed a 
proprietary analytical test method that has not been adopted by a VCSB 
organization.
    (b) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval for the absolute 
fuel parameter of gasoline sulfur. (1) Precision. Beginning November 
30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives 
subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at Sec.  80.195 and Sec.  
80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the 
results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests 
per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory 
practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available 
gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability 
``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM repeatability of 
ASTM D7039-07 (Example: A 10ppm sulfur gasoline sample: maximum 
allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <= 1.5*(1.75ppm/2.77)=0.95 
ppm). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record 
of analysis and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given 
sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under 
good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample 
and test results and the reason for excluding them.
    (2) Accuracy. Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle 
gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur 
standard at Sec. Sec.  80.195 and 80.1603:
    (i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially 
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall 
not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by 
more than 0.71 ppm sulfur;
    (ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially 
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall 
not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 1.00 ppm sulfur; 
and
    (iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of 
this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any 
known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.
    (3) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(a)(1) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (c) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval of the absolute 
fuel parameter of sulfur in butane. (1) Precision. Beginning November 
30, 2014, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at 
Sec. Sec.  80.82, 80.195, 80.340(b), and 80.1603, the maximum allowable 
standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests 
made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per 
day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single 
homogeneous commercially available butane must be less than or equal to 
1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals 
the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D6667-10 (Example: A 10 ppm sulfur 
butane sample: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <= 
1.5*(1.15ppm/2.77) = 0.62 ppm). The 20 results must be a series of 
tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. A 
laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if 
the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and 
it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the 
reason for excluding them.
    (2) Accuracy. Beginning November 30, 2014, for butane subject to 
the butane sulfur standard at Sec. Sec.  80.82 and 80.1603:
    (i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially 
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall 
not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 0.47 ppm sulfur;
    (ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially 
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall 
not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 0.94 ppm sulfur; 
and
    (iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of 
this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any 
known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.
    (3) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(a)(2) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (d) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel 
parameter of olefins in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 
2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to 
the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable standard 
deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 
20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on 
samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous 
commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times 
the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM 
repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A gasoline containing 9Vol% 
olefins: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <= 
1.5*(0.972Vol%/2.77) = 0.53Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of 
tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. A 
laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if 
the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and 
it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the 
reason for excluding them.

[[Page 30007]]

    (2) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(b)(1) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section.
    (e) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel 
parameter of aromatics in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 
30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives 
subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable 
standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests 
made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per 
day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single 
homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal 
to 1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' 
equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A gasoline 
containing 32Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 
tests <= 1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77) = 0.70Vol%). The 20 results must be a 
series of tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. 
A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if 
the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and 
it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the 
reason for excluding them.
    (2) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(f)(1) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of 
this section.
    (f) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel 
parameter of oxygen and oxygenate content in gasoline. (1) Precision. 
Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline 
fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the 
maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a 
minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 
or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices 
taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be 
less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by 
2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5599-00(2010) 
(Example: A gasoline containing 3Mass% total oxygen: maximum allowable 
standard deviation of 20 tests <= 1.5*(0.083Mass%/2.77) = 0.045Mass%). 
The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of 
analysis and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given 
sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under 
good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample 
and test results and the reason for excluding them.
    (2) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(g)(1) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section.
    (g) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel 
parameter of Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in gasoline. (1) Precision. 
Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline 
fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part and the 
volatility standards at Sec.  80.27, the maximum allowable standard 
deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 
20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on 
samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous 
commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times 
the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM 
repeatability of ASTM 5191-10b (Example: A gasoline having a RVP of 
6.8psi: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <= 
1.5*(0.21psi/2.77) = 0.11psi). The 20 results must be a series of tests 
with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. A laboratory 
facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the 
exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it 
maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason 
for excluding them.
    (2) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(c)(1) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of 
this section.
    (h) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel 
parameter of gasoline distillation. (1) Precision. Beginning November 
30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives 
subject to the gasoline standards of this part, the maximum allowable 
standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests 
made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per 
day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single 
homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal 
to 1.5 times the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' 
equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D86-11a for the initial boiling 
point, E10, E50, E90 and final boiling point. (Example: A gasoline 
having an initial boiling point of 20 [deg]C and a final boiling point 
of 110 [deg]C: Maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for 
initial boiling point <= 1.5*(2.84 [deg]C/2.77) = 1.54 [deg]C, maximum 
allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E10 <= 1.5*(1.33 [deg]C/
2.77) = 0.72 [deg]C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests 
for E50 <= 1.5*(0.74 [deg]C/2.77) = 0.40 [deg]C, maximum allowable 
standard deviation of 20 tests for E90t <= 1.5*(1.79 [deg]C/2.77) = 
0.97 [deg]C, and maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for 
final boiling point <= 1.5*(3.33 [deg]C/2.77) = 1.80 [deg]C). The 20 
results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analysis 
and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or 
test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good 
laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and 
test results and the reason for excluding them.
    (2) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(d)(1) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of 
this section.
    (i) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel 
parameter of benzene in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 
2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to 
the gasoline standards of this part and the MSAT2 standards at 
Sec. Sec.  80.41, 80.101, and 80.1230, the maximum allowable standard 
deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 
20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on 
samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous 
commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times 
the repeatability ``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM 
repeatability of ASTM D3606-10 (Example: A gasoline having a 1Vol% 
benzene: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <= 
1.5*(0.04Vol%/2.77) = 0.02Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of 
tests with a sequential record of analysis and no emissions. A 
laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if 
the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and 
it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the 
reason for excluding them.
    (2) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(e)(1) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of 
this section.
    (j) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel 
parameter of aromatics in diesel. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 
2014, for motor vehicle diesel and diesel fuel additives subject to the 
motor vehicle diesel standards at Sec.  80.520, the maximum allowable 
standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests 
made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per 
day) on samples using good laboratory

[[Page 30008]]

practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available 
gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability 
``r'' divided by 2.77, where ``r'' equals the ASTM repeatability of 
ASTM D1319-10 (Example: A diesel fuel containing 35Vol% aromatics: 
maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests <= 1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77) 
= 0.70Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential 
record of analysis and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude 
a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid 
reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records 
regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding 
them.
    (2) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(j)(1) and in use prior 
to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section.
    (k) Criteria for designated test method reference installations 
used to qualify the accuracy of other method-defined parameter 
instruments. (1) Beginning November 30, 2014, the reference 
installation of the method-defined fuel parameter for the applicable 
designated test method must have precision equal to 1.5 times the 
repeatability ``r'' of the method-defined fuel parameter's designated 
test method, where ``r'' is the repeatability of the designated test 
method.
    (i) Olefins in gasoline see paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (ii) Aromatics in gasoline see paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (iii) Oxygen and Oxygenate content of gasoline see paragraph (f)(1) 
of this section.
    (iv) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline see paragraph (g)(1) of 
this section.
    (v) Gasoline Distillation see paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (vi) Benzene in Gasoline see paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
    (vii) Aromatics in Diesel see paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
    (2) The reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter 
for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be near the 
middle distribution of an industry monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck 
program for at least a period of five months using good laboratory 
practices. Specifically, compute the difference between the 
instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable 
fuel standard (or to the average value for the fuel parameter in the 
complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the 
non-outlier labs in the monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck program. 
Standardize this difference by expressing it in robust standard 
deviation units. These standardized inter-laboratory crosscheck 
differences should be placed in a moving average with a minimum span of 
five months. The instrument's moving average in robust standard 
deviation units cannot be outside the central 50% of the distribution 
of all laboratories that participated in the inter-laboratory 
crosscheck program.
    (3) The reference installation of the method-defined fuel parameter 
for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be in 
statistical quality control as specified in ASTM International D6299 
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) for a 
minimum period of five months using good laboratory practices.
    (l) Qualification criteria for Voluntary Consensus Standard Based 
(VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods. (1) Beginning November 
30, 2014, include full test method documentation by the Voluntary 
Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) organization, including a description 
of the technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method 
functional.
    (2) Include information reported in the test method that 
demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information 
for the method-defined fuel parameter as described in this section.
    (3) Include information reported in the test method that 
demonstrates the test method has been evaluated using ASTM 
International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of 
this section) and whether the comparison is a ``null'' result or 
whether a correlation equation needs to be applied that predicts 
designated test method results from the applicable method-defined 
alternative test method.
    (4) The test methods specified at Sec. Sec.  80.2(w) and 
80.46(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1) 
and in use prior to May 30, 2013 are exempt from the requirements of 
paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (m) Qualification criteria for Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard 
Based (non-VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods. For a non-VCSB 
method to be approved, the following information must be submitted to 
the Administrator by each test facility for each method that it wishes 
to have approved.
    (1) Beginning November 30, 2014, full and thorough test method 
documentation, including a description of the technology and/or 
instrumentation that makes the method functional so a person lacking 
experience with the test instrument would be able to replicate its 
results.
    (2) Information reported in the test method that demonstrates the 
test method meets the applicable precision information using good 
laboratory practices for the method-defined fuel parameter as described 
in this section.
    (3) Both the candidate method-defined Non-VCSB test method and its 
respective designated test method must be tested on a range of 
consensus named fuels or locally-named reference materials that are 
typical of those analyzed by the facility in practice using good 
laboratory practices and must meet the data requirements for 
variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section).
    (4) The facility using the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test 
method must statistically establish through application of ASTM D6708 
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) that the 
candidate method measures the same aspect of samples as applicable to 
its respective designated test method using good laboratory practices.
    (5) If the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see 
paragraph (r) of this section) reveals that the candidate method-
defined non-VCSB test method has sample-specific biases due to matrix 
effects that cannot be determined as random the method is disqualified. 
If however, it is determined that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB 
test method can be qualified on a narrow circumscribed range of fuels 
while still meeting the data requirements for variability as required 
in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph 
(r) of this section) (see paragraph (m)(3) of this section), then the 
types of fuels on which the qualification was achieved and for which 
the method is to be approved must be specified in the candidate method-
defined non-VCSB test method description. If there is any restriction 
on the scope of fuels for which the candidate method-defined non-VCSB 
test method is to be qualified, the applicant must include a discussion 
of how the facility plans to screen sample for conformity to the scope. 
If the candidate method-defined test method is found to have minimal 
matrix effects, a statement to this effect must be included by the 
applicant in its application.
    (6) The candidate method-defined non-VCSB test method precision 
qualification must be conducted in the form of ``cross-method 
reproducibility'' (Rcm) of the candidate method and

[[Page 30009]]

applicable designated test method as required in ASTM International 
D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section), 
where the Rcm must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the published 
reproducibility of the applicable designated test method using good 
laboratory practices.
    (7) The applicant of the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test 
method must demonstrate through the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) whether a correlation to 
applicable designated test method is necessary. If it is determined 
through the use of this practice that the candidate method-defined non-
VCSB test method requires a correlation equation in order to predict 
designated test method results, then this correlation equation must be 
applied to the candidate instruments output to obtain measurement 
results for regulatory purposes using good laboratory practices.
    (8) Any additional information requested by the Administrator and 
necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method.
    (9) Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be 
retained for 90 days.
    (10) EPA approval. Within 90 days of the receipt of materials 
required to be submitted under paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this 
section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is 
approved under this section.
    (11) If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, 
within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the Administrator will 
notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method. If 
the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of 
receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed 
approved.
    (12) The Administrator may revoke approval of a test method under 
this section for cause, including, but not limited to, a determination 
by the Administrator that the approved test method has proved to be 
inadequate in practice.
    (13) An independent third-party scientific review and written 
report and verification of the information provided pursuant to 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section. The report and 
verification shall be based upon a site visit and review of relevant 
documents and shall separately identify each item required by 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, describe how the 
independent third-party evaluated the accuracy of the information 
provided, state whether the independent third-party agrees with the 
information provided, and identify any exceptions between the 
independent third-party's findings and the information provided.
    (i) The information required under this section to be provided by 
an independent third party must be conducted by both a professional 
chemist and professional statistician as specified in paragraph 
(m)(13)(i)(A) of this section. The verifying chemist and statistician 
must be:
    (A) For a refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, and oxygenate 
blender, a chemist and statistician who has received at least a 
bachelor's degree in science from an accredited college in the United 
States, with professional work experience in the petroleum or oxygenate 
field.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) To be considered an independent third-party under this 
paragraph (m)(13):
    (A) The third-party shall not be employed by the refiner, importer, 
oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender, or any subsidiary or employee 
of the refiner, import facility, oxygenate producing facility, or 
oxygenate blender.
    (B) The third party shall be free from any interest in the 
refiner's, importer's, oxygenate producer's, or oxygenate blender's 
business.
    (C) The refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender 
shall be free from any interest in the third-party's business.
    (D) Use of a third-party that is debarred, suspended, or proposed 
for debarment pursuant to the Government-wide Debarment and Suspension 
regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the Debarment, Suspension and 
Ineligibility provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 
part 9 subpart 9.4, shall be deemed in noncompliance with the 
requirements of this section.
    (iii) The independent third-party shall retain all records 
pertaining to the verification required under this section for a period 
of five years from the date of creation and shall deliver such records 
to the Administrator upon request.
    (iv) The third-party must provide to EPA documentation of his or 
her qualifications as part of the scientific review, including proof of 
appropriate college degree.
    (14) If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility 
has provided false or inaccurate information under this section, upon 
notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio.
    (n) Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) 
Requirements for the Absolute Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 
2014, a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test 
method unless the following quality control procedures are performed 
separately for each instrument used to make measurements:
    (1) Accuracy SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every 
instrument with a commercially available gravimetric reference 
material, or check standard as defined in the ASTM International 
standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) 
of this section) on at least a quarterly basis using good laboratory 
practices. The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the 
check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described 
in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct 
``MR'' and ``I'' charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 
and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In 
circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of 
multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the 
accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater 
than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must 
be investigated by the facility. Records of the standard reference 
materials measurements as well as any investigations into any 
exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
    (2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every 
instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 
3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see 
paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 
20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must 
construct and maintain an ``I'' chart as described in section 7 and 
section A1.5.1 and a ``MR'' chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any 
violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of 
the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
    (ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making 
a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC 
material, the facility will follow the ``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of 
ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, 
see paragraph (r) of this section). In following the Q-Procedure if the 
plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective 
chart shows no special-cause signals, then the result of the new QC 
material will be considered valid. These records must be

[[Page 30010]]

kept by the facility for a period of 5 years.
    (o) Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) 
Requirements for the Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method-
Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2014, a test shall not 
be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following 
quality control procedures are performed separately for each instrument 
used to make measurements:
    (1) Accuracy SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests of every 
instrument with a commercially available check standard as defined in 
the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterly 
basis using good laboratory practices. The check standard must be an 
ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parameter of interest close to 
either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use 
for the facility. The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard 
must be determined by the respective designated test method for the 
fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard 
practice D6299. The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the 
check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described 
in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct 
``MR'' and ``I'' charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 
and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In 
circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of 
multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the 
accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater 
than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must 
be investigated by the facility. Records of the standard reference 
materials measurements as well as any investigations into any 
exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
    (2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests of every 
instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 
3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see 
paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 
20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must 
construct and maintain an ``I'' chart as described in section 7 and 
section A1.5.1 and a ``MR'' chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any 
violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of 
the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
    (ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making 
a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC 
material, the facility will follow the ``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of 
ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, 
see paragraph (r) of this section). In following the Q-Procedure if the 
plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective 
chart shows no special-cause signals, then the result of the new QC 
material will be considered valid. These records must be kept by the 
facility for a period of 5 years.
    (p) Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) 
Requirements for the Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (Non-VCSB) 
Method-Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2014, a test 
shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the 
following quality control procedures are performed separately for each 
instrument used to make measurements:
    (1) Accuracy SQC for Non-VCSB Method-Defined test methods with 
minimal matrix effects. Every facility shall conduct tests on every 
instrument with a commercially available check standard as defined in 
the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterly 
basis using good laboratory practices. The check standard must be an 
ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parameter of interest close to 
either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use 
for the facility. The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard 
must be determined by the respective designated test method for the 
fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard 
practice D6299. The facility must pre-treat and assess results from the 
check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described 
in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct 
``MR'' and ``I'' charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 
and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In 
circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of 
multiple back-to-back tests of the standard reference material and the 
accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater 
than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must 
be investigated by the facility. Records of the standard reference 
materials measurements as well as any investigations into any 
exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years.
    (2)(i) Accuracy SQC for Non-VCSB Method-Defined test methods with 
high sensitivity to matrix effects. Every facility shall conduct tests 
on every instrument with a production fuel on at least a quarterly 
basis using good laboratory practices. The production fuel must be 
representative of the production fuels that are routinely analyzed by 
the facility. The Accepted Reference Value of the production fuel must 
be determined by the respective reference installation of the 
designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines 
of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by 
reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). The facility must pre-
treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 
15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard 
practice. The facility must construct ``MR'' and ``I'' charts with 
control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex 
sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute 
difference between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the 
standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the 
standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published 
reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by the 
facility. Documentation on the identity of the reference installation 
and its control status must be maintained on the premises of the 
method-defined alternative test method. Records of the standard 
reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any 
exceedances of this criterion must be kept for a period of 5 years.
    (ii) Each facility is required to send every 20th production batch 
of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA's laboratory, along with the 
facility's measurement result used to certify the batch using the 
respective method-defined non-VCSB test method. The EPA retains the 
right to return such sample on a blind basis for a required reanalysis 
on the respective method-defined non-VCSB test method within 180 days 
upon receipt of such sample.
    (3)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every 
instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 
3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see 
paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 
20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must 
construct and maintain an ``I'' chart as described in section 7 and 
section A1.5.1 and a ``MR'' chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any

[[Page 30011]]

violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of 
the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years.
    (ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making 
a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC 
material, the facility will follow the ``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of 
ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, 
see paragraph (r) of this section) using good laboratory practices. In 
following the Q-Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new 
QC materials on its respective chart shows no special-cause signals, 
then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid. These 
records must be kept by the facility for a period of 5 years.
    (q) Record retention requirements for the test methods approved 
under this subpart. (1) Each individual test facility must retain 
records related to the establishment of accuracy and precision values, 
all test method documentation, and any statistical quality control 
testing and analysis under this section using good laboratory practices 
for a period for five years.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (r) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the 
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the 
documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 
CFR 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, under EPA docket ID Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. 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. For further information on these test methods, 
please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734-214-4582.
    (1) ASTM International material. Anyone may purchase copies of 
these materials from the ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor 
Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM 
International customer service at 10-832-9585, or by contacting the 
email address of service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site 
of https://www.astm.org.
    (i) ASTM International standard practice D6708-08 (``ASTM 
International D6708''), ``Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment 
and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that 
Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material'', approved December 
15, 2008.
    (ii) ASTM International standard practice D6299-10[epsiv]\1\ 
(``ASTM International D6708''), ``Standard Practice for Applying 
Statistical Quality Assurance and Control Charting Techniques to 
Evaluate Analytical Measurement System Performance'', approved March 1, 
2010.
    (2) [Reserved]
0
7c. Section 80.65 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(iv).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(v)(E).
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(3).
0
e. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(1)(i), and (e)(2) 
introductory text.
0
f. Adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4).
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(3)(iii)(A).
0
h. Adding a new paragraph (f)(5).
0
i. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text.
0
j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iii).
0
k. Revising paragraphs (i)(4)(ii) introductory text and (i)(4)(ii)(A).
0
l. Revising paragraph (i)(6)(i).


Sec.  80.65  General requirements for refiners and importers.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) All gasoline produced or imported shall be properly designated 
as reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB.
    (2) * * *
    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) * * *
    (E) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (3) Every batch of reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, 
RBOB, or CBOB produced or imported at each refinery or import facility 
shall be assigned a number (the ``batch number''), consisting of the 
EPA-assigned refiner or importer registration number, the EPA facility 
registration number, the last two digits of the year in which the batch 
was produced, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the 
number one for the first batch produced or imported each calendar year 
and each subsequent batch during the calendar year being assigned the 
next sequential number (e.g., 4321-54321-95-000001, 4321-543321-95-
000002, etc.).
    (e) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this 
section, each refiner or importer shall, for each batch of reformulated 
gasoline or RBOB produced or imported, determine the volume and the 
value of each of the properties specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of 
this section, except that the value for RVP must be determined only in 
the case of reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is VOC-controlled. These 
determinations shall:
    (i) Be based on a representative sample of the reformulated 
gasoline or RBOB that is analyzed using the methodologies specified in 
Sec.  80.46 through November 29, 2014, or, beginning November 30, 2014, 
in Sec.  80.47;
* * * * *
    (2) In the event that the value of any of these properties is 
determined by the refiner or importer and by an independent laboratory 
in conformance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section:
* * * * *
    (3) Beginning January 1, 2013, API Gravity is not required to be 
measured or reported for the purpose of batch certification.
    (4) For the purposes of meeting the requirements of this paragraph 
(e) for any winter fuel parameter except benzene, oxygenate, RVP and 
sulfur, any refiner or importer may, prior to analysis, combine samples 
of gasoline collected from more than one batch of gasoline or 
blendstock (``composite sample''), and treat such composite sample as 
one batch of gasoline or blendstock provided that the refiner or 
importer meets all of the following requirements:
    (i) Samples must be from a single reporting year, must be limited 
to non-VOC gasoline, and must be of a single grade of gasoline or of a 
single type of batch-produced blendstock.
    (ii) Combines samples of gasoline that are produced or imported 
over a period no longer than one month. Blendstock samples of a single 
blendstock type obtained from continuous processes over a calendar 
month may be mixed together to form one blendstock sample and the 
sample subsequently analyzed for the required fuel parameters.
    (iii)(A) Samples shall have been collected and stored using good 
laboratory practices in order to prevent change in product composition 
with regard to baseline properties and to minimize loss of volatile 
fractions of the sample.
    (B) Properties of the retained samples shall be adjusted for loss 
of butane by comparing the RVP measured

[[Page 30012]]

immediately after blending with the RVP determined at the time that the 
supplemental properties are measured.
    (C) The volume of each batch or shipment sampled, to the nearest 
gallon, shall have been noted and the sum of the volumes, in gallons, 
calculated.
    (iv) For each batch or shipment sampled, the ratio of its volume to 
the total volume determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(C) of this section 
shall be determined to three decimal places. This shall be the 
volumetric fraction of the shipment in the mixture.
    (v) The total minimum volume required to perform duplicate analyses 
to obtain values of all of the required fuel parameters shall be 
determined.
    (vi) The volumetric fraction determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of 
this section for each batch or shipment shall be multiplied by the 
value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(v) of this section.
    (vii) The resulting value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(vi) of 
this section for each batch or shipment shall be the volume of each 
batch or shipment's sample to be added to the mixture. This volume 
shall be determined to the nearest milliliter.
    (viii) The appropriate volumes of each shipment's sample shall be 
thoroughly mixed and the solution analyzed per the methods required 
under Sec.  80.46 or Sec.  80.47, as applicable.
    (ix) Uses the total of the volumes of the batches of gasoline that 
comprise the composite sample, and the results of the analyses of the 
composite sample, for purposes of compliance calculations under this 
paragraph (e).
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Option 1. The refiner or importer shall, for each batch of 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is produced or imported, have the 
value for each property specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this 
section determined by an independent laboratory that collects and 
analyzes a representative sample from the batch using the methodologies 
specified in Sec.  80.46 through November 29, 2014, and the 
methodologies specified in Sec.  80.47 beginning November 30, 2014.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) A report for the period January through March shall be 
submitted by June 1; a report for the period April through June shall 
be submitted bySeptember 1; a report for the period July through 
September shall be submitted by December 1; and a report for the period 
October through December shall be submitted by March 31. Beginning, 
January 1, 2014, a single annual report for calendar year January 
through December may be submitted by the following March 31.
* * * * *
    (5) A refiner or importer may designate one alternate independent 
laboratory, to be used only when the designated independent laboratory 
per paragraph (f)(2) of this section is unavailable and cannot perform 
testing required for compliance.
    (i) The alternate independent laboratory must meet all provisions 
of this section for designated independent laboratories.
    (ii) An alternate independent laboratory may not be used to select 
a preferred test result. The alternate laboratory may only be used on 
those occasions where operational necessity causes a need for it (e.g., 
the primary designated laboratory is closed, the apparatus for certain 
test methods are down, or independent laboratory personnel are not 
available).
* * * * *
    (i) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline. Any refiner who 
uses previously certified reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, 
RBOB, or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB must exclude the 
previously certified gasoline for purposes of demonstrating compliance 
with the standards under Sec.  80.41. This exclusion must be 
accomplished by the refiner as follows:
    (1) * * *
    (ii) In the case of previously certified reformulated gasoline or 
RBOB determine the emissions performances for toxics and 
NOX, except as provided in Sec.  80.41(e) and (f), and VOC 
for VOC-controlled gasoline, and the designations for VOC control.
    (iii) In the case of previously certified conventional gasoline or 
CBOB, determine the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions 
performances, except as provided in Sec.  80.101(c)(3) and (4).
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Where a refiner uses previously certified conventional 
gasoline or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB:
    (A) The refiner must include the volume and properties of any batch 
of previously certified conventional gasoline or CBOB as a negative 
batch in the refiner's anti-dumping compliance calculations under Sec.  
80.101(g) for the refinery, or where applicable, the refiner's 
aggregation under Sec.  80.101(h); and
* * * * *
    (6)(i) Any refiner may use the procedures specified in this 
paragraph (i) to combine previously certified conventional gasoline or 
CBOB with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, to reclassify conventional 
gasoline or CBOB into reformulated gasoline or RBOB, or to change the 
designations of reformulated gasoline or RBOB with regard to VOC 
control.
* * * * *

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
8. Section 80.75 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv).
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B).
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(D).
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ix)(F).
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
f. Revising paragraph (c)(1).
0
g. Adding paragraph (d) introductory text.
0
h. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
0
i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
0
j. Adding paragraph (e) introductory text.
0
k. Revising paragraph (e)(1).
0
l. Adding paragraph (g) introductory text.
0
m. Adding paragraph (h) introductory text.
0
n. Revising paragraph (i).
0
o. Removing and reserving paragraph (k).
0
p. Revising paragraph (l).
0
q. Revising paragraph (o) introductory text.


Sec.  80.75  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The first quarterly report shall include information for 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from January 1 
through March 31, and shall be submitted by June 1 of each year;
    (ii) The second quarterly report shall include information for 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from April 1 through 
June 30, and shall be submitted by September 1 of each year;
    (iii) The third quarterly report shall include information for 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from July 1 through 
September 30, and shall be submitted by December 1 of each year; and
    (iv) The fourth quarterly report shall include information for 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from October 1 
through December 31, and shall be submitted by March 31 of each year.

[[Page 30013]]

    (2) * * *
    (v) * * *
    (B) The properties, along with identification of the test method 
used to measure those properties, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  80.65 and 
80.66;
* * * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (D) The volume, properties (along with identification of the test 
method used to measure those properties), and designation of the batch.
    (ix) * * *
    (F) The properties of the butane batch, along with the 
identification of the test method used to measure those properties, 
specified by the butane supplier, or the properties specified in Sec.  
80.82(c) or (d), as appropriate;
* * * * *
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) * * *
    (1) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB under the complex model that was to meet 
the VOC emissions performance standards on average (``averaged 
reformulated gasoline'') shall submit to the Administrator, with the 
third quarterly report, a report for each refinery or importer for such 
averaged reformulated gasoline produced or imported during the previous 
VOC averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2014, the information 
required by this paragraph (c) shall be submitted with the annual 
report. This information shall be reported separately for the following 
categories:
* * * * *
    (d) Benzene content averaging reports. Pursuant to Sec.  
80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to the 
applicable standards at Sec.  80.41(f)(1), the report required by this 
paragraph (d) is not required beginning January 1, 2014, or beginning 
January 1, 2016 for all other refiners.
    (1) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the benzene content 
standards on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'') shall submit 
to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly report, a report for 
each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline that 
was produced or imported during the previous toxics averaging period. 
Beginning January 1, 2014, the information required by this paragraph 
(d) shall be submitted with the annual report.
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The actual total content of benzene, along with 
identification of the test methods used to measure the content of 
benzene;
* * * * *
    (e) Toxics emissions performance averaging reports. Pursuant to 
Sec.  80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to 
the applicable standards at Sec.  80.41(f)(1), the report required by 
this paragraph (e) is not required beginning January 1, 2014, or 
beginning January 1, 2016 for all other refiners.
    (1) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the toxics emissions 
performance standards on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'') 
shall submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly report, a 
report for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated 
gasoline that was produced or imported during the previous toxics 
averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2014, the information required 
by this paragraph (e) shall be submitted with the annual report.
* * * * *
    (g) NOX emissions performance averaging reports. 
Pursuant to Sec.  80.41(f)(2), for any refiner, refinery or importer 
not subject to the applicable standards at Sec.  80.41(f)(1), the 
report required by this paragraph (g) is not required beginning January 
1, 2012.
* * * * *
    (h) Credit transfer reports. As an additional part of the fourth 
quarterly report required by this section, any refiner or importer 
shall, for each refinery or importer, supply the information specified 
in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section for any benzene 
credits that are transferred from or to another refinery or importer. 
Beginning January 1, 2014, the information required by this paragraph 
(h) shall be submitted with the annual report.
* * * * *
    (i) Covered areas of gasoline use report. Any refiner that produced 
any reformulated gasoline that was to meet any reformulated gasoline 
standard on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'') shall, for 
each refinery at which such averaged reformulated gasoline was 
produced, submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly 
report, a report that contains the identity of each covered area that 
was supplied with any averaged reformulated gasoline produced at each 
refinery during the previous year. Beginning January 1, 2014, the 
information required by this paragraph (i) shall be submitted with the 
annual report.
* * * * *
    (k) [Reserved]
    (l) Reports for per-gallon compliance gasoline. In the case of 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB for which compliance with each of the 
standards set forth in Sec.  80.41 is achieved on a per-gallon basis, 
the refiner or importer shall submit to the Administrator, by March 1 
of each year, a report of the volume of each designated reformulated 
gasoline or RBOB produced or imported during the previous calendar year 
for which compliance is achieved on a per-gallon basis, and a statement 
that each gallon of this reformulated gasoline or RBOB met the 
applicable standards.
* * * * *
    (o) Additional reporting requirements for refiners that blend 
butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB. For refiners that blend any 
butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB under Sec.  80.82, the 
refiner shall submit to the Administrator, by March 1 of each year, a 
report for the refinery which includes the following information for 
the previous calendar year:
* * * * *
0
9. Section 80.82 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d).
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(1).
0
d. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j).


Sec.  80.82  Butane blending.

    A refiner for any refinery that produces gasoline by blending 
butane with previously certified gasoline may meet the sampling and 
testing requirements for this part as follows:
    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (i) of this section, 
any refinery that blends butane for which the refinery has documents 
from the butane supplier which demonstrate that the butane is 
commercial grade, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, may 
demonstrate compliance with the standards in this part based on the 
properties specified in paragraph (c) of this section, or the 
properties specified by the butane supplier.
    (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (i) of this 
section, any refiner that blends butane for which the refiner has 
documents from the butane supplier which demonstrate that the butane is 
non-commercial grade, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section, may 
demonstrate compliance with the standards in this part based on the 
properties specified in paragraph (d) of this section, or the 
properties specified by the butane supplier, provided that the 
refinery:

[[Page 30014]]

    (i) Conducts a quality assurance program of sampling and testing 
the butane obtained from each separate butane supplier which 
demonstrates that the butane has the properties specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section; and
    (ii) The frequency of sampling and testing for the butane received 
from each butane supplier must be one sample for every 500,000 gallons 
of butane received, or one sample every three months, whichever is more 
frequent.
    (2) Where test results indicate the butane does not meet the 
requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the refiner may:
    (i) Blend the butane with conventional gasoline, or reformulated 
gasoline that has been downgraded to conventional gasoline, provided 
that any applicable equivalent emissions performance standards of the 
butane batch, as determined using the provisions in Sec.  80.101(g)(3), 
meets the refinery's standards under Sec.  80.101 and the refiner meets 
all of the standards and requirements applicable to refiners of 
conventional gasoline under this part;
    (ii) Blend the butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, provided 
that the final batch of butane blended with reformulated gasoline or 
RBOB meets the per-gallon standards in Sec.  80.41, as determined using 
the test methods in Sec.  80.46.
    (c) Commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which test 
results demonstrate that the butane is 95% pure and has all of the 
following properties:
    (1) Olefins <=1.0 vol%.
    (2) Aromatics <=2.0 vol%.
    (3) Benzene <=0.03 vol%.
    (4) Sulfur <=30 ppm from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016; 
<=10 ppm beginning January 1, 2017 and thereafter.
    (d) Non-commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which test 
results demonstrate the butane has all of the following properties:
    (1) Olefins <=10.0 vol%.
    (2) Aromatics <=2.0 vol%.
    (3) Benzene <=0.03 vol%.
    (4) Sulfur <=30 ppm beginning January 1, 2005 through December 31, 
2016; <=10 ppm beginning January 1, 2017 and thereafter.
    (e)(1) When butane is blended with conventional gasoline under this 
section during the period May 1 through September 15, the refiner shall 
demonstrate through sampling and testing, using the test method for 
Reid vapor pressure in Sec.  80.47, that each batch of conventional 
gasoline blended with butane meets the volatility standards specified 
in Sec.  80.27.
* * * * *
    (i) A refiner who only blends commercial grade or non-commercial 
grade butane into PCG may meet the sampling and testing requirements of 
subpart O of this part by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a) 
through (f) and (h)(3) of this section and all of the following 
additional requirements:
    (1) The per-gallon sulfur content of every batch of butane must not 
exceed 10 ppm.
    (2) The refiner obtains test results from the butane supplier that 
demonstrate that the sulfur content of each load does not exceed the 
applicable per-gallon sulfur standard under paragraph (i)(1) of this 
section through test results of samples of butane contained in the 
storage tank from which the butane blender is supplied.
    (i) Sampling and testing for the sulfur content of the butane by 
the supplier must be subsequent to each receipt of butane into the 
supplier's storage tank or the sampling and testing must be immediately 
before transfer of butane to the butane blender.
    (ii) The testing must be performed in accord with the provisions of 
Sec.  80.47.
    (iii) The butane blender must obtain a copy of the butane 
supplier's test results at the time of each transfer of butane to the 
butane blender.
    (3) The sulfur content and volume of each batch of gasoline 
produced is that of the butane that the refiner blends into PCG for the 
purposes of calculating compliance with the 10 ppm per-gallon sulfur 
standard.
    (4) The requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this 
section apply regardless of whether the butane is commercial grade or 
noncommercial grade.
    (5) The quality assurance testing requirement of paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section applies regardless of whether the butane is commercial 
grade or noncommercial grade.
    (6) If any of the requirements of this paragraph (i) are not met, 
in whole or in part for any butane blended into gasoline, that butane 
is deemed in violation of the gasoline standards in Sec.  80.1603(a).
    (j) The PCG procedures of Sec.  80.1640 may be used to meet the 
sampling and testing requirements of subpart O of this part.
0
10. Section 80.101 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A).
0
b. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C).
0
c. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(C).


Sec.  80.101  Standards applicable to refiners and importers.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i)(A) Through November 29, 2014, determine the value of each of 
the properties required for determining compliance with the standards 
that are applicable to the refiner or importer, by collecting and 
analyzing a representative sample of gasoline or blendstock from the 
batch, using methodologies specified in Sec.  80.46; beginning November 
30, 2014, determine the value of each of the properties required for 
determining compliance with the standards that are applicable to the 
refiner or importer, by collecting and analyzing a representative 
sample of gasoline or blendstock from the batch, using methodologies 
specified in Sec.  80.47; except that
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified 
under Sec.  80.65(e)(2)(i), using either of the following:
    (1) The test methods specified under Sec.  80.46, through November 
29, 2014.
    (2) The test methods specified under Sec.  80.47, beginning 
November 30, 2014.
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified 
under Sec.  80.65(e)(2)(i), using the test methods specified under 
Sec.  80.46 through November 29, 2014, or under Sec.  80.47 beginning 
November 30, 2014.
* * * * *

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
11. Section 80.105 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(v).
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi)(D).
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(F) and (a)(5)(vii)(G).
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iii).
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(2).


Sec.  80.105  Reporting requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (v) The properties, along with identification of the test method 
used to measure those properties, pursuant to Sec.  80.101(i);
    (vi) * * *
    (D) The volume, properties, along with identification of the test 
method used to measure those properties, and designation of the batch;
    (vii) * * *
    (F) The properties of the butane batch specified by the butane 
supplier, along with identification of the test method used to measure 
those properties of the

[[Page 30015]]

butane, or the properties specified in Sec.  80.82(c) or (d), as 
appropriate.
    (G) Where butane is blended with conventional gasoline during the 
period May 1 through September 15, the Reid vapor pressure, along with 
identification of the test method used to measure Reid vapor pressure 
using the appropriate test method at Sec.  80.46 through November 
29,2014, and at Sec.  80.47 beginning November 30, 2014; and
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iii) A statement that the gasoline produced using butane meets all 
applicable downstream standards that apply to conventional gasoline 
under subpart E of this part, along with the test methods used to 
determine compliance with the downstream standards that apply to 
conventional gasoline under subpart E of this part; and
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 each year for the prior calendar 
year averaging period; and
* * * * *
0
12. Section 80.161 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) and adding paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3).
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text.
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(C), (b)(3)(v), and (b)(3)(viii).
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(1).


Sec.  80.161  Detergent additive certification program.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) In the case of the alternative national generic certification 
option pursuant to Sec.  80.163(a)(1)(iii), the minimum recommended 
concentration must equal or exceed the amount mixed into the associated 
test fuel specified in Sec.  80.177, which was shown to satisfy the 
fuel injector deposit control and intake valve deposit control 
performance tests and standards specified in Sec.  80.176.
    (3) In the case of any other detergent certification option, the 
minimum recommended concentration must equal or exceed the amount mixed 
into the associated test fuel specified in Sec.  80.164, which was 
shown to satisfy the fuel injector deposit control and intake valve 
deposit control performance tests and standards specified in Sec.  
80.165.
* * * * *
    (2) The detergent additive manufacturer (or other certifying party) 
must submit to EPA a sample of the actual detergent additive package 
which was used in the certification test fuels specified in Sec.  
80.164 or Sec.  80.177 or, if such sample is not available, then a 
sample which has the same composition as the package used in 
certification testing.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) Complete documentation of the test fuel formulation, IVD 
demonstration procedures, fuel injector deposit demonstration procedure 
if applicable, detergent performance test procedures, and test results 
are available for EPA's inspection upon request.
* * * * *
    (v) In the case of a national or PADD certification (pursuant to 
Sec.  80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or (b)) for which the test 
fuel was specially formulated from refinery blend stocks, the results 
of the IVD demonstration test, pursuant to Sec.  80.164(b)(3). In the 
case of an alternative national generic certification (pursuant to 
Sec.  80.163(a)(1)(iii)), the results of the IVD demonstration test and 
fuel injector deposit demonstration test (pursuant to Sec.  80.177).
* * * * *
    (viii) The test concentration(s) of the subject detergent additive 
in each test fuel, and the corresponding test results (percent flow 
restriction demonstrated in the fuel injector test and milligrams of 
deposit per valve demonstrated in the IVD test).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) If a detergent blender possesses deposit control performance 
test results as specified in Sec.  80.165, Sec.  80.166, or Sec.  
80.176 which show that the minimum treat rate recommended by the 
manufacturer of a detergent additive product exceeds the amount of that 
detergent actually required for effective deposit control, then, upon 
informing EPA in writing of these circumstances, the detergent blender 
may use the detergent at the lower concentration substantiated by these 
test results.
* * * * *
0
13. Section 80.163 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  80.163  Detergent certification options.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Alternative national generic certification option. To be 
certified under this option, a candidate detergent must meet the 
deposit control performance test requirements and standards specified 
in Sec.  80.176 using test fuels that conform to the requirements in 
Sec.  80.177. A detergent certified under this option is eligible to be 
used at a conforming LAC in any grade of gasoline, with or without an 
oxygenate component.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 80.164 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  80.164  Certification test fuels.

    (a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for 
the test fuels required in conjunction with the certification options 
described in Sec.  80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (b) through 
(d). For each such certification option, the associated test fuel must 
meet or exceed the levels of four basic fuel parameters (aromatics, 
fuel sulfur, olefins, and T-90) prescribed here and may also contain 
specified oxygenate compounds. In addition, pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section, some fuels must undergo an IVD demonstration 
test before they are eligible to be used as test fuels under this 
certification program. Test fuel characteristics must be reported to 
EPA in the detergent certification letter required pursuant to Sec.  
80.161(b)(3). The specifications for the test fuels required in 
conjunction with the alternative national generic certification option 
in Sec.  80.163(a)(1)(iii) are contained in Sec.  80.177.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 80.165 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  80.165  Certification test procedures and standards.

    This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and 
performance standards which must be met in order to certify detergent 
additives for use in unleaded gasoline, pursuant to Sec.  
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3). These standards must be met in the context of 
the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. The 
testing must be conducted and the performance standards met when the 
subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuel meeting all relevant 
requirements of Sec.  80.164, including the deposit-forming tendency 
demonstration specified in Sec.  80.164(b)(3), if applicable. Complete 
test documentation must be submitted by the certifying party within 30 
days of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records. The 
certification test procedures and standards associated with the 
alternative national generic

[[Page 30016]]

certification option in Sec.  80.163(a)(1)(iii) are contained in Sec.  
80.176.
    (a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. The required test fuel 
must produce no more than 5% flow restriction in any one injector when 
tested in accordance with ASTM D 5598-94, ``Standard Test Method for 
Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for 
Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling,'' 1994, which is incorporated by 
reference pursuant to Sec.  80.178. At the option of the certifier, 
fuel injector flow may be measured at intervals during the 10,000 mile 
test cycle described in ASTM D 5598-94, in addition to the flow 
measurements required at the completion of the test cycle, but not more 
than every 1,000 miles.
    (b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel 
must produce the accumulation of less than 100 mg of intake valve 
deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5500-94, 
``Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive 
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation,'' 1994, 
which is incorporated by reference pursuant to Sec.  80.178.
    (c) If conducted using test fuels meeting all relevant requirements 
of Sec.  80.164, and completed prior to September 3, 1996, then the 
PFID and IVD control test procedures required for detergent 
certification in California (specified in section 2257 of Title 13, 
California Code of Regulations) will also be considered acceptable. 
California Air Resources Board, ``Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel 
Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle Engines'', March 1, 1991, and 
California Air Resources Board, ``BMW--10,000 Miles Intake Valve Test 
Procedure'', March 1, 1991, are incorporated by reference pursuant to 
Sec.  80.178.
0
16. Section 80.167 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  80.167  Confirmatory testing.

* * * * *
    (a) Confirmatory testing conducted to evaluate the validity of 
detergent certifications under the national, PADD, or fuel-specific 
options under Sec.  80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (b) 
through (d) will generally entail a single vehicle test using the 
procedures detailed in Sec.  80.165. The test fuel(s) used in 
conducting such confirmatory certification testing will contain the 
specified fuel parameters at or below the minimum levels specified in 
Sec.  80.164, and will otherwise conform to the applicable 
certification test fuel specifications therein. Confirmatory testing 
conducted to evaluate the validity of detergent certifications under 
the alternative national generic certification option in Sec.  
80.163(a)(1)(iii) will generally entail a single test using the 
procedures detailed in Sec.  80.177. The test fuel(s) used in 
conducting such confirmatory certification testing will contain the 
specified fuel parameters at or below the minimum levels specified in 
Sec.  80.177, and will otherwise conform to the applicable 
certification test fuel specifications therein.
* * * * *
0
17. A new Sec.  80.175 is added to subpart G and reserved as follows:


Sec.  80.175  [Reserved]

0
18. A new Sec.  80.176 is added to subpart G to read as follows:


Sec.  80.176  Alternative certification test procedures and standards.

    This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and 
performance standards which must be met in order to certify detergent 
additives for use in unleaded gasoline pursuant to Sec.  
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2). These standards must be met in the context of 
the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section. Testing must be conducted and the performance standards 
met when the subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuels 
meeting all relevant requirements of Sec.  80.177. Complete test 
documentation must be submitted by the certifying party within 30 days 
of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records.
    (a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. The required test fuel 
must produce no more than one inoperative injector when tested in 
accordance with the fuel injector deposit test procedure specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel 
must produce the accumulation of less than 50 mg of intake valve 
deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D6201--
04(2009), ``Standard Test Method for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded 
Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation'', which 
is incorporated by reference pursuant to Sec.  80.178.
    (1) Tests conducted for the intake valve deposit demonstration test 
pursuant to Sec.  80.177(b)(1)(iv) and to demonstrate compliance with 
the intake valve deposit control standards in this section must be 
conducted using the same engine block and cylinder head.
    (2) All results must be derived from operationally valid tests in 
accordance with the test validation criteria of ASTM D 6201--04(2009).
    (3) Test results shall be reported for individual intake valves and 
as an average of all intake valves.
    (c) Fuel injector deposit test procedure--(1) Summary of Test 
Procedure. After flushing the vehicle fuel system with the fuel to be 
tested and installing new injectors, an automatic starter control 
system starts the vehicle and lets it idle for five minutes. The engine 
is then shut off and allowed to soak for 25 minutes. This cycle is 
repeated for a total of 192 cycles (96 hours). During this time, the 
engine is kept at operating temperature with block heaters. After the 
96 hours of start/soak cycles, the engine is allowed to hot-soak for 48 
hours, during which time the engine is not started but is maintained at 
operating temperature. At the end of the 48-hour hot soak, the block 
heaters are turned off and the engine is allowed to cool naturally to 
room temperature. At the end of this 48-hour ambient temperature soak, 
an injector balance test is conducted to determine whether any poppet 
nozzles are stuck closed.
    (2) Facilities and Equipment--(i) Location. A temperature-
controlled garage or large room is needed. A dynamometer is not needed, 
since this test is an idle test. The room temperature shall be 
maintained in the range of 68-75[emsp14][deg]F. The room shall be 
equipped with an exhaust system that connects to the vehicle tail pipe 
to remove the exhaust gases from the building. It is recommended that 
an interlock be provided so that if the building exhaust system fails, 
the vehicle test will shut down.
    (ii) Electrical Power. Two 110-volt, 15-amp circuits are needed 
(20-amp circuits are recommended) to operate the four block heaters and 
a battery charger.
    (iii) Fuel Drain Facility. A facility is required to drain the fuel 
from the vehicle between tests. The fuel is drained from the service 
port on the fuel rail, near the back of the engine. A commercial cart 
equipped with a tank and a suction pump is recommended for this 
operation.
    (iv) Vehicle. A Chevrolet Astro or GMC Safari van, model year 1998-
2001, shall be used for the test. Either two-wheel drive or all-wheel 
drive is satisfactory, although the former allows easier installation 
of the block heaters.
    (v) Injectors. New injectors, General Motors part number 17091432, 
shall be used for each test.
    (vi) Block Heaters. Four block heaters, General Motors part number 
12371293, are needed for each vehicle. Two

[[Page 30017]]

heaters shall be installed on each side of the engine, in the freeze 
plug locations.
    (vii) Battery Charger. Because of the large number of starts and 
the very short engine running time, a battery charger is needed. It is 
recommended that the charger be installed permanently on the vehicle 
and remain plugged in while the test is in progress.
    (viii) Starter Controller. A system is needed to start the engine 
automatically and then shut it off after exactly five minutes of 
running. A commercial after-market remote starting system connected to 
a timer or computer can be used, or a one-of-a-kind system can be 
designed and built.
    (ix) Tech 2 Analyzer. A General Motors Tech 2 analyzer, part number 
GM3000094, available from Kent-Moore, shall be used to conduct the 
injector balance test.
    (x) Fuel Pressure Gauge. A fuel pressure gauge capable of measuring 
fuel system pressure to the nearest 1 psi over the range of 45 to 65 
psi, shall be used with the Tech 2 analyzer when conducting the 
injector balance test. A pressure transducer shall not be used.
    (xi) Gaskets. The upper intake manifold gasket and injector body 
gasket will need to be replaced from time to time as they crack, tear, 
or wear out from frequent handling during injector replacement.
    (3) Initial Vehicle Preparation--(i) Diagnostics. To help determine 
whether a vehicle is satisfactory for use in this injector test 
procedure, a thorough inspection and engine diagnostic test shall be 
conducted as described in the service manual. Check the cooling system 
to be sure the coolant looks clean and there are no signs of rust.
    (ii) Block Heaters. Install four electric block heaters, General 
Motors part number 12371293, in the coolant passages of the engine 
block, two on each side of the block. The heaters will be plugged into 
a heater control unit. Two of the heaters will remain on at all times 
during the first 144 hours of the injector fouling test, while the 
other two heaters will be turned on and off by the controller as needed 
to maintain an engine temperature of about 100-102[deg]C during the 
soak periods of the test. (The temperature will drop while the engine 
is running, as the coolant from the radiator circulates through the 
engine. The temperature should recover to 100-102[deg]C within about 20 
minutes after the engine shuts off.)
    (iii) Thermocouples. Install a \1/16\-inch Type K thermocouple in a 
threaded bolt hole on the rear of the right cylinder head. This 
thermocouple provides the feedback signal to the controller to turn two 
block heaters on and off. Install another thermocouple in the other 
hole near the first thermocouple. This second thermocouple provides a 
signal to an over-temperature safety shut-off on the heater controller. 
If the engine temperature reaches the set point (110[deg]C 
recommended), the heater controller will signal the starter controller 
to shut down the test.
    (iv) Fuel System Flush. Drain the fuel from the fuel system through 
the service port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine. Refuel 
with a non-detergent gasoline containing between 5 and 10 percent 
ethanol. Drive the vehicle for approximately 100 miles to thoroughly 
expose all parts of the fuel system to the fuel. The fuel pump and fuel 
filters should not be replaced unless there is a problem with them or 
if the vehicle history suggests that replacement would be prudent. If 
replacement is necessary, the new parts should first be conditioned by 
recirculating a 10% ethanol-gasoline blend (without deposit control 
additive) through them for one week.
    (v) Oil Change. Change the engine oil and oil filter, using oil 
that meets the manufacturer's recommended service classification and 
viscosity grade.
    (vi) Battery Charger. Install a battery charger in the vehicle so 
that it can be plugged in during the test and keep the battery at full 
charge.
    (vii) Radiator. Install cardboard or other suitable material on the 
front of the radiator to block the flow of air through the radiator 
while the engine is running. This will help minimize the drop in 
coolant temperature.
    (viii) Starter Controller. Make the necessary changes to the 
vehicle electrical system so that the engine can be started and stopped 
automatically on a programmed schedule. Install a starter controller or 
computer and program it to do the following:
    (A) Start the engine and let it run for 5 minutes, and then shut it 
off and let it hot-soak for 25 minutes.
    (B) Repeat the 5/25 cycle for a total of 192 cycles.
    (C) Allow a 48-hr hot soak during which the engine is not run but 
the engine temperature is maintained at 100-102[deg]C.
    (D) Turn off the heaters for 48 hours.
    (E) Continuously count and display the number of cycles that have 
been completed throughout the test.
    (4) Test Procedure. The steps described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) 
though (vi) of this section must be performed by the action described 
in paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section so that the new injectors are 
exposed only to the new test fuel.
    (i) Drain the fuel from the vehicle.
    (ii) Add approximately 2 gallons of the fuel to be tested.
    (iii) Drive the vehicle for approximately 20 miles at speeds up to 
approximately 50-60 mph. Approximately every 5 miles, stop the vehicle 
and moderately accelerate. If the radiator covering is still in place, 
watch the temperature gauge during the driving and avoid overheating 
the engine. This step not only flushes the fuel system but also helps 
remove carbon (if any) from the spark plugs and water from the exhaust 
system.
    (iv) Drain the fuel from the vehicle and add approximately 1 to 2 
gallons of the fuel to be tested.
    (v) Drive the vehicle for approximately 5 miles. Watch the 
temperature gauge and avoid overheating the engine.
    (vi) Drain the fuel from the vehicle and add approximately 10 
gallons of the fuel to be tested. (The test consumes about 7.5 gallons 
of fuel.)
    (vii) Remove the fuel injectors and install new injectors. Run the 
engine for a few minutes to be sure it runs properly.
    (viii) Park the vehicle in the location where the test will be run.
    (ix) Connect the vehicle tail pipe to the building exhaust system.
    (x) Depending on the design of the starter control system, remove 
fuses and relays as necessary and connect the wires from the controller 
to the vehicle fuse box. Close the hood.
    (xi) Turn on the vehicle ignition switch and the security bypass 
switch if so equipped.
    (xii) Turn on the heater controller and be sure that it is working.
    (xiii) Turn on the starter controller and the vehicle should start.
    (xiv) Monitor the engine temperature for the first few cycles to be 
sure it is increasing.
    (xv) At the end of the 192-hour (8-day) test, turn off the ignition 
switch, starter controller, and heater controller. Return the fuses, 
relays, and wires to their standard configuration for normal operation 
of the vehicle.
    (xvi) Connect the Tech 2 analyzer to the ALDL connector under the 
instrument panel, and connect the fuel pressure gauge to the service 
port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine.
    (xvii) Conduct the injector balance test by following the 
instructions on the Tech 2. The injector balance test checks each 
injector individually to determine whether the poppet nozzle is stuck 
closed. First, the Tech 2 turns on the fuel pump momentarily to 
pressurize the fuel system. Then it pulses the injector for a preset 
interval. If the

[[Page 30018]]

injector and poppet nozzle are working properly, the fuel system 
pressure will decrease gradually and smoothly by about 8 to 10 psi 
during the pulsing. If the pressure does not decrease, or decreases 
very suddenly but then stops decreasing before the pulsing is done, the 
poppet is stuck closed. This procedure, beginning with pressurizing the 
fuel system, is carried out for each injector.
0
19. A new Sec.  80.177 is added to subpart G to read as follows:


Sec.  80.177  Certification test fuels for use with the alternative 
test procedures and standards.

    (a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for 
the test fuels required in conjunction with the alternative national 
generic certification option described in Sec.  80.163(a)(1)(iii).
    (1) The test fuel characteristics detailed in this section must be 
reported to EPA in the detergent certification letter required pursuant 
to Sec.  80.161(b)(3).
    (2) The levels of the basic fuel parameters specified in this 
section (ethanol, olefins, aromatics, sulfur, and 90% evaporation 
distillation temperature) must be measured in accordance with 
applicable procedures in Sec.  80.46.
    (3) No detergent-active substance other than the detergent additive 
package undergoing testing may be added to a certification test fuel. 
Typical nondetergent additives, such as antioxidants, corrosion 
inhibitors, and metal deactivators, may be present in the test fuel at 
the discretion of the additive certifier. In addition, any nondetergent 
additives (other than oxygenate compounds) which are commonly blended 
into gasoline and which are known or suspected to affect IVD or PFID 
formation, or to reduce the ability of the detergent in question to 
control such deposits, should be added to the test fuel for 
certification testing.
    (4) Certification test requirements may be satisfied for a 
detergent additive using more than one batch of test fuel, provided 
that each batch satisfies all applicable test fuel requirements under 
this section.
    (5) Unless otherwise required by this section, finished test fuels 
must conform to the requirements for commercial gasoline described in 
ASTM D 4814-11, ``Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition 
Engine Fuel'', which is incorporated by reference pursuant to Sec.  
80.178.
    (b) Test fuel for intake valve deposit testing: This paragraph 
provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test 
procedure specified in Sec.  80.176(b).
    (1) The test fuel must contain levels of the specified parameters 
consistent with the requirements of this section.
    (i) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent and 
no more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol. Commercial fuel grade 
denatured fuel ethanol must be used that conforms to the requirement of 
Sec.  80.1610 and ASTM D4806--11a ``Standard Specification for 
Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel'', which is incorporated by 
reference pursuant to Sec.  80.178.
    (ii) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent 
olefins. At least 75 percent of the olefins must be derived from fluid 
catalytic cracker unit (FCC) gasoline. Such FCC gasoline can be full-
range FCC gasoline or a mixture of light and heavy FCC gasolines. Such 
FCC gasoline must be produced by a commercial gasoline refiner and meet 
the following criteria:
    (A) The FCC gasoline must be designated by the commercial refiner 
as full range FCC gasoline or whole FCC gasoline, and must have a T90 
distillation temperature greater than 300[emsp14][deg]F.
    (B) If a mixture of light and heavy FCC gasoline is used, heavy FCC 
gasoline must contribute at least 50 percent of the sulfur in the 
mixture. Heavy FCC gasoline must meet the following criteria:
    (1) The heavy FCC gasoline must be designated by the commercial 
refiner as heavy FCC gasoline.
    (2) The heavy FCC gasoline must have an API gravity less than 45 
and a T90 distillation temperature greater than 325[emsp14][deg]F.
    (iii) The test fuel must contain no less than 28 volume percent 
aromatics.
    (iv) The test fuel must contain no less than 240 ppm sulfur. At 
least 60 percent of the sulfur must be derived from FCC gasoline that 
meets the specifications in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (v) The test fuel must have a T90 distillation temperature of no 
less than 290[emsp14][deg]F.
    (vi) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must 
produce no less than 500 mg averaged over all intake valves when 
subjected to the intake valve deposit test specified in Sec.  
80.176(b).
    (vii) All gasoline blendstocks used to formulate the test fuel must 
be representative of normal refinery operations and shall be derived 
from conversion units downstream of distillation. Butanes and pentanes 
may be used for vapor pressure adjustment. The use of chemical grade 
streams is prohibited.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (c) Test fuel for fuel injector deposit testing: This paragraph 
provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test 
procedure specified in Sec.  80.176(c). The test fuel must conform to 
the specifications in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this 
section. The same base test fuel must be used for deposit demonstration 
testing and for demonstrating compliance with the fuel injector deposit 
control standards in Sec.  80.176(a).
    (1) Option 1 regarding the specifications for the test fuel used 
for fuel injector deposit testing. (i) The test fuel must be a 
commercial full boiling range hydrocarbon gasoline or gasoline blending 
component, without oxygenates.
    (ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must 
produce at least 5 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the 
fuel injector deposit test specified in Sec.  80.176(c).
    (2) Option 2 regarding the specifications for the formulation of 
the test fuel used for fuel injector deposit testing. (i) The test fuel 
must meet the requirements for federal emissions test gasoline 
specified in Sec. Sec.  80.113 and 80.112 into which 4-
methylbenzenethiol has been blended as a concentration of 56 mg/L.
    (ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must 
produce at least 4 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the 
fuel injector deposit test specified in Sec.  80.176(c).
0
20. A new Sec.  80.178 is added to subpart G to read as follows:


Sec.  80.178  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that 
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material 
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for 
inspection 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. This material is also 
available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington DC. The telephone

[[Page 30019]]

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. Also, this material is 
available from the source listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section.
    (b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C-700, West 
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 (1-800-262-1373, www.astm.org).
    (1) ASTM D 5598-94, ``Standard Test Method for Evaluating Unleaded 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Electronic Port Fuel Injector 
Fouling,'' 1994; IBR approved for Sec.  80.165.
    (2) ASTM D 5500-94, ``Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation 
of Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve 
Deposit Formation,'' 1994; IBR approved for Sec.  80.165.
    (3) ASTM D-6201-04(2009) (``ASTM D 6201''), Standard Test Method 
for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for 
Intake Valve Deposit Formation; IBR approved for Sec.  80.176.
    (4) ASTM D 4814-11, ``Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel'', IBR approved for Sec.  80.177.
    (5) ASTM D-4806-11a ``Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel 
Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel'', IBR approved for Sec.  80.177.
    (c) California Air Resources Board, 1001 ``I'' Street, P.O. Box 
2815, Sacramento, CA 95812 (800) 242-4450, https://www.arb.ca.gov).
    (1) California Air Resources Board, ``Test Method for Evaluating 
Port Fuel Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle Engines'', March 1, 1991; 
IBR approved for Sec.  80.165.
    (2) California Air Resources Board, ``BMW--10,000 Miles Intake 
Valve Test Procedure'', March 1, 1991; IBR approved for Sec.  80.165.

Subpart H--[Amended]

0
21. Section 80.330 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1), 
and (d)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  80.330  What are the sampling and testing requirements for 
refiners and importers?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and 
importers shall use the method provided in Sec.  80.46(a)(1) or one of 
the alternative test methods listed in Sec.  80.46(a)(3) to measure the 
sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import through November 29, 
2014. Beginning November 30, 2014, for purposes of paragraph (a) of 
this section, refiners and importers shall use a method approved in 
Sec.  80.47.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Refiners and importers shall use the method provided in Sec.  
80.46(a)(2) to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane 
constitutes a batch of gasoline through November 29, 2014. Beginning 
November 30, 2014, refiners and importers shall use a method approved 
in Sec.  80.47 to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane 
constitutes a batch of gasoline.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, any 
ASTM sulfur test method for gaseous fuels may be used for quality 
assurance testing under Sec. Sec.  80.340(b)(4) and 80.400, if the 
protocols of the ASTM method are followed and the alternative test 
method is correlated to the method provided in Sec.  80.46(a)(2) 
through November 29, 2014. Beginning November 30, 2014, except as 
provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, refiners and importers 
shall use a method approved in Sec.  80.47 to measure the sulfur 
content of butane.
* * * * *
0
22. Section 80.370 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv).
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(2).


Sec.  80.370  What are the sulfur reporting requirements?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iv) The sulfur content of the batch, along with identification of 
the test method used to measure the sulfur content of the batch, as 
determined under Sec.  80.330; and
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 for the prior calendar year 
averaging period.
* * * * *

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
23. Section 80.511 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(10) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  80.511  What are the per-gallon and marker requirements that 
apply to NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, and heating oil downstream 
of the refiner or importer?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) of this 
section, the per-gallon sulfur standard of Sec.  80.510(c) shall apply 
to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning August 1, 2014 for all downstream 
locations other than retail outlets or wholesale purchaser-consumer 
facilities, shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning October 1, 
2014 for retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities, 
and shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning December 1, 2014 for 
all locations. This paragraph (b)(4) does not apply to LM diesel fuel 
produced from transmix or interface fuel that is sold or intended for 
sale in areas other than those listed in Sec.  80.510(g)(1) or (g)(2), 
as provided by Sec.  80.513(f).
* * * * *
    (10) For the purposes of this subpart, on any occasion where a 
distributor directly dispenses fuel into vehicles or equipment from a 
mobile facility such as a tanker truck, the distributor shall be 
treated as a retailer, and the mobile facility shall be treated as a 
retail outlet.
0
24. Section 80.572 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  80.572  What labeling requirements apply to retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers of Motor Vehicle, NR, LM and NRLM diesel 
fuel and heating oil beginning June 1, 2010?

* * * * *
    (a) From June 1, 2010 through November 30, 2014, any retailer or 
wholesale purchaser-consumer who sells, dispenses, or offers for sale 
or dispensing, motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur 
standard of Sec.  80.520(a)(1), must affix the following conspicuous 
and legible label, in block letters of no less than 24-point bold type, 
and printed in a color contrasting with the background, to each pump 
stand:

      ULTRA-LOW SULFUR HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum)
      Required for use in all highway diesel vehicles and engines.
         Recommended for use in all diesel vehicles and engines.
 


[[Page 30020]]

* * * * *
0
25. Section 80.573 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  80.573  What labeling requirements apply to retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers of NRLM diesel fuel and heating oil 
beginning June 1, 2012?

* * * * *
    (a) From June 1, 2012 through September 30, 2014, for pumps 
dispensing NRLM diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of 
Sec.  80.510(c):

    ULTRA-LOW SULFUR NON-HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum)
    Required for use in all model year 2011 and later nonroad diesel
                                engines.
      Recommended for use in all other non-highway diesel engines.
                                 WARNING
        Federal law prohibits use in highway vehicles or engines.
 

* * * * *
0
26. Section 80.574 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  80.574  What labeling requirements apply to retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers of ECA marine fuel beginning June 1, 
2014?

    (a) Any retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer who sells, 
dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing ECA marine fuel must 
prominently and conspicuously display in the immediate area of each 
pump stand from which ECA marine fuel is offered for sale or 
dispensing, one of the following legible labels, as applicable, in 
block letters of no less than 24-point bold type, printed in a color 
contrasting with the background:
    (1) From June 1, 2014 and beyond, for pumps dispensing ECA marine 
fuel subject to the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard of Sec.  80.510(k):

      1,000 ppm SULFUR ECA MARINE FUEL (1,000 ppm Sulfur Maximum).
             For use in Category 3 (C3) marine vessels only.
                                 WARNING
  Federal law prohibits use in any engine that is not installed on a C3
 marine vessel; use of fuel oil with a sulfur content greater than 1,000
   ppm in an ECA is prohibited except as allowed by 40 CFR part 1043.
 

    (2) The labels required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be 
placed on the vertical surface of each pump housing and on each side 
that has gallon and price meters. The labels shall be on the upper two-
thirds of the pump, in a location where they are clearly visible.
    (b) Alternative labels to those specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section may be used as approved by EPA.
    (1) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur Alternative Label 
Request, 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel 
Sulfur Alternative Label Request, 6406J, 1310 L Street NW., 6th floor, 
Washington, DC 20005. (202) 343-9038.
0
27. Section 80.580 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text.
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv).


Sec.  80.580  What are the sampling and testing methods for sulfur?

* * * * *
    (e) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the 
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the 
documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 
CFR 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, under EPA docket ID Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135, or at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1742. 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. For further information on these test methods, 
please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734-214-4582.
    (1) ASTM International material. Anyone may purchase copies of 
these materials from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by contacting ASTM International 
customer service at 610-832-9585, or by contacting the email address of 
service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of https://www.astm.org.
    (i) ASTM International standard method D2622-10 (``ASTM 
International D2622''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'', 
approved February 15, 2010.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) ASTM International standard method D4294-10 (``ASTM 
International D4294''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'', 
approved February 15, 2010.
    (iv) ASTM International standard method D5453-09 (``ASTM 
International D5453''), ``Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry'', 
approved June 15, 2009.
* * * * *
0
28. Section 80.585 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  80.585  What is the process for approval of a test method for 
determining the sulfur content of diesel or ECA marine fuel?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) The approval of any test method under paragraph (b) of this 
section shall be valid for five years from the date of approval by the 
Administrator. After the five year period has ceased, in order for the 
test method approval to remain valid, the test method must be 
resubmitted for approval with applicable precision and accuracy 
information contained in Sec.  80.584(a) and (b). If, however, the test 
method is later approved by a voluntary consensus-based standards body, 
the approval shall remain valid as long as the conditions of paragraph 
(a) of this section are met.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 80.604 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) to 
read as follows:

[[Page 30021]]

Sec.  80.604  What are the annual reporting requirements for refiners 
and importers of NRLM diesel fuel?

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Except for small refiners subject to Sec.  80.554(d), submitted 
to EPA by September 1 each year for the prior annual compliance period. 
Small refiners subject to the provisions of Sec.  80.554(d), reports 
must be submitted by September 1 for the previous reporting period.
    (4) With the exception of reports required under paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section, no reports will be required under this section after 
September 1, 2014.

Subpart L--[Amended]

0
30. Section 80.1235 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  80.1235  What gasoline is subject to the benzene requirements of 
this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (6) Blendstock that is combined with PCG to produce gasoline must 
be sampled and tested in accordance with the provisions at Sec.  
80.1347(a)(5) or (6).
    (b) * * *
    (2) Oxygenate added to PCG downstream of the refinery that produced 
the PCG, or downstream of the import facility where the PCG was 
imported, shall not be included in a refiner's or importer's compliance 
calculations unless the refiner or importer that produced or imported 
the PCG complies with the requirements of Sec.  80.1238(b). On any 
occasion where any person downstream of the refinery or importer that 
produced or imported PCG adds oxygenate to such product, it shall not 
include the volume and benzene content of the oxygenate in any 
compliance calculations or for credit generation under this subpart.
* * * * *
0
31. Section 80.1238 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  80.1238  How is a refinery's or importer's average benzene 
concentration determined?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline or CBOB, the 
refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of Sec.  
80.101(d)(4)(ii) and the benzene content must be measured by sampling 
the ethanol actually added to the conventional gasoline or CBOB and 
testing it for benzene content.
* * * * *
0
32. Section 80.1347 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(5).
0
b. By adding a new paragraph (a)(6).


Sec.  80.1347  What are the sampling and testing requirements for 
refiners and importers?

    (a) * * *
    (3)(i) Each sample shall be tested in accordance with the 
methodology specified at Sec.  80.46(e) through November 29, 2014, to 
determine its benzene concentration for compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart. Beginning November 30, 2014, each sample 
shall be tested in accordance with the methodology specified at Sec.  
80.46(e) or Sec.  80.47 to determine its benzene concentration for 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart. Any negative test 
result must be reported as zero.
* * * * *
    (5) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline (PCG). (i) Any 
refiner who uses PCG to produce gasoline at a refinery, must exclude 
the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the benzene 
standards at Sec.  80.1230.
    (ii) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of 
this section, the refiner must determine the volume and benzene content 
of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume and benzene content of 
gasoline produced at the refinery, and use the compliance calculation 
procedures in paragraphs (a)(5)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
    (iii) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the 
refiner must include the volume and benzene content of the PCG as a 
negative volume and a positive benzene content in the refiner's 
compliance calculations in accordance with the requirements at Sec.  
80.1238.
    (iv) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG 
and blendstock, the refiner must determine the volume and benzene 
content of the combined product and include each batch for purposes of 
benzene compliance in the refinery's compliance calculations at Sec.  
80.1240 without regard to the presence of previously certified gasoline 
in the batch.
    (v) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative 
batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to Sec.  80.1240 as a 
component in gasoline production during the annual averaging period in 
which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner's 
compliance calculations.
    (vi) Any negative annual average value must be reported as zero.
    (vii) The refiner must also comply with Sec.  80.65(i) when 
producing RBOB or RFG and Sec.  80.101(g)(9) when producing 
conventional gasoline.
    (6) As an alternative to the sampling and testing requirements in 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section, a refiner who produces gasoline by 
blending blendstock into PCG may sample and test each batch of 
blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and 
benzene content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch 
for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the benzene standards in 
Sec.  80.1230, and for benzene reporting.
* * * * *
0
33. Section 80.1348 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  80.1348  What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to 
refiners and importers?

    (a) Through November 29, 2014, the gasoline sample retention 
requirements specified in subpart H for the gasoline sulfur provisions 
apply for the purpose of complying with the requirements of this 
subpart L, except that in addition to including the sulfur test result 
as provided by Sec.  80.335(a)(4)(ii), the refiner, importer, or 
independent laboratory shall also include with the retained sample the 
test result for benzene as conducted pursuant to Sec.  80.46(e).
    (b) Beginning November 30, 2014, pursuant to Sec.  80.47, the 
gasoline sample retention requirements specified in subpart O of this 
part for the gasoline sulfur provisions apply for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of this subpart L, except that in 
addition to including the sulfur test result as provided by Sec.  
80.335(a)(4)(ii), the refiner, importer, or independent laboratory 
shall also include with the retained sample the test result for benzene 
as conducted pursuant to Sec.  80.46(e).
0
34. A new Sec.  80.1349 is added to subpart L to read as follows:


Sec.  80.1349  Alternative sampling and testing requirements for 
importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck.

    Importers who import conventional gasoline into the United States 
by truck may comply with the sampling and testing requirements in Sec.  
80.101(i)(3) instead of the requirements to sample and test every batch 
of gasoline under Sec.  80.1347. An importer that uses this approach 
must meet the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard on a per-gallon 
basis.
0
35. Section 80.1354 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(2).
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(2).

[[Page 30022]]

Sec.  80.1354  What are the reporting requirements for the gasoline 
benzene program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) The annual average benzene concentration, along with 
identification of the test method(s) used to measure the annual average 
benzene concentration, per Sec.  80.1238.
    (ii) The maximum average benzene concentration, along with 
identification of the test method(s) used to measure the maximum 
average benzene concentration, per Sec.  80.1240(b).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 each year for the prior calendar 
year averaging period.
* * * * *
0
36. Section 80.1451 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraph (f)(2).


Sec.  80.1451  What are the reporting requirements under the RFS 
program?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Annual compliance reports for the previous compliance period 
shall be submitted by March 31 of each year and shall include all of 
the following information:
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Quarterly reports shall be submitted by the required deadline 
as shown in Table 1 to Sec.  80.1451. Any reports generated by EMTS 
must be reviewed, supplemented, and/or corrected if not complete and 
accurate, and verified by the owner or responsible corporate officer 
prior to submittal.

                            Table 1 to Sec.   80.1451--Quarterly Reporting Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Calendar quarter                 Time period covered                Quarterly report deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarter One..........................  January 1-March 31...........  June 1.
Quarter Two..........................  April 1-June 30..............  September 1.
Quarter Three........................  July 1-September 30..........  December 1.
Quarter Four.........................  October 1-December 31........  March 31.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
37. A new subpart O is added to part 80 to read as follows:
Subpart O--Gasoline Sulfur
Sec.
80.1600 Additional definitions for subpart O.
80.1601 Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart.
80.1602 Implementation dates for refiners and importers.
80.1603 Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers.
80.1604 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for parties 
downstream of refiners and importers.
80.1605 Deficit carry-forward for refiners and importers.
80.1606 [Reserved]
80.1607 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for transmix 
processors and transmix blenders.
80.1608 [Reserved]
80.1609 Oxygenate blender requirements.
80.1610 Standards and requirements for producers of denatured fuel 
ethanol and other oxygenates for use by gasoline oxygenate blenders.
80.1611-80.1612 [Reserved]
80.1613 Standards and other requirements for gasoline additive 
manufacturers and blenders.
80.1614 [Reserved]
80.1615 Credit generation.
80.1616 Credit use and transfer.
80.1620 Small refiner definition.
80.1621 Small volume refinery definition.
80.1622 Approval for small refiner and small volume refinery status.
80.1623-80.1624 [Reserved]
80.1625 Hardship provisions.
80.1630 Sampling and testing requirements for refiners and 
importers.
80.1631 Sample retention requirements.
80.1640 Standards and requirements that apply to refiners producing 
gasoline by blending blendstocks into previously certified gasoline 
(PCG).
80.1641 Alternative sulfur standards and requirements that apply to 
importers who transport gasoline by truck.
80.1642-80.1649 [Reserved]
80.1650 Registration.
80.1651 Product transfer document requirements.
80.1652 Reporting requirements.
80.1653 Recordkeeping.
80.1654 California gasoline requirements.
80.1655 National security exemption.
80.1656 Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development, or 
testing purposes.
80.1657 [Reserved]
80.1658 Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, 
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
80.1659 [Reserved]
80.1660 Prohibited acts.
80.1661 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the 
prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for 
violations of this subpart?
80.1662 Liability for violations under subpart O.
80.1663 Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act under subpart 
O.
80.1664 [Reserved]
80.1665 Penalties.
80.1666 Additional requirements for foreign small refiners and 
foreign small volume refineries.
80.1667 Attest engagement requirements.
80.1668-80.1674 [Reserved]
80.1675 Incorporation by reference.

Subpart O--Gasoline Sulfur


Sec.  80.1600  Additional definitions for subpart O.

    The definitions of Sec.  80.2 and the following additional 
definitions apply to this subpart O:
    California gasoline means any gasoline designated by a refiner or 
importer for use in California.
    Certified Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.  
80.1666(a)(5).
    Foreign refiner is a person who meets the definition of refiner 
under Sec.  80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.
    Foreign refinery means a refinery that is located outside the 
United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, 
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands (collectively referred to in this subpart as ``the United 
States'').
    Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.  
80.1666(a)(6).
    Non-Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.  80.1666(a)(4).
    Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.  80.1666(a)(3).
    Transmix has the meaning given at Sec.  80.84(a)(2).
    Transmix blender has the meaning given at Sec.  80.84(a)(7).
    Transmix gasoline product (TGP) has the meaning given at Sec.  
80.84(a)(3).
    Transmix processing facility has the meaning given at Sec.  
80.84(a)(4).
    Transmix processor has the meaning given at Sec.  80.84(a)(5).


Sec.  80.1601  Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart.

    (a) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are 
subject to the

[[Page 30023]]

standards and requirements of this subpart:
    (1) Reformulated and conventional gasoline and RBOB, and CBOB 
(collectively called ``gasoline'' unless otherwise specified).
    (2) Any blendstock (not including oxygenates) blended with PCG, as 
defined in Sec.  80.2(d), subject to the provisions of Sec.  80.1640.
    (3) Oxygenates blended with gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB.
    (b) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are not 
subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart:
    (1) Gasoline that is used to fuel aircraft, racing vehicles or 
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events, provided 
that:
    (i) Product transfer documents associated with such gasoline, and 
any pump stand from which such gasoline is dispensed, identify the 
gasoline either as gasoline that is restricted for use in aircraft, or 
as gasoline that is restricted for use in racing motor vehicles or 
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events;
    (ii) The gasoline is completely segregated from all other gasoline 
throughout production, distribution and sale to the ultimate consumer; 
and
    (iii) The gasoline is not made available for use as motor vehicle 
gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor vehicles, except for motor 
vehicles used only in sanctioned racing events.
    (2) California gasoline as defined in Sec.  80.1600 subject to the 
provisions of Sec.  80.1654.
    (3) Gasoline that is exported for sale and use outside the U.S.
    (4) Exempt fuels under Sec. Sec.  80.1655 (national security 
exemptions), 80.1656 (gasoline used for research, development, or 
testing purposes), and 80.1658 (gasoline used in American Samoa, Guam, 
and the Northern Mariana Islands).


Sec.  80.1602  Implementation dates for refiners and importers.

    (a) The standards and requirements for gasoline sulfur under this 
subpart O (at Sec.  80.1603) shall apply to gasoline produced or 
imported by any refiner or importer beginning January 1, 2017, except 
as provided by the credit provisions of Sec. Sec.  80.1615 and 80.1616, 
and the provisions applicable to small refiners and small volume 
refineries.
    (b) The standards and requirements for gasoline sulfur under 
subpart H of this part shall continue to apply until the gasoline 
produced or imported by any refiner or importer is required to comply 
with the standards and requirements under this subpart O.


Sec.  80.1603  Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers.

    (a) Sulfur standards. (1) Annual average standard. (i) The refinery 
or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard is 10.00 parts per 
million (ppm) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), except as provided in 
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (ii) The averaging period is a calendar year (January 1 through 
December 31).
    (iii) The refinery or importer annual average gasoline sulfur 
standard is the maximum average sulfur level allowed for gasoline 
produced at a refinery or imported by an importer during each calendar 
year beginning January 1, 2017, except as provided by the following:
    (A) The credit use provisions of Sec.  80.1616.
    (B) Beginning January 1, 2020, for small refiners and small volume 
refineries approved pursuant to the provisions of Sec.  80.1622. Small 
refiners and small volume refineries will continue to be subject to the 
provisions of subpart H through December 31, 2019 (or until compliance 
with this subpart O begins).
    (C) Fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this 
subpart O as specified in Sec.  80.1601(b).
    (iv) The annual average sulfur level is calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Per-gallon cap standard. (i) The refinery or importer per-
gallon cap standard is 80 ppm, on a per-gallon basis except as 
otherwise provided by this section.
    (ii) The per-gallon cap of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is 
the maximum sulfur level allowed for any batch of gasoline produced at 
a refinery or imported by an importer beginning January 1, 2017, except 
for fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart 
O as specified in Sec.  80.1601(b).
    (3) The refinery or importer annual average gasoline sulfur 
standard may be met using credits as provided under Sec.  80.1616. 
Credits cannot be used to meet the applicable per-gallon standard.
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) Calculation of the annual average sulfur level. (1) The annual 
refinery or importer average gasoline sulfur level is calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.006

Where:

Sa = The refinery or importer annual average sulfur 
level, in ppm (mg/kg).
Vi = The volume of gasoline produced or imported in batch 
i, in gallons.
Si = The sulfur content of batch i determined under Sec.  
80.1630, in ppm (mg/kg).
n = The number of batches of gasoline produced or imported during 
the averaging period.
i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during the 
averaging period.

    (2) The annual average sulfur level calculation in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section shall be conducted to two decimal places using the 
rounding procedure specified in Sec.  80.9.
    (d) Oxygenate added downstream from the refinery or import 
facility. A refiner or importer may include oxygenate added downstream 
from the refinery or import facility when calculating the sulfur 
content, provided the following requirements are met:
    (1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline or CBOB, the 
refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of Sec.  
80.101(d)(4)(ii), except that the sulfur content and volume of the 
oxygenate shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of 
this section.
    (2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the refiner or importer must 
comply with the requirements of Sec.  80.69(a), except that the sulfur 
content and volume of the oxygenate shall be determined in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
    (3) Where oxygenate added downstream from the refinery or import 
facility is included in calculating the sulfur content under this 
paragraph (d):
    (i) The refiner or importer must separately test any RBOB or CBOB 
for sulfur content and use that test result in calculating the sulfur 
content of the RFG or conventional gasoline and calculate the effect of 
downstream added ethanol by using the assumptions in paragraphs 
(d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section. The reported volume of the batch 
is the combined volume of the RBOB or CBOB and the downstream added 
oxygenate.
    (ii) For RBOB, the sulfur test result obtained from testing a hand 
blend under the terms of Sec.  80.69(a) shall not be used for sulfur 
reporting purposes.
    (iii) The refiner or importer must use an assumed sulfur content of 
10.00 ppm for the oxygenate added downstream.
    (iv) For ethanol added downstream, the refiner or importer 
calculations shall assume that 10.00 volume percent ethanol is added to 
the RBOB unless some lesser amount of ethanol is actually blended.
    (v) RBOB, CBOB, and conventional gasoline must meet the per-gallon 
sulfur standard of paragraph (a)(2) of this section prior to 
calculating any dilution from the oxygenate added downstream.
    (4) On any occasion where any person downstream of the refinery or 
importer that produced or imported previously certified gasoline, CBOB 
or RBOB adds

[[Page 30024]]

oxygenate to such product, it shall not include the volume and sulfur 
content of the oxygenate in any compliance calculations or for credit 
generation under this subpart O.
    (e) Exclusions. Refiners and importers must exclude from compliance 
calculations all of the following:
    (1) Gasoline that was not produced at the refinery or imported by 
the importer.
    (2) In the case of an importer, gasoline that was imported as 
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (3) Blendstocks transferred to others, except RBOB and CBOB as 
provided in this subpart O.
    (4) PCG.
    (5) Gasoline exempted from standards under Sec.  80.1601(b).
    (f) Compliance calculation for the annual average sulfur standard. 
(1) Compliance by a refinery or importer with the gasoline sulfur 
annual average standard at paragraph (a)(1) of this section is achieved 
if, for calendar year y, CSVy<= (Vyx 10), as 
determined by the following equation:

CSVy = (Vy x Sa) + D(y-1)-
OC

Where:

CSVy = Compliance sulfur value for year y, in ppm-
gallons.
Vy = Total gasoline volume produced or imported in year 
y, in gallons.
Sa = Annual average sulfur level calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section, in ppm (mg/kg).
D(y-1) = Sulfur deficit from the previous reporting 
period, per Sec.  80.1605, in ppm-gallons.
OC = Sulfur credits obtained by the refinery or importer, in ppm-
gallons.

    (2) Sulfur credits used in the calculation specified in paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section must be used in accordance with the requirements 
at Sec.  80.1616.
    (3) Compliance with the gasoline sulfur annual average standard at 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not achieved, and a deficit is 
created per Sec.  80.1605, if for calendar year y, CSVy> 
(Vy x 10). The deficit value to be included in the following 
year's compliance calculation per paragraph (f) of this section is 
calculated as follows:

Dy = CSVy-(Vy x 10y)

Where:
Dy = Sulfur deficit created in compliance period y, in 
ppm-gallons.


Sec.  80.1604  Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for parties 
downstream of refiners and importers.

    (a) The sulfur standard for gasoline at any downstream location 
shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section. 
A downstream location is any point in the gasoline distribution system 
downstream from refineries and import facilities, including, but not 
limited to, facilities of any of the following parties:
    (1) Distributors.
    (2) Carriers.
    (3) Oxygenate blenders.
    (4) Retailers.
    (5) Wholesale purchaser-consumers.
    (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart O, the sulfur 
content of gasoline at any downstream location shall not exceed 95 ppm, 
on a per-gallon basis, beginning January 1, 2017.


Sec.  80.1605  Deficit carry-forward for refiners and importers.

    (a) Deficit carry-forward. (1) A refiner or importer may exceed the 
annual average sulfur standard for a given calendar year, creating a 
compliance deficit, provided that the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section are met.
    (2) When a compliance deficit is created per paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section, in the calendar year following the year the standard is 
not met, the refinery or importer must:
    (i) Achieve compliance with the annual average sulfur standard in 
Sec.  80.1603(a)(1); and
    (ii) Use additional sulfur credits sufficient to offset the 
compliance deficit of the previous year.
    (b) The compliance deficit value shall be calculated in accordance 
with Sec.  80.1603(f)(3).


Sec.  80.1606  [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1607  Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for transmix 
processors and transmix blenders.

    Transmix processors and transmix blenders may comply with the 
following requirements instead of the requirements and standards 
otherwise applicable to a refiner under this subpart O.
    (a) Any transmix processor who recovers transmix gasoline product 
(TGP) from transmix through transmix processing under Sec.  80.84(c) 
must show through sampling and testing (using the methods in Sec.  
80.1630) that the TGP meets the applicable sulfur standards under Sec.  
80.1604(b), prior to the TGP leaving the transmix processing facility.
    (b) The sampling and testing required under paragraph (a) of this 
section shall be conducted following each occasion TGP is produced.
    (c) Any transmix processor who produces gasoline by adding 
blendstock to TGP must, for such blendstock, comply with all 
requirements and standards that apply to a refiner under this subpart 
O, and must meet the applicable downstream sulfur standards under Sec.  
80.1604 for the gasoline produced by blending blendstock and TGP, prior 
to the gasoline leaving the transmix processing facility.
    (d) Any transmix processor who produces gasoline by blending 
blendstock into TGP must meet the sampling and testing requirements of 
this subpart O through either of the methods provided in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section or through the alternative method provided in 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (1)(i) Sample and test the blendstock when received at the transmix 
processing facility, using the methods specified in Sec.  80.1630, to 
determine the volume and sulfur content, and treat each volume of 
blendstock that is blended into a volume of TGP as a separate batch for 
purposes of calculating and reporting compliance with the applicable 
annual average and per-gallon cap sulfur standards in Sec.  80.1603.
    (ii) Use sulfur test results of the blendstock supplier provided 
that all the following requirements are met:
    (A) Sampling and testing by the blendstock supplier is performed 
using the methods specified in Sec.  80.1630.
    (B) Testing for the sulfur content of the blendstock in the 
supplier's storage tank must be conducted following the last receipt of 
blendstock into the supplier's storage tank that supplies the transmix 
processor.
    (C) The transmix processor must obtain a copy of the blendstock 
supplier's test results, reflecting the sulfur content of each load of 
blendstock supplied to the transmix processor, at the time of each 
transfer of blendstock to the transmix processor.
    (D) The transmix processor must conduct a quality assurance program 
of sampling and testing for each blendstock supplier. The frequency of 
blendstock sampling and testing must be one sample for every 500,000 
gallons of blendstock received or one sample every 3 months, whichever 
results in more frequent sampling.
    (iii) If any of the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this 
section are not met, in whole or in part, for any blendstock blended 
into TGP, that blendstock is deemed in violation of the gasoline sulfur 
standards of this subpart O.
    (2) As an alternative to the sampling and testing procedures 
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the following procedures 
may be used:
    (i) Sample and test each batch of TGP and determine the volume of 
the TGP.
    (ii) Sample and test the gasoline produced by blending blendstock 
into TGP, and determine its volume.

[[Page 30025]]

    (iii) Calculate the sulfur content and the volume of the batch by 
subtracting the volume and sulfur content of the TGP from the volume 
and sulfur content of the gasoline after blendstock blending. For 
purposes of compliance and reporting, the sulfur content shall be the 
calculated volume and sulfur content of the blendstock, and the 
applicable standards shall be the average and cap standards in Sec.  
80.1603. The applicable cap standard of the gasoline blend shall be the 
cap standard under Sec.  80.1604.
    (iv) Tests shall be performed using the methods specified in Sec.  
80.1630, to determine the sulfur content of the batch.
    (v) The sulfur content of each batch of gasoline produced by 
blending blendstock into TGP must be no greater than the downstream 
sulfur standard under Sec.  80.1604 applicable to the designation of 
the TGP.
    (e) Any transmix blender who produces gasoline by blending 
transmix, or mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel described in 
Sec.  80.84(e), into previously certified gasoline under Sec.  80.84(d) 
must meet the applicable downstream sulfur standards under Sec.  
80.1604 for the gasoline produced by blending transmix and previously 
certified gasoline and the endpoint standard specified in Sec.  80.84.
    (f) Any transmix processor or transmix blender who adds any 
feedstock to its transmix other than gasoline, distillate fuel, or 
gasoline blendstocks from pipeline interface must meet all requirements 
and standards that apply to a refiner under this subpart O for all 
gasoline it produces during a compliance period.


Sec.  80.1608  [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1609  Oxygenate blender requirements.

    (a) Oxygenate blenders who blend only oxygenate that complies with 
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section into gasoline 
downstream of the refinery that produced the gasoline or the import 
facility where the gasoline was imported are not subject to the refiner 
or importer requirements of this subpart for such gasoline. Such 
oxygenate blenders are subject to the requirements of paragraph (b) of 
this section, the requirements and prohibitions applicable to 
downstream parties, the requirements of Sec.  80.1603(d)(4), and the 
prohibition specified in Sec.  80.1660(e).
    (b) Beginning March 1, 2017, the DFE or other oxygenate used must 
comply with the requirements of Sec.  80.1610. Prior to March 1, 2017, 
DFE is subject to the sulfur requirements of Sec.  80.385(e).


Sec.  80.1610  Standards and requirements for producers of denatured 
fuel ethanol and other oxygenates for use by gasoline oxygenate 
blenders.

    Beginning January 1, 2017, producers of denatured fuel ethanol 
(DFE) or other oxygenates for use by oxygenate blenders under Sec.  
80.1609 must comply with the following requirements:
    (a) Standards. (1) The sulfur content must not be greater than 10 
ppm as determined in accordance with the test requirements of Sec.  
80.1630.
    (2) The DFE or other oxygenate must be composed solely of carbon, 
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur.
    (3) In the case of DFE, only gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or natural gas 
liquids may be used as denaturants.
    (4) The concentration of all denaturants used in DFE is limited to 
a maximum of 2. volume percent.
    (b) Registration. Unless registered under Sec.  80.1450, the 
producer of DFE or other oxygenate must register with EPA pursuant to 
the requirements of Sec.  80.1650.
    (c) PTDs. The producer of DFE or other oxygenate must initiate a 
PTD for each batch of DFE or other oxygenate that it ships from its 
facility which contains the statement in either paragraph (c)(1) or 
(c)(2) of this section, as applicable.
    (1) For DFE, ``Meets EPA standards for denatured fuel ethanol for 
use in gasoline''; or
    (2) For oxygenates other than DFE, ``Meets EPA standards for motor 
fuel oxygenates for use in gasoline''
    (3) PTDs that are complaint with the requirements in paragraph (c) 
of this section must be transferred from each party transferring 
oxygenate to each party that receives oxygenate through to the 
oxygenate blender.
    (d) Batch numbers. Every batch of oxygenate produced or imported at 
oxygenate production or import facility shall be assigned a number (the 
``batch number''), consisting of the EPA-assigned oxygenate producer or 
importer registration number, the EPA facility registration number, the 
last two digits of the year in which the batch was produced, and a 
unique number for the batch, beginning with the number one for the 
first batch produced or imported each calendar year and each subsequent 
batch during the calendar year being assigned the next sequential 
number (e.g., 4321-54321-95-000001, 4321-543321-95-000002, etc.)


Sec. Sec.  80.1611-80.1612   [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1613  Standards and other requirements for gasoline additive 
manufacturers and blenders.

    Gasoline additive manufacturers and blenders must meet the 
following requirements:
    (a) Gasoline additive manufacturers, as defined in 40 CFR 79.2(f), 
must meet the following requirements:
    (1)(i) Except as otherwise provided, this section applies to any 
additive, as defined in 40 CFR 79.2(e), manufactured for use in 
gasoline that is not an oxygenate compound, and that is sold for use at 
a concentration of less than 1.0% by volume.
    (ii) Oxygenate compound additives subject to the 10 ppm per-gallon 
sulfur standard and the requirements of Sec.  80.1610 are not subject 
to the provisions of this section except for the provisions of 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (2) The additive must contribute no more than 3 ppm on a per gallon 
basis to the sulfur content of gasoline when used at the maximum 
recommended treatment rate.
    (3) The additive manufacturer must maintain records of its additive 
production quality control activities which demonstrates that the 
sulfur content of additive production batches complies with the sulfur 
requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and make these records 
available upon request.
    (4) The maximum treatment rate on the product transfer document for 
the additive must state all the following:
    (i) The maximum registered concentration.
    (ii) The maximum allowed treatment rate which corresponds to the 
maximum registered concentration. The maximum allowed concentration 
must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (b) The following provisions apply to parties who are downstream of 
the gasoline refiner or importer and who blend additives to gasoline, 
RBOB or CBOB and who are not refiners.
    (1) On any occasion where the additive blender is solely acting as 
an oxygenate blender, as defined in Sec.  80.2(mm), it is subject to 
the prohibition in Sec.  80.1660(e) and the downstream gasoline sulfur 
standard of Sec.  80.1604(b).
    (2) On any occasion where an additive blender blends an additive 
(subject to the requirements of Sec.  80.1613(a)) at a concentration of 
less than 1.0% by volume, it is subject to the prohibition in Sec.  
80.1660(f) and the downstream gasoline sulfur standard of Sec.  
80.1604(b).

[[Page 30026]]

    (3) On any occasion where an additive blender blends an additive at 
a concentration of 1.0% by volume or greater, it is a fuel manufacturer 
as defined in 40 CFR 79.2(d), and is subject to all the provisions that 
apply to refiners under this subpart O.


Sec.  80.1614  [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1615  Credit generation.

    (a) Who may generate credits? Credits may be generated under this 
subpart O, as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, 
by the following entities:
    (1) U.S. refiners, including small refiners under Sec.  80.1620, 
and refiners owning small volume refineries under Sec.  80.1621. 
Foreign refiners may not generate credits.
    (2) Importers.
    (b) Early credit generation--January 1, 2014 through December 31, 
2016. (1) Early credits may be generated for gasoline produced or 
imported from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016, by a refiner, 
including small refiners and owners of small volume refineries approved 
pursuant to Sec.  80.1622, and importers.
    (2) A refiner or importer may generate early credits for gasoline 
it produces at a refinery or imports during an annual averaging period 
when its annual average sulfur level, calculated in accordance with the 
provisions of Sec.  80.1603(c), is less than 30 ppm.
    (3)(i) The number of early credits generated shall be calculated 
annually for each applicable averaging period according to the 
following equation:

ECa = [Va x (30-S a)]-CRa

Where:

ECa = Early credits generated during the annual averaging 
period, in ppm-gallons, for use pursuant to Sec.  80.1616.
Sa = Annual average sulfur level, calculated in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec.  80.1603(c), in ppm.
Va = Total volume of gasoline produced or imported during 
the averaging period, in gallons.
CRa = Credits generated during the annual averaging 
period per Sec.  80.310, in ppm-gallons, for use pursuant to subpart 
H of this part.

    (ii) No credits shall be generated unless the value of 
ECa is positive.
    (iii) The value of ECa shall be rounded to the nearest 
ppm-gallon in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in Sec.  
80.9.
    (4) A refiner or importer may include any downstream added 
oxygenates included in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under 
the provisions of Sec. Sec.  80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectively, for 
the purpose of generating credits.
    (5) All, some, or no credits generated during the time period 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be designated as 
subject to the requirements of subpart H of this part. Any remaining 
credits must be designated as subject to the requirements of this 
subpart O.
    (c) Standard credit generation--beginning January 1, 2017. (1) 
Refiners, including small refiners and owners of small volume 
refineries approved pursuant to Sec.  80.1622, and importers may 
generate standard credits for the gasoline produced at a refinery or 
imported during an annual averaging period when the annual average 
sulfur level of the refiner, refinery or importer, as applicable, and 
as calculated in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  80.1603(c), is 
less than 10 ppm.
    (2)(i) The number of standard credits generated shall be calculated 
annually for each applicable averaging period according to the 
following equation:

SCa = [Va x (10-Sa)]-CRa

Where:
SCa = Standard credits generated during the annual 
averaging period, in ppm-gallons, for use pursuant to Sec.  80.1616.
Sa = Annual average sulfur level, calculated in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec.  80.1603(c), in ppm.
Va = Total volume of gasoline produced or imported during 
the averaging period, in gallons.
CRa = Credits generated during the annual averaging period per Sec.  
80.310, in ppm-gallons, for use pursuant to subpart H. This term is 
applicable only to small refiners and small volume refineries per 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and only prior to January 1, 2020. 
Beginning January 1, 2020, the value of this term is zero.

    (ii) No credits shall be generated unless the value of 
SCa is positive.
    (iii) The value of SCa shall be rounded to the nearest 
ppm-gallon in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in Sec.  
80.9.
    (3) A refiner or importer may include any downstream added 
oxygenates included in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under 
the provisions of Sec. Sec.  80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectively, for 
the purpose of generating credits.
    (4) Prior to January 1, 2020, credits generated under this 
paragraph (c) by small refiners and owners of small volume refineries 
per paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be designated as subject to 
the requirements of subpart H of this part. Any remaining credits must 
be designated as subject to the requirements of this subpart O.


Sec.  80.1616  Credit use and transfer.

    (a) Credit use. (1) Credits may be used to meet the applicable 
annual average sulfur standards of Sec.  80.1603(a)(1).
    (2) Credits must have been generated pursuant to the requirements 
of Sec.  80.1615.
    (3) Only obligated parties under this subpart O may generate, use, 
transfer or own credits generated under this subpart O.
    (4) Credit life--Early Credits. (i) Early credits generated under 
Sec.  80.1615(b) are valid for use for the 2017 through 2019 compliance 
years. All early credits will expire and become invalid after February 
29, 2020, when the 2019 annual compliance report is due.
    (ii) Early credits may be used for compliance with the annual 
average sulfur standard of Sec.  80.1603(a)(1) by refiners and 
importers.
    (5) Credit life--Standard Credits. (i) Standard credits generated 
under Sec.  80.1615(c) are valid for use for five years from the year 
in which they are generated. For example, standard credits generated in 
2017 may be used for compliance through the 2022 compliance period 
(they would expire and become invalid after February 28, 2023, the 2022 
annual compliance report due date).
    (ii) Standard credits may be used for compliance with the annual 
average sulfur standard of Sec.  80.1603(a)(1) by refiners and 
importers.
    (6) A refiner or importer possessing credits must use all credits 
prior to falling into a compliance deficit.
    (7) In no case may a credit be transferred more than twice before 
being used or terminated.
    (b) Credit transfers. (1) Credits obtained from other obligated 
parties may be used to meet the annual average standards of this 
subpart O, if all of the following conditions are met:
    (i) The credits are generated and reported according to the 
requirements of this subpart O.
    (ii) The credits are used in compliance with the limitations 
regarding the appropriate periods for credit use pursuant to paragraph 
(a) of this section.
    (iii) Any credit transfer takes place no later than February 28 
following the calendar year averaging period when the credits are used.
    (iv) The credit has not been transferred more than twice. The first 
transfer by the refiner or importer who generated the credit may only 
be made to a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit; if the 
transferee cannot use the credit, it may make the second, and final, 
transfer only to a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit.

[[Page 30027]]

    (v) The credit transferor must apply any credits necessary to meet 
the transferor's applicable average standard before transferring 
credits to any other refiner or importer.
    (vi) The credit transferor does not create a negative credit 
balance as a result of the credit transfer.
    (vii) Each transferor must supply to the transferee records 
indicating all of the following:
    (A) The years the credits were generated.
    (B) The identity of the refiner or importer who generated the 
credits.
    (C) The identity of the transferring party (if it is not the same 
party that generated the credits).
    (2) In the case of credits that have been calculated or created 
improperly, or are otherwise determined to be invalid, all of the 
following provisions apply:
    (i) Invalid credits cannot be used to achieve compliance with the 
transferee's averaging standard, regardless of the transferee's good 
faith belief that the credits were valid.
    (ii) The refiner or importer who used the credits, and any 
transferor of the credits, must adjust their credit records and reports 
and sulfur calculations as necessary to reflect the proper credits.
    (iii) Any properly created credits existing in the transferor's 
credit balance after correcting the credit balance, and after the 
transferor applies credits as needed to meet the average standard at 
the end of the compliance year, must first be applied to correct the 
invalid transfers before the transferor trades or banks the credits.


Sec.  80.1620  Small refiner definition.

    (a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small refiner is 
defined as any refiner who meets all of the following criteria and has 
been approved by EPA as a small refiner per Sec.  80.1622:
    (1) Produces gasoline at its refineries by processing crude oil 
through refinery processing units.
    (2) Employed an average of no more than 1,500 people, based on the 
average number of employees for all pay periods for calendar year 2011 
for all subsidiary companies, all parent companies, all subsidiaries of 
the parent companies, and all joint venture partners.
    (3) Had a corporate-average crude oil capacity less than or equal 
to 155,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd) for 2011.
    (b) For the purposes of this section, the term ``refiner'' shall 
include foreign refiners.
    (c) The number of employees and crude oil capacity under paragraph 
(a) of this section shall be determined as follows:
    (1) The refiner shall include the employees and crude oil capacity 
of any subsidiary companies, any parent company and subsidiaries of the 
parent company in which the parent has 50 percent or greater ownership, 
and any joint venture partners.
    (2) For any refiner owned by a governmental entity, the number of 
employees and total crude oil capacity as specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section shall include all employees and crude oil production of 
the government to which the governmental entity is a part.
    (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) of 
this section, a refiner that acquires or reactivates a refinery that 
was shut down or non-operational during calendar year 2011, may apply 
for small refiner status under this subpart O.
    (e) The following are ineligible for small refiner provisions under 
this subpart:
    (1) Refiners with refineries built or started up on or after 
January 1, 2011.
    (2) Persons who exceed the employee or crude oil capacity criteria 
under this section on January 1, 2011, but who meet these criteria 
after that date, regardless of whether the reduction in employees or 
crude oil capacity is due to operational changes at the refinery or a 
company sale or reorganization.
    (3) Importers.
    (4) Refiners who produce gasoline other than by processing crude 
oil through refinery processing units.
    (f)(1) A refiner approved as a small refiner under Sec.  80.1622 
who subsequently ceases production of gasoline from processing crude 
oil through refinery processing units, employs more than 1,500 people, 
or exceeds the 155,000 bpcd crude oil capacity limit after January 1, 
2011 as a result of merger with or acquisition of or by another entity, 
is disqualified as a small refiner, except as provided for under 
paragraph (f)(4) of this section. If such disqualification occurs, the 
refiner shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the 
disqualifying event.
    (2) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(3) of this section, any 
refiner whose status changes under this paragraph (f) shall meet the 
applicable standards of Sec.  80.1603 within a period of up to 30 
months from the disqualifying event for any of its refineries that were 
previously subject to the small refiner standards of Sec.  80.1623.
    (3) A refiner may apply to EPA for up to an additional six months 
to comply with the standards of Sec.  80.1603 if more than 30 months 
would be required for the necessary engineering, permitting, 
construction, and start-up work to be completed. Such applications must 
include detailed technical information supporting the need for 
additional time. EPA will base a decision to approve additional time on 
information provided by the refiner and on other relevant information.
    (4) Disqualification under this paragraph (f) of this section shall 
not apply in the case of a merger between two previously approved small 
refiners.
    (5) If a refiner receives a delay per paragraphs (f)(2) and/or 
(f)(3) of this section, the refiner may not generate gasoline sulfur 
credits under this subpart O during that 30 or 36 month period.
    (6) All written notifications to EPA should be submitted to the 
addresses listed in Sec.  80.1622.


Sec.  80.1621  Small volume refinery definition.

    (a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small volume 
refinery is defined as any refinery that meets all of the following 
criteria, and has been approved by EPA as a small volume refinery per 
Sec.  80.1622:
    (1) Produces gasoline by processing crude oil through refinery 
processing units.
    (2) The average aggregate daily crude oil throughput, including 
feedstocks derived from crude oil, for the calendar year 2011 (as 
determined by dividing the aggregate throughput for the calendar year 
by the number of days in the calendar year) does not exceed 75,000 
barrels. Throughput means the total crude oil feedstock input into the 
refinery less volumes injected into the crude oil supply after refinery 
processing.
    (b) The following are ineligible for the small volume refinery 
provisions under this subpart:
    (1) Refineries built or started up on or after January 1, 2012.
    (2) Persons who exceed the crude oil throughput under this section 
for calendar year 2011 but who meet these criteria after that date, 
regardless of whether the reduction in crude oil capacity is due to 
operational changes at the refinery or a company sale or 
reorganization.
    (3) Importers.
    (4) Refineries that produce gasoline other than by processing crude 
oil through refinery processing units.


Sec.  80.1622  Approval for small refiner and small volume refinery 
status.

    (a) Applications for small refiner or small volume refinery status 
under this subpart must be submitted to EPA by March 31, 2014.

[[Page 30028]]

    (b) To qualify for small refiner status under this subpart a 
refiner must submit an application to EPA containing all of the 
following information for the refiner and for all subsidiary companies, 
all parent companies, all subsidiaries of the parent companies, and all 
joint venture partners:
    (1)(i) A listing of the name and address of all company locations 
for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.
    (ii) The average number of employees at each location, based on the 
number of employees for each pay period for the period January 1, 2011 
through December 31, 2011.
    (iii) The type of business activities carried out at each location.
    (iv) For joint ventures, the total number of employees includes the 
combined employee count of all corporate entities in the venture.
    (v) For government-owned refiners, the total employee count 
includes all government employees.
    (2)(i) The total corporate crude oil capacity of each refinery as 
reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE), for the period January 1, 2011 through 
December 31, 2011. The information submitted to EIA is presumed to be 
correct. In cases where a company disagrees with this information, the 
company may petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record 
when the company submits its application.
    (ii) Foreign small refiners applying for approval under this 
section must send the total corporate crude oil capacity of each 
refinery for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, to 
one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) The application must be signed by the president, chief 
operating or chief executive officer of the company, or his/her 
designee, stating that the information is true to the best of his/her 
knowledge, and that the company owned the refinery as of December 31, 
2011.
    (4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and email 
address of a corporate contact person.
    (c) To qualify for small volume refinery status under this subpart, 
a refiner must submit an application to EPA containing all of the 
following information for the refinery, or refineries, for which the 
refiner is applying for small volume refinery status:
    (1) A listing of the name and address of each small volume refinery 
owned by the company.
    (2)(i) The total crude throughput of each small volume refinery, 
defined as the total crude oil feedstock input into the refinery less 
the volumes injected into the crude oil supply after refinery 
processing, as reported to EIA, for the period January 1, 2011 through 
December 31, 2011. The information submitted to EIA is presumed to be 
correct. In cases where a company disagrees with this information, the 
company may petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record 
when the company submits its application.
    (ii) Foreign refiners applying for small volume refinery approval 
under this section must send the total crude throughput of each small 
volume refinery, defined as the total crude oil feedstock input into 
the refinery less the volumes injected into the crude oil supply after 
refinery processing of each refinery for the period January 1, 2011 
through December 31, 2011, to one of the addresses listed in paragraph 
(g) of this section.
    (3) The application must be signed by the president, chief 
operating or chief executive officer of the company, or his/her 
designee, stating that the information is true to the best of his/her 
knowledge, and that the company owned the refinery as of December 31, 
2011.
    (4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and email 
address of a corporate contact person.
    (d) For foreign refiners, the small refiner or small volume 
refinery status application must contain all of the elements required 
in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as applicable, must 
demonstrate compliance with Sec.  80.1620, and must be submitted by 
March 31, 2014 to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this 
section.
    (e) A refiner who qualifies as a small refiner or small volume 
refinery under this subpart and subsequently fails to meet all of the 
qualifying criteria as set out in Sec. Sec.  80.1620 and 80.1621 will 
be disqualified pursuant to Sec.  80.1620(f) or Sec.  80.1621(d).
    (1) In the event such disqualification occurs, the refiner shall 
notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the disqualifying 
event.
    (2) Disqualification under this paragraph (e) shall not apply in 
the case of a merger between two approved small refiners.
    (3) Any refiner that acquires a refinery from another refiner with 
approved small refiner or small volume refinery status under this 
subpart shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the 
acquisition.
    (f) If EPA finds that a refiner provided false or inaccurate 
information in its small refiner status or small volume refinery status 
application under this subpart, the refiner's small refiner or small 
volume refinery status will be void as of the effective date of this 
subpart.
    (g) Small refiner and small volume refinery status applications, 
and any other correspondence required by this section, Sec.  80.1620, 
and/or Sec.  80.1621 shall be sent to one of the following addresses:
    (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA--Attn: Tier 3 Program (Small Refiner/
Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 
Program (Small Refiner/Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1310 L Street 
NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005.


Sec. Sec. -80.1623  80.1624 [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1625  Hardship provisions.

    EPA may, at its discretion, grant a refiner of gasoline that 
processes crude oil through refinery processing units, for one or more 
of its refineries, temporary relief from some or all of the provisions 
of this subpart.
    (a) Extreme hardship circumstances. (1) EPA may, at its discretion, 
grant a refiner of gasoline that processes crude oil through refinery 
processing units, for one or more of its refineries, temporary relief 
from some or all of the provisions of this subpart. EPA may grant such 
relief provided that the refiner demonstrates all of the following:
    (i) Unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship and 
significantly affect the refiner's ability to comply by the applicable 
date.
    (ii) It has made best efforts to comply with the requirements of 
this subpart.
    (2) The application must specify the factors that demonstrate a 
significant economic hardship and must provide a detailed discussion 
regarding the inability of the refinery to produce gasoline meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1603. Such an application must include, at a 
minimum, all of the following information:
    (i) Documentation of efforts made to obtain necessary financing, 
including all the following:
    (A) Copies of loan applications for the necessary financing of the 
construction of appropriate sulfur reduction technology and other 
equipment procurements or improvements.
    (B) If financing has been disapproved or is otherwise unsuccessful, 
documents supporting the basis for that disapproval

[[Page 30029]]

and evidence of efforts to pursue other means of financing.
    (ii) A detailed analysis of the reasons the refinery is unable to 
produce gasoline meeting the standards of this subpart O in 2017, 
including costs, specification of equipment still needed, potential 
equipment suppliers, and efforts already completed to obtain the 
necessary equipment.
    (iii) If unavailability of equipment is part of the reason for the 
inability to comply, a discussion of other options considered, and the 
reasons these other options are not feasible.
    (iv) If relevant, a demonstration that a needed or lower cost 
technology is immediately unavailable, but will be available in the 
near future, and full information regarding when and from what sources 
it will be available.
    (v) Schematic drawings of the refinery configuration as of January 
1, 2011, and as of the date of the hardship extension application, and 
any planned future additions or changes.
    (vi) If relevant, a demonstration that a temporary unavailability 
exists of engineering or construction resources necessary for design or 
installation of the needed equipment.
    (vii) A detailed analysis of the reasons the refinery is unable to 
use credits to meet the gasoline standards of this subpart O, including 
all avenues pursued to generate and/or procure credits, their cost, and 
ability to finance them.
    (viii) A discussion of any sulfur reductions that can be achieved 
from current levels.
    (ix) The date the refiner anticipates compliance with the standards 
in Sec.  80.1603 can be achieved at its refinery.
    (x) An analysis of the economic impact of compliance on the 
refiner's business (including financial statements from the last 5 
years, or for any time period up to 10 years, at EPA's request).
    (xi) Any other information regarding other strategies considered, 
including strategies or components of strategies that do not involve 
installation of equipment, and why meeting the standards in Sec.  
80.1603 beginning in 2017 (or 2020 for approved small refiners and 
small volume refineries) is infeasible.
    (3) Hardship applications under this paragraph (a) must be 
submitted to EPA by March 31, 2014 to one of the addresses listed in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (b) Extreme unforeseen circumstances hardship. (1) In appropriate 
extreme, unusual, and unforeseen circumstances (for example, natural 
disaster or refinery fire) which are clearly outside the control of the 
refiner or importer and which could not have been avoided by the 
exercise of prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA may permit a refiner 
or importer, for a brief period, to distribute gasoline which does not 
meet the requirements of this subpart for all of the following reasons:
    (i) It is in the public interest to do so (e.g., distribution of 
the nonconforming gasoline is necessary to meet projected shortfalls 
which cannot otherwise be compensated for).
    (ii) The refiner or importer exercised prudent planning and was not 
able to avoid the violation and has taken all reasonable steps to 
minimize the extent of the nonconformity.
    (iii) The refiner or importer can show how the requirements for 
making compliant gasoline, and/or purchasing credits to partially or 
completely offset the nonconformity, will be expeditiously achieved.
    (iv) The refiner or importer agrees to make up any air quality 
detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where 
practicable.
    (v) The refiner or importer pays to the U.S. Treasury an amount 
equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity minus the amount 
expended pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, in making up 
the air quality detriment.
    (2) The hardship application must meet all other applicable 
requirements of this section, except paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) The hardship extension application must contain a letter signed 
by the president or the chief operating officer or chief executive 
officer of the company, or his/her designee, stating that the 
information contained in the application is true to the best of his/her 
knowledge.
    (d) Hardship applications under this section must be submitted in 
writing to one of the following addresses:
    (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA--Attn: Tier 3 Program (Hardship 
Application), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460.
    (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 
Program (Hardship Application), 6406J, 1310 L Street NW., 6th floor, 
Washington, DC 20005.


Sec.  80.1630  Sampling and testing requirements for refiners and 
importers.

    (a) Sample and test each batch of gasoline. (1) Refiners and 
importers shall collect a representative sample from each batch of 
gasoline produced or imported and test each sample to determine its 
sulfur content for compliance with requirements under this subpart 
prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility, using 
the sampling and testing methods provided in this section or Sec. Sec.  
80.8 (sampling) and 80.47 (testing).
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the 
requirements of this section apply beginning January 1, 2017.
    (3)(i) Beginning January 1, 2017, any refiner who produces gasoline 
using computer-controlled in-line blending equipment is exempt from the 
requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section to obtain the test 
results required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section prior to the 
gasoline leaving the refinery, provided that the refiner obtains an 
exemption from this requirement from EPA. To obtain such exemption, the 
refiner must:
    (A) Have been granted an in-line blending exemption under Sec.  
80.65(f)(4); or
    (B) If the refiner has not been granted an exemption under Sec.  
80.65(f)(4), submit to EPA all of the information required under Sec.  
80.65(f)(4)(i)(A). A letter signed by the president, chief operating 
officer or chief executive officer of the company, or his/her designee, 
stating that the information contained in the submission is true to the 
best of his/her belief must accompany any submission under this 
paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B).
    (ii) Refiners who seek an exemption under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 
this section must comply with any EPA request for additional 
information or any other requirements that EPA includes as part of the 
exemption.
    (iii) Within 60 days of EPA's receipt of a submission under 
paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of this section, EPA will notify the refiner if 
the exemption is not approved or of any deficiencies in the refiner's 
submission, or if any additional information is required or other 
requirements are included in the exemption pursuant to paragraph 
(a)(3)(ii) of this section. In the absence of such notification from 
EPA, the effective date of an exemption under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 
this section for refiners who do not hold an exemption under Sec.  
80.65(f)(4) is 60 days from EPA's receipt of the refiner's submission 
under paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
    (iv) EPA reserves the right to modify the requirements of an 
exemption under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, in whole or in 
part, at any time, if EPA determines that the refiner's operation does 
not effectively or adequately control, monitor or document the sulfur 
content of the refinery's gasoline production, or if EPA determines 
that any other circumstances exist which merit modification of the 
requirements

[[Page 30030]]

of an exemption, such as advancements in the state of the art for in-
line blending measurement which allow for additional control or more 
accurate monitoring or documentation of sulfur content. If EPA finds 
that a refiner provided false or inaccurate information in any 
submission required for an exemption under this section, upon 
notification from EPA, the refiner's exemption will be void ab initio.
    (b) Sampling methods. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this 
section, refiners and importers shall sample each batch of gasoline by 
using one of the methods specified in Sec.  80.8.
    (c) Test method for measuring sulfur content of gasoline. (1) For 
purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall 
use the method provided in Sec.  80.47, as applicable, to measure the 
sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import.
    (2) Sulfur content shall be reported to the nearest ppm.


Sec.  80.1631  Sample retention requirements.

    (a) Sample retention requirements. Beginning January 1, 2017, or 
January 1 of the first year credits are generated under Sec.  80.1615, 
whichever is earlier, any refiner or importer shall do all of the 
following:
    (1) Collect a representative portion of each sample analyzed under 
Sec.  80.1630, of at least 330 milliliters in volume.
    (2) Retain sample portions for the most recent 20 samples 
collected, or for each sample collected during the most recent 21 day 
period, whichever is greater, not to exceed 90 days for any given 
sample.
    (3) Comply with the gasoline sample handling and storage procedures 
under Sec.  80.1630 for each sample portion retained.
    (4) Comply with any request by EPA to:
    (i) Provide a retained sample portion to the Administrator's 
authorized representative; and
    (ii) Ship a retained sample portion to EPA, within 2 working days 
of the date of the request, by an overnight shipping service or 
comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified by 
EPA, and accompanied with the sulfur test result for the sample 
determined under Sec.  80.1630.
    (b) Sample retention requirement for samples subject to independent 
analysis requirements. (1) Any refiner or importer who meets the 
independent analysis requirements under Sec.  80.65(f) for any batch of 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB will have met the requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section, provided the independent laboratory 
meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for the 
gasoline batch; except that the retained RBOB sample for purposes of 
this subpart O must be a sample of the RBOB prior to hand blending with 
oxygenate.
    (2) For samples retained by an independent laboratory under this 
paragraph (b), the test results required to be submitted under 
paragraph (a) of this section shall be the test results determined 
under Sec.  80.65(e).
    (c) Sampling compliance certification. Any refiner or importer 
shall include with each annual report filed under Sec.  80.1652, the 
following statement, which must accurately reflect the facts and must 
be signed and dated by the same person who signs the annual report:
    I certify that I have made inquiries that are sufficient to give me 
knowledge of the procedures to collect and store gasoline samples, and 
I further certify that the procedures meet the requirements of the ASTM 
procedures required under 40 CFR 80.1630.
    (d) Prior to January 1, 2017, for purposes of complying with the 
requirements of this section, refiners who analyze composited samples 
under Sec.  80.1630 must retain portions of the composited samples. 
Portions of samples of each batch comprising the composited samples are 
not required to be retained.
    (e) For purposes of complying with the requirements of this section 
for RBOB, a sample of each RBOB batch produced must be retained.


Sec.  80.1640  Standards and requirements that apply to refiners 
producing gasoline by blending blendstocks into previously certified 
gasoline (PCG).

    (a) Any refiner who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into 
PCG, as defined at Sec.  80.2(d), must meet the requirements of Sec.  
80.1630 to sample and test every batch of gasoline as follows:
    (1) Exclude the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with 
the sulfur standards of this subpart O.
    (2) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5) of 
this section, the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur content 
of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume of and sulfur content of 
the gasoline produced at the refinery, and use the compliance 
calculation procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this 
section.
    (3) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the 
refiner must include the volume and sulfur content of the PCG as a 
negative volume and a positive sulfur content in the refiner's 
compliance calculations in accord with the requirements at Sec.  
80.1603.
    (4) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG 
and blendstock, the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur 
content of the combined product and include each batch of combined 
product for purposes of sulfur compliance in the refinery's compliance 
calculations at Sec.  80.1603 without regard to the presence of 
previously certified gasoline in the batch.
    (5) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative 
batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to Sec.  80.1603 as a 
component in gasoline production during the annual averaging period in 
which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner's 
compliance calculations.
    (6) The refiner must also comply with Sec.  80.65(i) when producing 
RBOB or RFG and Sec.  80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline 
or CBOB.
    (7) Any negative annual average sulfur value shall be reported as 
zero and not as a negative result.
    (b) In the alternative, a refiner may sample and test each batch of 
blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and 
sulfur content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch 
for purposes of compliance calculations for the annual average sulfur 
standard and for reporting. This alternative applies only if every 
batch of blendstock used at a refinery during an averaging period has a 
sulfur content that is equal to, or less than, the applicable per-
gallon cap standard under Sec.  80.1603.
    (c) Refiners who blend only butane into PCG may meet the sampling 
and testing requirements of this subpart O for sulfur by using sulfur 
test results of the butane supplier, provided that the requirements of 
Sec.  80.82 are met.


Sec.  80.1641  Alternative sulfur standards and requirements that apply 
to importers who transport gasoline by truck.

    Importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck may 
comply with the following requirements instead of the requirements to 
sample and test every batch of gasoline under Sec.  80.1630, and the 
annual sulfur average and per-gallon cap standards otherwise applicable 
to importers under Sec.  80.1603:
    (a) Alternative standards. The imported gasoline must comply with 
the standard in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section as follows:
    (1) The annual average standard of 10 ppm and the per-gallon 
standard of 80 ppm as provided by Sec.  80.1603; or
    (2) A per-gallon standard of 10 ppm.
    (b) Terminal testing. The importer may use test results for sulfur 
content testing conducted by the terminal

[[Page 30031]]

operator, for gasoline contained in the storage tank from which trucks 
used to transport gasoline into the United States are loaded, for 
purposes of demonstrating compliance with the standards in paragraph 
(a) of this section, provided all the following conditions are met:
    (1) The sampling and testing shall be performed after each receipt 
of gasoline into the storage tank, or immediately before each transfer 
of gasoline to the importer's truck.
    (2) The sampling and testing shall be performed using the methods 
specified in Sec. Sec.  80.8 and 80.47, respectively.
    (3) At the time of each transfer of gasoline to the importer's 
truck for import to the U.S., the importer must obtain a copy of the 
terminal test result that indicates the sulfur content of the truck 
load (or each compartment if fuel was loaded from different storage 
tanks).
    (c) Quality assurance program. The importer must conduct a quality 
assurance program, as specified in this paragraph, for each truck 
loading terminal.
    (1) Quality assurance samples must be obtained from the truck-
loading terminal and tested by the importer, or by an independent 
laboratory, and the terminal operator must not know in advance when 
samples are to be collected.
    (2) The sampling and testing must be performed using the methods 
specified in Sec. Sec.  80.8 and 80.47, respectively.
    (3) The quality assurance test results for sulfur must differ from 
the terminal test result by no more than the ASTM reproducibility of 
the terminal's test results, as determined by the following equation:

R = 105 x ((S +2)/10\4\)\0.4\

Where:

R = ASTM reproducibility.
S = Sulfur content based on the terminal's test result.

    (4) The frequency of the quality assurance sampling and testing 
must be at least one sample for each fifty of an importer's trucks that 
are loaded at a terminal, or one sample per month, whichever is more 
frequent.
    (d) Party required to conduct quality assurance testing. The 
quality assurance program under paragraph (c) of this section shall be 
conducted by the importer. In the alternative, this testing may be 
conducted by an independent laboratory that meets the criteria under 
Sec.  80.65(f)(2)(iii), provided the importer receives, no later than 
21 days after the sample was taken, copies of all results of tests 
conducted.
    (e) Assignment of batch numbers. The importer must treat each truck 
load of imported gasoline as a separate batch for purposes of assigning 
batch numbers and maintaining records under Sec.  80.1653, and 
reporting under Sec.  80.1652.
    (f) EPA inspections of terminals. EPA inspectors or auditors, and 
auditors conducting attest engagements under Sec.  80.1667, must be 
given full and immediate access to the truck-loading terminal and any 
laboratory at which samples of gasoline collected at the terminal are 
analyzed, and must be allowed to conduct inspections, review records, 
collect gasoline samples, and perform audits. These inspections or 
audits may be either announced or unannounced.
    (g) Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. This section does not apply to 
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (h) Reporting requirements. Any importer who elects to comply with 
the alternative standards in paragraph (a) of this section shall comply 
with the following requirements:
    (1) All importer recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 
Sec. Sec.  80.1652 and 80.1653, except as provided in paragraph (h)(2) 
of this section.
    (2) An importer who elects to comply with the alternative standards 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must certify in the annual report 
whether it is in compliance with the applicable per-gallon batch 
standard set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, in lieu of 
providing the information required by Sec.  80.1652 regarding annual 
average sulfur content and compliance with the average standard under 
Sec.  80.1603.
    (i) Effect of noncompliance. If any of the requirements of this 
section are not met, all gasoline imported by the truck importer during 
the time any requirements are not met is deemed in violation of the 
gasoline sulfur average and per-gallon cap standards in Sec.  80.1603. 
Additionally, if any requirement is not met, EPA may notify the 
importer of the violation and, if the requirement is not fulfilled 
within 10 days of notification, the truck importer may not in the 
future use the sampling and testing provisions in this section in lieu 
of the provisions in Sec.  80.1630.


Sec. Sec.  80.1642-80.1649  [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1650  Registration.

    The following registration requirements apply under this subpart:
    (a) Registration with the EPA Administrator is required for any:
    (1) Gasoline refiner or importer having any refinery or import 
facility subject to the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart O.
    (2) Oxygenate producer or importer having any oxygenate production 
facility or import facility subject to the oxygenate sulfur standards 
under Sec.  80.1610 unless already registered under Sec.  80.1450.
    (3) Oxygenate blender who has any oxygenate blending facility that 
blends oxygenate into RBOB where the resulting gasoline is subject to 
the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart O.
    (b) Registration dates. (1) Any gasoline refiner or importer 
required to register shall do so by March 31, 2014, or at least thirty 
days in advance of the first date that such person will produce or 
import reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB, 
whichever is later.
    (2) Any oxygenate producer or importer required to register shall 
do so by December 1, 2017, or at least thirty days in advance of the 
first date that such person will produce or import oxygenate, whichever 
is later.
    (3) Any oxygenate blender required to register shall do so by March 
31, 2014, or at least thirty days in advance of the first date that 
such person will blend oxygenate into RBOB, whichever is later.
    (c) Refiner registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms 
prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following 
information:
    (i) The name, business address, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number of the refiner.
    (ii) For each separate refinery, the facility name, physical 
location, contact name, email address, telephone number, and type of 
facility.
    (iii) For each separate refinery:
    (A) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the refinery.
    (B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage 
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number.
    (iv) For each separate refinery that produces reformulated gasoline 
and/or RBOB, the name, address, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number of the independent laboratory used to meet the 
independent analysis requirements of Sec.  80.65(f).
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each refiner, 
and a facility registration number for each refinery that is 
identified. These registration numbers shall be used in all reports to 
the Administrator.
    (3) Updates to registration. (i) Any refiner shall submit updated 
registration information to the Administrator within thirty days of any 
occasion when the registration information previously

[[Page 30032]]

supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate; except that
    (ii) EPA must be notified in writing of any change in designated 
independent laboratory under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section at 
least thirty days in advance of such change.
    (d) Gasoline importer registration. (1) Registration shall be on 
forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the 
following information:
    (i) The name, business address, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number of the importer.
    (ii) For each importer's operations in a single PADD:
    (A) Whether records are kept on-site at the registered address or 
off-site.
    (B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage 
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number.
    (C) For importers that import reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB, 
the name, address, contact name and telephone number of the independent 
laboratory used to meet the independent analysis requirements of Sec.  
80.65(f).
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each importer. 
This registration number shall be used in all reports to the 
Administrator.
    (3) Updates to registration. (i) Any importer shall submit updated 
registration information to the Administrator within thirty days of any 
occasion when the registration information previously supplied becomes 
incomplete or inaccurate; except that
    (ii) EPA must be notified in writing of any change in designated 
independent laboratory under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(C) of this section at 
least thirty days in advance of such change.
    (e) Oxygenate producer registration. (1) Registration shall be on 
forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the 
following information:
    (i) The name, business address, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number of the oxygenate producer.
    (ii) For each separate oxygenate production facility, the facility 
name, physical location, contact name, telephone number, and type of 
facility.
    (iii) For each separate oxygenate production facility:
    (A) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the refinery.
    (B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage 
facility name, physical location, contact name, and telephone number.
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each oxygenate 
producer, and a facility registration number for each oxygenate 
production facility that is identified. These registration numbers or 
those provided under Sec.  80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the 
Administrator.
    (3) Updates to registration. Any oxygenate producer shall submit 
updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty 
days of any occasion when the registration information previously 
supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate.
    (f) Oxygenate importer registration. (1) Registration shall be on 
forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the 
following information:
    (i) The name, business address, contact name, and email address, 
telephone number of the importer.
    (ii) For each importer's operations in a single PADD:
    (A) Whether records are kept on-site at the registered address or 
off-site.
    (B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage 
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number.
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each importer. 
This registration number shall be used in all reports to the 
Administrator.
    (g) Oxygenate blender registration. (1) Registration shall be on 
forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the 
following information:
    (i) The name, business address, contact name, and email address, 
telephone number of the oxygenate blender.
    (ii) For each separate oxygenate blending facility, the facility 
name, physical location, contact name, telephone number, and type of 
facility.
    (iii) For each separate oxygenate blending facility:
    (A) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the refinery.
    (B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage 
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number.
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each oxygenate 
blender, and a facility registration number for each oxygenate blending 
facility that is identified. These registration numbers or those 
provided under Sec.  80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the 
Administrator.
    (3) Updates to registration. Any oxygenate producer shall submit 
updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty 
days of any occasion when the registration information previously 
supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate.


Sec.  80.1651  Product transfer document requirements.

    (a) On each occasion that any person transfers custody or title to 
any gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate other than when gasoline is sold 
or dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale 
purchaser-consumer facility, the transferor shall provide to the 
transferee documents which include all the following information:
    (1) The name and address of the transferor.
    (2) The name and address of the transferee.
    (3) The volume of gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate which is being 
transferred.
    (4) The location of the gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate at the 
time of the transfer.
    (5) The date of the transfer.
    (b) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to 
any gasoline for export or with an exemption under Sec. Sec.  80.1654, 
80.1655, 80.1656, and/or 80.1658, any of the following statements must 
be included on the product transfer document:
    (1) For gasoline with a national security exemption under Sec.  
80.1655, ``This gasoline is for use in vehicles, engines, or equipment 
under an EPA-approved national security exemption only.''.
    (2) For gasoline with a research, development, or testing exemption 
under Sec.  80.1656, ``This gasoline is for research, development, or 
testing purposes only.''.
    (3) For gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under Sec.  80.1658, 
``This is gasoline for use only in Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Northern Mariana Islands.''.
    (4) For gasoline for export purposes, ``This gasoline is for export 
only.''.
    (5) For gasoline for racing purposes, ``This gasoline is for racing 
purposes only.''.
    (6) For California gasoline, pursuant to Sec.  80.1654, 
``California gasoline''.
    (c) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to 
any gasoline additive intended to be used at less than 1 volume 
percent, other than when gasoline is sold or dispensed for use in motor 
vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, 
the transferor shall provide to the transferee documents which include 
information on the maximum recommended treatment level.


Sec.  80.1652  Reporting requirements.

    Beginning with the 2017 averaging period or the first year credits 
are generated under Sec.  80.1615 (whichever is

[[Page 30033]]

earlier), and continuing for each averaging period thereafter, any 
refiner or importer, and any oxygenate producer or importer, shall 
submit to EPA annual reports that contain the information required in 
this section, and any other information as EPA may require.
    (a) Refiner and importer annual reports. Any refiner, for each of 
its refineries, and any importer for the gasoline it imports, shall 
submit a report for each calendar year averaging period that includes 
all the following information:
    (1) The EPA importer, or refiner and refinery facility registration 
numbers.
    (2) The average standard under Sec.  80.1603, reported to two 
decimal places.
    (3) The total volume of gasoline produced or imported, reported to 
the nearest whole number.
    (4) The annual average sulfur level of the gasoline produced or 
imported, reported to two decimal places.
    (5) The annual average sulfur level after inclusion of any credits, 
reported to two decimal places.
    (6) Separately provided information for credits, and separately by 
year of creation, as follows:
    (i) The number of credits at the beginning of the averaging period, 
reported to the nearest whole number.
    (ii) The number of credits generated, reported to the nearest whole 
number.
    (iii) The number of credits used, reported to the nearest whole 
number.
    (iv) If any credits were obtained from or transferred to other 
parties; and for each other party, its name and EPA refiner or importer 
registration number, and the number of credits obtained from or 
transferred to the other party.
    (v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging 
period, reported to the nearest whole number.
    (vi) The number of credits that will carry over into the subsequent 
averaging period, reported to the nearest whole number.
    (7) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported during the 
averaging period, all of the following:
    (i) The batch number assigned under Sec.  80.65(d)(3); except that 
if composite samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple 
batches produced subsequent to December 31, 2003, are tested under 
Sec.  80.101(i)(2) for anti-dumping compliance purposes, for purposes 
of this subpart a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch 
using the batch numbering procedures under Sec.  80.65(d)(3).
    (ii) The date the batch was produced.
    (iii) The volume of the batch, reported to the nearest whole 
number.
    (iv) The sulfur content of the batch, reported to two decimal 
places, along with identification of the test method used to determine 
the sulfur content of the batch, as determined under Sec.  80.1630.
    (8) All values measured or calculated pursuant to the requirements 
of this paragraph (a) shall be in accordance with the rounding 
procedure specified in Sec.  80.9.
    (9) When submitting reports under this paragraph (a) from January 
1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, any importer shall exclude Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (b) Additional reporting requirements for importers. From January 
1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, importers shall report all of the 
following information for Sulfur-FRGAS imported during an annual 
averaging period:
    (1) The EPA refiner and refinery registration numbers of each 
foreign refiner and refinery where the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS was 
produced.
    (2) The total gallons of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS and Non-Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS imported from each foreign refiner and refinery, reported 
to one decimal place.
    (c) Oxygenate producer reports. On an annual basis, the producer of 
DFE or other oxygenate must submit a summary report to EPA which 
includes all of the following:
    (1) The facility identification information provided pursuant to 
Sec.  80.1650.
    (2) The total volume of all batches of DFE and other oxygenate 
produced.
    (3) An attestation that all of the batches of DFE and other 
oxygenate produced during the compliance period were in compliance with 
the requirements of this subpart.
    (d) Report submission. Any annual report required under this 
section shall be:
    (1) Signed and certified as meeting all of the applicable 
requirements of this subpart by the owner or a responsible corporate 
officer of the refiner or importer; and
    (2) Submitted to EPA no later than the March 31 each year for the 
prior calendar year averaging period.
    (e) Attest reports. Attest reports for refiner and importer attest 
engagements required under Sec.  80.1667 shall be submitted to the 
Administrator by May 31 of each year for the prior calendar year 
averaging period.


Sec.  80.1653  Recordkeeping.

    (a) Records that must be kept. Beginning January 1, 2017 or January 
1 of the first year that credits are generated (whichever is earlier), 
any person who produces, imports, sells, offers for sale, dispenses, 
distributes, supplies, offers for supply, stores, or transports 
gasoline, shall keep records that contain all of the following 
information:
    (1) The product transfer document information required under Sec.  
80.1651.
    (2) All of the following information for any sampling and testing 
for sulfur content required under this subpart O:
    (i) The location, date, time, and storage tank or truck 
identification for each sample collected.
    (ii) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and 
the person who performed the test.
    (iii) The results of the test as originally printed by the testing 
apparatus, or where no printed result is produced, the results as 
originally recorded by the person who performed the test.
    (iv) Any record that contains a test result for the sample that is 
not identical to the result recorded under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of 
this section.
    (v) The test methodology used.
    (b) Additional records that refiners and importers must keep. 
Beginning January 1, 2014, or January 1 of the first year credits are 
generated under Sec.  80.1615, whichever is earlier, any refiner for 
each of its refineries and any importer for the gasoline it imports, 
shall keep records that include all of the following information:
    (1) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported:
    (i) The batch volume.
    (ii) The batch number assigned under Sec.  80.65(d)(3) and the 
appropriate designation under paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section; 
except that for composite samples of conventional gasoline representing 
multiple batches, that are tested under Sec.  80.101(i)(2) for purposes 
of this subpart, a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch 
using the batch numbering procedures under Sec.  80.65(d)(3).
    (iii) The date of production or importation.
    (iv) If appropriate, the designation of the batch as California 
gasoline under Sec.  80.1654, exempt gasoline for national security 
purposes under Sec.  80.1655, exempt gasoline for research and 
development under Sec.  80.1656, or for export outside the United 
States.
    (v) The test methodology used.
    (2) Information regarding credits, separately kept according to the 
year of creation; and for credit generation or use starting in 2014. 
Information shall be kept separately for different types of credits 
generated under Sec.  80.1615:
    (i) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer's possession 
at the beginning of the averaging period.

[[Page 30034]]

    (ii) The number of credits generated.
    (iii) The number of credits used.
    (iv) If any credits were obtained from or transferred to other 
parties, all the following for each other party:
    (A) The party's name.
    (B) The party's EPA refiner or importer registration number.
    (C) The number of credits obtained from, or transferred to, the 
party.
    (v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging 
period.
    (vi) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer's 
possession that will carry over into the subsequent averaging period.
    (vii) Contracts or other commercial documents that establish each 
transfer of credits from the transferor to the transferee.
    (3) The calculations used to determine compliance with the 
applicable sulfur average standards of Sec.  80.1603 or Sec.  80.1604.
    (4) The calculations used to determine the number of credits 
generated under Sec.  80.1615.
    (5) A copy of all reports submitted to EPA under Sec.  80.1652.
    (6) In the case of parties who process transmix, records of any 
sampling and testing required under Sec.  80.1607.
    (c) Additional records importers must keep. Any importer shall keep 
records that identify and verify the source of each batch of certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS and non-certified Sulfur-FRGAS imported and demonstrate 
compliance with the requirements for importers under Sec.  80.1666.
    (d) Records that producers of denatured fuel ethanol and other 
oxygenates must keep.
    (1) The date each batch was produced.
    (2) The batch volume and an identification of the test methodology 
used.
    (3) The test results on the sulfur content of each batch and the 
test methodology used.
    (4) The volume percent denaturant used in each batch if the 
oxygenate is denatured fuel ethanol.
    (5) The type and source of the denaturant used in each batch if the 
oxygenate is denatured fuel ethanol.
    (e) Records that parties that take custody of oxygenates must keep. 
All parties that take custody of oxygenate from the oxygenate producer 
through to the oxygenate blender must keep a copy of the product 
transfer document for each batch of oxygenate.
    (f) Length of time records must be kept. The records required under 
this subpart O shall be kept for five years from the date they were 
created; except in the following cases:
    (1) Transfers of credits. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section, records relating to credit transfers shall be kept by the 
transferor for five years from the date the credits are transferred; 
and shall be kept by the transferee for five years from the date the 
credits were transferred, used, or terminated, whichever is later.
    (2) Early credits. (i) Where the party generating the credits does 
not transfer the credits, records must be kept for five years from the 
date of creation, use, or termination, whichever is later.
    (ii) Where early credits are transferred, records relating to such 
credits shall be kept by the transferor for five years from the date 
the credits are transferred; and shall be kept by the transferee for 
five years from the date the credits were transferred, used, or 
terminated, whichever is later.
    (g) Make records available to EPA. On request by EPA, the records 
required in this section shall be provided to the Administrator's 
authorized representative. For records that are electronically 
generated or maintained, the equipment and software necessary to read 
the records shall be made available; or, if requested by EPA, 
electronic records shall be converted to paper documents which shall be 
provided to the Administrator's authorized representative.


Sec.  80.1654  California gasoline requirements.

    (a) California gasoline exemption. California gasoline that 
complies with all the requirements of this section is exempt from all 
other provisions of this subpart O.
    (b) Requirements for California gasoline. (1) Each batch of 
California gasoline must be designated as such by its refiner or 
importer.
    (2) Designated California gasoline must be kept segregated from 
gasoline that is not California gasoline, at all points in the 
distribution system.
    (3) Designated California gasoline must ultimately be used in the 
State of California and not used elsewhere.
    (4) For California gasoline produced outside the State of 
California, the transferors and transferees must meet the product 
transfer document requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
    (5)(i) Any refiner that operates a refinery located outside the 
State of California at which California gasoline (as defined in Sec.  
80.1600) is produced must provide to any person to whom custody or 
title of such gasoline has transferred, and each transferee must 
provide to any subsequent transferee, documents which include all the 
following information:
    (A) The name and address of the transferor.
    (B) The name and address of the transferee.
    (C) The volume of gasoline which is being transferred.
    (D) The location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer.
    (E) The date and time of the transfer.
    (F) The identification of the gasoline as California gasoline.
    (ii) Each refiner and transferee of California gasoline must 
maintain copies of the product transfer documents required to be 
provided by paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section for a period of five 
years from the date of creation and shall deliver such documents to the 
Administrator or to the Administrator's authorized representative upon 
request.
    (6) Gasoline that is ultimately used in any part of the United 
States outside of the State of California must comply with the 
standards and requirements of this subpart, regardless of any 
designation as California gasoline.
    (c) Use of California test methods and offsite sampling procedures. 
In the case of any gasoline that is not California gasoline and that is 
either produced at a refinery located in the State of California or is 
imported from outside the United States into the State of California, 
the refiner or importer may, with regard to such gasoline:
    (1) Use the sampling and testing methods approved in Title 13 of 
the California Code of Regulations instead of the sampling and testing 
methods required under Sec.  80.1630; and
    (2) Determine the sulfur content of gasoline at offsite tankage 
(which would otherwise be prohibited under Sec.  80.65(e)(1)).
    (i) Note that the requirements of Sec.  80.65(e)(1), regarding when 
the properties of a batch of reformulated gasoline must be determined, 
specify that the properties of a batch of gasoline be determined prior 
to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility; however, under 
this section, a refiner of California gasoline may determine the 
properties of gasoline as specified under Sec.  80.65(e)(1) at offsite 
tankage provided that:
    (A) The samples are properly collected under the terms of a current 
and valid protocol agreement between the refiner and the California Air 
Resources Board with regard to sampling at the offsite tankage and 
consistent with the requirements prescribed in Title 13, California 
Code of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003); and

[[Page 30035]]

    (B) The refiner provides a copy of the protocol agreement to EPA 
upon request.
    (ii) [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1655  National security exemption.

    (a) The standards of Sec.  80.1603 do not apply to gasoline that is 
produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for 
supply, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in any of the 
following:
    (1) Tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment having an EPA 
national security exemption from the gasoline emission standards under 
40 CFR part 86.
    (2) Tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment that are not 
subject to a national security exemption from vehicle or engine 
emissions standards as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
but, for national security purposes (for purposes of readiness for 
deployment oversees), need to be fueled on the same gasoline as the 
vehicles, engines, or equipment for which EPA has granted such a 
national security exemption.
    (b) The exempt fuel must meet all the following conditions:
    (1) It must be accompanied by product transfer documents as 
required under Sec.  80.1651.
    (2) It must be segregated from non-exempt gasoline at all points in 
the distribution system.
    (3) It must be dispensed from a fuel pump stand, fueling truck, or 
tank that is labeled with the appropriate designation of the fuel.
    (4) It may not be used in any vehicles, engines, or equipment other 
than those referred to in paragraph (a) of this section.


Sec.  80.1656  Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development, 
or testing purposes.

    (a) Written request for a research and development exemption. Any 
person may receive an exemption from the provisions of this subpart for 
gasoline used for research, development, or testing (``R&D'') purposes 
by submitting the information listed in paragraph (c) of this section 
to EPA. Applications for R&D exemptions must be submitted to one of the 
addresses in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (b) Criteria for a research and development exemption. For a 
research and development exemption to be granted, the person requesting 
an exemption must do all of the following:
    (1) Demonstrate a purpose that constitutes an appropriate basis for 
exemption.
    (2) Demonstrate that an exemption is necessary.
    (3) Design a research and development program that is reasonable in 
scope.
    (4) Have a degree of control consistent with the purpose of the 
program and EPA's monitoring requirements.
    (c) Information required to be submitted. To demonstrate each of 
the elements in paragraph (b) of this section, the person requesting an 
exemption must include all of the following information:
    (1) A concise statement of the purpose of the program demonstrating 
that the program has an appropriate research and development purpose.
    (2) An explanation of why the stated purpose of the program cannot 
be achieved in a practicable manner without performing one or more of 
the prohibited acts under this subpart O.
    (3) All of the following, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the 
scope of the program:
    (i) An estimate of the program's beginning and ending dates.
    (ii) An estimate of the maximum number of vehicles or engines 
involved in the program and the number of miles and engine hours that 
will be accumulated on each.
    (iii) The sulfur content of the gasoline expected to be used in the 
program.
    (iv) The quantity of gasoline which does not comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1603.
    (v) The manner in which the information on vehicles and engines 
used in the program will be recorded and made available to the 
Administrator upon request.
    (4) With regard to control, a demonstration that the program 
affords EPA a monitoring capability, including all the following:
    (i) A description of the technical and operational aspects of the 
program.
    (ii) The site(s) of the program (including facility name, street 
address, city, county, state, and zip code).
    (iii) The manner in which information on the fuel used in the 
program (including quantity, fuel properties, name, address, telephone 
number and contact person of the supplier, and the date received from 
the supplier), will be recorded and made available to the Administrator 
upon request.
    (iv) The manner in which the party will ensure that the research 
and development fuel will be segregated from gasoline meeting the 
standards of this subpart and how fuel pumps will be labeled to ensure 
proper use of the research and development fuel.
    (v) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the person(s) 
in the organization requesting an exemption from whom further 
information on the application may be obtained.
    (vi) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the 
person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption who is 
responsible for recording and making available the information 
specified in this paragraph (c), and the location where such 
information will be maintained.
    (d) Additional requirements. (1) The product transfer documents 
associated with research and development gasoline must comply with 
requirements of Sec.  80.1651(c).
    (2) The research and development gasoline must be designated by the 
refiner or supplier, as applicable, as exempt research and development 
gasoline.
    (3) The research and development gasoline must be kept segregated 
from non-exempt gasoline at all points in the distribution system.
    (4) The research and development gasoline must not be sold, 
distributed, offered for sale or distribution, dispensed, supplied, 
offered for supply, transported to or from, or stored by a fuel retail 
outlet, or by a wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, unless the 
wholesale purchaser-consumer facility is associated with the research 
and development program that uses the gasoline.
    (5) At the completion of the program, any emission control systems 
or elements of design which are damaged or rendered inoperative shall 
be replaced on vehicles remaining in service, or the responsible person 
will be liable for a violation of the Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3) 
(42 U.S.C. 7522 (a)(3)) unless sufficient evidence is supplied that the 
emission controls or elements of design were not damaged.
    (e) Memorandum of exemption. The Administrator will grant an R&D 
exemption upon a demonstration that the requirements of this section 
have been met. The R&D exemption will be granted in the form of a 
memorandum of exemption signed by the applicant and the Administrator 
(or delegate), which may include such terms and conditions as the 
Administrator determines necessary to monitor the exemption and to 
carry out the purposes of this section, including restoration of 
emission control systems.
    (1) The volume of fuel subject to the approval shall not exceed the 
estimated amount under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, unless EPA 
grants a greater amount in writing.
    (2) Any exemption granted under this section will expire at the 
completion of the test program or three years from the date of 
approval, whichever occurs first, and may only be extended upon re-

[[Page 30036]]

application consistent will all requirements of this section.
    (3) EPA may elect at any time to review the information contained 
in the request, and where appropriate may notify the responsible person 
of disapproval of the exemption.
    (4) In granting an exemption the Administrator may include terms 
and conditions, including replacement of emission control devices or 
elements of design, that the Administrator determines are necessary for 
monitoring the exemption and for assuring that the purposes of this 
subpart are met.
    (5) Any violation of a term or condition of the exemption, or of 
any requirement of this section, will cause the exemption to be void ab 
initio.
    (6) If any information required under paragraph (c) of this section 
should change after approval of the exemption, the responsible person 
must notify EPA in writing immediately. Failure to do so may result in 
disapproval of the exemption or may make it void ab initio, and may 
make the party liable for a violation of this subpart O.
    (f) Effects of exemption. Gasoline that is subject to a research 
and development exemption under this section is exempt from other 
provisions of this subpart O provided that the fuel is used in a manner 
that complies with the purpose of the program under paragraph (c) of 
this section and all other requirements of this section.
    (g) Notification of completion. The party shall notify EPA in 
writing within 30 days after completion of the research and development 
program.
    (h) Submission. Requests for research and development exemptions 
shall be sent to one of the following addresses:
    (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA--Attn: Tier 3 Program (R&D Exemption 
Request), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 
Program (R&D Exemption Request), 6406J, 1310 L Street NW., 6th floor, 
Washington, DC 20005.


Sec.  80.1657  [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1658  Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa, 
Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

    The gasoline sulfur standards of this subpart O do not apply to 
gasoline that is produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, 
offered for supply, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in the 
Territories of Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, provided that such gasoline meets all of the following 
requirements:
    (a) The gasoline is designated by the refiner or importer as high 
sulfur gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    (b) The gasoline is used only in Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    (c) The gasoline is accompanied by documentation that complies with 
the product transfer document requirements of Sec.  80.1651(c)(3).
    (d) The gasoline is segregated from non-exempt high sulfur gasoline 
at all points in the distribution system from the point the fuel is 
designated as gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, while the fuel is in the 
United States but outside these Territories.


Sec.  80.1659  [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1660  Prohibited acts.

    No person shall:
    (a) Averaging violation. Produce or import gasoline that does not 
comply with the applicable sulfur average standard under Sec.  80.1603.
    (b) Cap standard violation. Produce, import, sell, offer for sale, 
dispense, supply, offer for supply, store or transport gasoline or 
oxygenate (including any denaturant) that does not comply with the 
applicable sulfur cap standards under Sec.  80.1603, Sec.  80.1604, or 
Sec.  80.1610.
    (c) Causing an averaging or cap standard violation. Cause another 
person to commit an act in violation of paragraph (a), (b), (d), (e), 
(f), (g), or (h) of this section.
    (d) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution system. 
Cause gasoline to be in the distribution system which does not comply 
with an applicable sulfur cap standard under Sec.  80.1603, Sec.  
80.1604, or Sec.  80.1610.
    (e) Oxygenate violation. Starting March 1, 2017, blend into 
gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB any oxygenate, including but not limited to 
denatured ethanol, that has a sulfur content higher than 10 ppm.
    (f) Additive blender violation. Unless acting in the capacity of a 
gasoline refiner or importer under Sec.  80.1613, introduce an additive 
other than an oxygenate compound into gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB which 
contributes more than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished 
gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB.
    (g) Additive manufacturer violation. Cause or contribute to the 
introduction into commerce of a gasoline additive intended to be used 
at less than 1 volume percent which does not comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1613.
    (h) Credit violation. Generate, transfer, or use invalid credits or 
improperly transfer or use credits.
    (i) Failure to meet a requirement. Fail to meet a requirement that 
applies to that person under this subpart.


Sec.  80.1661  What evidence may be used to determine compliance with 
the prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for 
violations of this subpart?

    (a) Compliance with the sulfur standards of this subpart O shall be 
determined based on the sulfur level, measured using the methodologies 
specified in Sec. Sec.  80.47 and 80.1630. Any evidence or information, 
including the exclusive use of such evidence or information, may be 
used to establish the sulfur level of gasoline if the evidence or 
information is relevant to whether the sulfur level would have been in 
compliance with the standards if the appropriate sampling and testing 
methodology had been correctly performed. Such evidence may be obtained 
from any source or location and may include, but is not limited to, 
test results using methods other than those specified in Sec. Sec.  
80.47 and 80.1630, business records, and commercial documents.
    (b) Determinations of compliance with the requirements of this 
subpart other than the sulfur standards, and determinations of 
liability for any violation of this subpart, may be based on 
information obtained from any source or location. Such information may 
include, but is not limited to, business records and commercial 
documents.


Sec.  80.1662  Liability for violations under subpart O.

    The following persons are liable for violations under this subpart:
    (a) Persons liable for violations of prohibited acts--(1) Averaging 
violation. Any refiner or importer who violates Sec.  80.1660(a) is 
liable for the violation.
    (2) Causing an averaging violation. Any refiner, importer, 
distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, 
or oxygenate blender who causes another party to violate Sec.  
80.1660(a), is liable for a violation of Sec.  80.1660(c).
    (3) Cap standard violation. Any refiner, importer, distributor, 
reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, oxygenate 
producer, oxygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender 
who owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised a facility where 
a violation of Sec.  80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of 
Sec.  80.1660(b).

[[Page 30037]]

    (4) Causing a cap standard violation. Any refiner, importer, 
distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, 
oxygenate producer, oxygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or 
additive blender who produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, 
dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, stored, transported, or caused 
the transportation or storage of gasoline that violates Sec.  
80.1660(b), is deemed in violation of Sec.  80.1660(c).
    (5) Branded refiner/importer liability. Any refiner or importer 
whose corporate, trade, or brand name, or whose marketing subsidiary's 
corporate, trade, or brand name appeared at a facility where a 
violation of Sec.  80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of Sec.  
80.1660(b).
    (6) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution system. 
Any refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, oxygenate 
producer, oxygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender 
who owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised a facility from 
which gasoline was released into the distribution system which does not 
comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard or a sulfur averaging 
standard is deemed in violation of Sec.  80.1660(d).
    (7) Carrier causation. In order for a carrier to be liable under 
paragraph (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of this section, EPA must 
demonstrate, by reasonably specific showing by direct or circumstantial 
evidence, that the carrier caused the violation.
    (8) Oxygenate blender violation. Any oxygenate blender who violates 
Sec.  80.1660(e) is liable for the violation.
    (9) Additive manufacturer violation. Any additive manufacturer who 
violates Sec.  80.1660(g) is deemed liable for the violation.
    (10) Additive blender violation. Any additive blender who violates 
Sec.  80.1660(f) is deemed liable for the violation.
    (11) Credit violation. Any refiner or importer who violates Sec.  
80.1660(h) is liable for the violation.
    (12) Parent corporation liability. Any parent corporation is liable 
for any violations of this subpart that are committed by any of its 
wholly-owned subsidiaries.
    (13) Joint venture and joint owner liability. Each partner to a 
joint venture, or each owner of a facility owned by two or more owners, 
is jointly and severally liable for any violation of this subpart that 
occurs at the joint venture facility or facility owned by the joint 
owners, or is committed by the joint venture operation or any of the 
joint owners of the facility.
    (b) Persons liable for failure to meet other provisions of this 
subpart. Any person who:
    (1) Fails to comply with a provision of this subpart not addressed 
in paragraph (a) of this section is liable for a violation of that 
provision.
    (2) Causes another person to fail to meet a requirement of this 
subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section, is liable for 
causing a violation of that provision.


Sec.  80.1663  Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act under 
subpart O.

    (a) Any person deemed liable for a violation of a prohibition under 
Sec.  80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10), will not be deemed in violation if 
the person demonstrates all the following:
    (1) The violation was not caused by the person or the person's 
employee or agent.
    (2) In cases where product transfer document requirements under 
this subpart apply, the product transfer documents account for the fuel 
found to be in violation and indicate that the violating product was in 
compliance with the applicable requirements while in that person's 
control; and
    (3) The person conducted a quality assurance sampling and testing 
program, as described in paragraph (d) of this section. A carrier may 
rely on the quality assurance program carried out by another party, 
including the party who owns the gasoline in question, provided that 
the quality assurance program is carried out properly. Retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers are not required to conduct sampling and 
testing of gasoline as part of their quality assurance programs.
    (b) In the case of a violation found at a facility operating under 
the corporate, trade or brand name of a refiner or importer, or a 
refiner's or importer's marketing subsidiary, the refiner or importer 
must show, in addition to the defense elements required under 
paragraphs (a)(1)through (a)(3) of this section, that the violation was 
caused by any of the following:
    (1) An act in violation of law (other than the Clean Air Act or 
this part 80), or an act of sabotage or vandalism.
    (2) The action of any refiner, importer, retailer, distributor, 
reseller, oxygenate blender, carrier, retailer or wholesale purchaser-
consumer in violation of a contractual agreement between the branded 
refiner or importer and the person designed to prevent such action, and 
despite periodic sampling and testing by the branded refiner or 
importer to ensure compliance with such contractual obligation.
    (3) The action of any carrier or other distributor not subject to a 
contract with the refiner or importer, but engaged for transportation 
of gasoline, despite specifications or inspections of procedures and 
equipment which are reasonably calculated to prevent such action.
    (c) Under paragraph (a) of this section, for any person to show 
that a violation was not caused by that person, or under paragraph (b) 
of this section to show that a violation was caused by any of the 
specified actions, the person must demonstrate by reasonably specific 
showings, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the violation was 
caused or must have been caused by another person and that the person 
asserting the defense did not contribute to that other person's 
causation.
    (d) To demonstrate an acceptable quality assurance and testing 
program under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a person must present 
evidence of all of the following:
    (1) A periodic sampling and testing program to ensure the gasoline 
the person sold, dispensed, supplied, stored, or transported, meets the 
applicable sulfur standard.
    (2) On each occasion when gasoline is found not in compliance with 
the applicable sulfur standard:
    (i) The person immediately ceases selling, offering for sale, 
dispensing, supplying, offering for supply, storing or transporting the 
non-complying product; and
    (ii) The person promptly remedies the violation and the factors 
that caused the violation (for example, by removing the non-complying 
product from the distribution system until the applicable standard is 
achieved and taking steps to prevent future violations of a similar 
nature from occurring).
    (3) For any carrier who transports gasoline in a tank truck, the 
quality assurance program required under this paragraph (d) need not 
include periodic sampling and testing of gasoline in the tank truck, 
but in lieu of such tank truck sampling and testing, the carrier shall 
demonstrate evidence of an oversight program for monitoring compliance 
with the requirements of this subpart relating to the transport or 
storage of gasoline by tank truck, such as appropriate guidance to 
drivers regarding compliance with the applicable sulfur standard and 
product transfer document requirements, and the periodic review of 
records received in the ordinary course of business concerning gasoline 
quality and delivery.

[[Page 30038]]

Sec.  80.1664  [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1665  Penalties.

    (a) Any person liable for a violation under Sec.  80.1662 is 
subject to civil penalties as specified in section 205 of the Clean Air 
Act (42 U.S.C. 7524) for every day of each such violation and the 
amount of economic benefit or savings resulting from each violation.
    (b) Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(a)(1) or (a)(2) for a 
violation of the applicable sulfur averaging standard or causing 
another party to violate that standard during any averaging period, is 
subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the 
averaging period. Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(a)(11) or (b) 
for a failure to fulfill any requirement for credit generation, 
transfer, use, banking, or deficit correction, is subject to a separate 
day of violation for each and every day in the averaging period in 
which invalid credits are generated or used.
    (c)(1) Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10) 
for a violation of an applicable sulfur per gallon cap standard under 
this subpart O or of causing another party to violate a cap standard, 
is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day the 
non-complying gasoline remains any place in the gasoline distribution 
system.
    (2) Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(a)(6) for causing 
gasoline to be in the distribution system which does not comply with an 
applicable sulfur cap standard, or a sulfur averaging standard, is 
subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day that the 
non-complying gasoline remains any place in the gasoline distribution 
system.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph (c), the length of time the 
gasoline in question remained in the gasoline distribution system is 
deemed to be twenty-five days, unless a person subject to liability or 
EPA demonstrates by reasonably specific showings, by direct or 
circumstantial evidence, that the non-complying gasoline remained in 
the gasoline distribution system for fewer than or more than twenty-
five days.
    (d) Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(b) for failure to meet, 
or causing a failure to meet, a provision of this subpart is liable for 
a separate day of violation for each and every day such provision 
remains unfulfilled.


Sec.  80.1666  Additional requirements for foreign small refiners and 
foreign small volume refineries.

    The provisions of this section apply to certain foreign refiners 
and importers during the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 
2019. After December 31, 2019, foreign refiners are not subject to 
compliance requirements under subpart H of this part, or this subpart 
O; instead, the importer of any foreign-produced gasoline shall be 
responsible for compliance with the standards and requirements of this 
subpart O that relate to importers.
    (a) Definitions--(1) Foreign small refiner is a foreign refiner 
that meets the definition of a small refiner under Sec.  80.1620.
    (2) Foreign small volume refinery is a foreign refinery that meets 
the definition of a small volume refinery under Sec.  80.1621.
    (3) Sulfur-FRGAS, for this subpart, means gasoline produced from 
January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, at a foreign refinery of a 
refiner that has been approved as a small refiner or a small volume 
refinery under Sec.  80.1622, and that is imported into the United 
States.
    (4) Non-Sulfur-FRGAS means gasoline that is produced at a foreign 
refinery that has not been approved as a small refiner refinery or 
small volume refinery under Sec.  80.1622, gasoline produced at a 
foreign refinery of an approved small refiner or at an approved small 
volume refinery under Sec.  80.1622 that is not imported into the 
United States, and gasoline produced at a foreign refinery that is 
approved during a year when the foreign refiner has opted to not 
participate in the Sulfur-FRGAS program under paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section.
    (5) Certified Sulfur-FRGAS means Sulfur-FRGAS the foreign refiner 
intends to include in the foreign refinery's sulfur compliance 
calculations under Sec. Sec.  80.195 and 80.205 and does include in 
these compliance calculations when reported to EPA.
    (6) Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS means Sulfur-FRGAS that is not 
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (b) Petition for approval of small refiner or small volume refinery 
status. To be approved for small refiner status or small volume 
refinery status a foreign refiner must submit a petition for approval 
as provided under Sec.  80.1622 and this section. If small refiner 
status or small volume refinery status is approved, the foreign refiner 
may produce gasoline for export to the United States, during the period 
starting January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2019, that is subject 
to the sulfur content standards of subpart H of this part at Sec.  
80.195 that were applicable to refiners from 2006 through 2016. A 
foreign refiner is not eligible to generate sulfur credits under 
subpart H of this part or this subpart O, as this occurs through the 
importer.
    (c) General requirements for foreign refiners approved as small 
refiners or small volume refinery status. A foreign refiner of a 
refinery that has been approved as a small refiner refinery or a small 
volume refinery must designate all gasoline produced at the foreign 
refinery that is exported to the United States as either Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, except as provided in 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (1) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, the foreign refiner must 
meet the sulfur standards of subpart H of this part as described in 
paragraph (b) of this section and the requirements of this section.
    (2) In the case of Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, the foreign refiner 
shall meet all the following provisions, except the foreign refiner 
shall substitute the name Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS for the names 
``reformulated gasoline'' or ``RBOB'' wherever they appear in the 
following provisions:
    (i) The designation requirements in this section.
    (ii) The recordkeeping requirements under Sec.  80.1653.
    (iii) The reporting requirements in Sec.  80.1652 and this section.
    (iv) The product transfer document requirements in Sec.  80.1651 
and this section.
    (v) The prohibitions in Sec.  80.1660 and this section.
    (vi) The independent audit requirements under Sec.  80.415 and 
paragraph (h) of this section; and the attest engagement provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  80.125 through 80.127, Sec.  80.128(a), (b), (c), and (g) 
through (i), and Sec.  80.130.
    (3)(i) Any foreign refiner that has been approved as a small 
refiner or whose refinery has been approved as a small volume refinery 
under this subpart O may elect to classify no gasoline imported into 
the United States as Sulfur-FRGAS, provided the foreign refiner 
notifies EPA of the election no later than November 1 of the prior 
calendar year.
    (ii) An election under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section shall 
meet all of the following requirements:
    (A) Apply to an entire calendar year averaging period, and apply to 
all gasoline produced during the calendar year at the foreign refinery 
that is used in the United States.
    (B) Remain in effect for each succeeding calendar year averaging 
period, unless and until the foreign refiner notifies EPA of a 
termination of the election. The change in election

[[Page 30039]]

shall take effect at the beginning of the next calendar year.
    (d) Designation, product transfer documents, and foreign refiner 
certification. (1) Any approved foreign small refiner or any foreign 
refiner having an approved small volume refinery under this subpart O 
must designate each batch of Sulfur-FRGAS as such at the time the 
gasoline is produced, unless the refinery has elected to classify no 
gasoline exported to the United States as Sulfur-FRGAS under paragraph 
(c)(3)(i) of this section.
    (2) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to 
any Sulfur-FRGAS prior to its being imported into the United States, it 
must include all the following information as part of the product 
transfer document information in this section:
    (i) Identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as 
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (ii) The name and EPA refinery registration number of the refinery 
where the Sulfur-FRGAS was produced.
    (3) On each occasion when Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or 
other transportation mode for transport to the United States, the 
foreign refiner shall prepare a certification for each batch of the 
Sulfur-FRGAS that meets all of the following requirements:
    (i) The certification shall include the report of the independent 
third party under paragraph (f) of this section, and all of the 
following additional information:
    (A) The name and EPA registration number of the refinery that 
produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (B) The identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or 
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (C) The volume of Sulfur-FRGAS being transported, in gallons.
    (D) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS:
    (1) The sulfur content as determined under paragraph (f) of this 
section; and
    (2) A declaration that the Sulfur-FRGAS is being included in the 
compliance calculations under Sec.  80.205 for the refinery that 
produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (ii) The certification shall be made part of the product transfer 
documents for the Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (e) Transfers of Sulfur-FRGAS to non-United States markets. The 
foreign refiner is responsible to ensure that all gasoline classified 
as Sulfur-FRGAS is imported into the United States. A foreign refiner 
may remove the Sulfur-FRGAS classification, and the gasoline need not 
be imported into the United States, but only if:
    (1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes the volume and sulfur content 
of the gasoline from the compliance calculations under Sec.  80.205.
    (ii) The exclusions under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall 
be on the basis of the sulfur content and volumes determined under 
paragraph (f) of this section; and
    (2) The foreign refiner obtains sufficient evidence in the form of 
documentation that the gasoline was not imported into the United 
States.
    (f) Load port independent sampling, testing and refinery 
identification. (1) On each occasion Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a 
vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have 
an independent third party do all of the following:
    (i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading and determine the volume of 
any tank bottoms.
    (ii) Determine the volume of Sulfur-FRGAS loaded onto the vessel 
(exclusive of any tank bottoms present before vessel loading).
    (iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign 
refinery.
    (iv) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel 
used to transport the Sulfur-FRGAS to the United States.
    (v) Determine the date and time the vessel departs the port serving 
the foreign refinery.
    (2) On each occasion Certified Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel 
for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have an 
independent third party:
    (i) Collect a representative sample of the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 
from each vessel compartment subsequent to loading on the vessel and 
prior to departure of the vessel from the port serving the foreign 
refinery.
    (ii) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the 
compartment samples, and determine the value for sulfur in accordance 
with the methodology and requirements specified in Sec.  80.1630, by 
either of the following:
    (A) The third party analyzing the sample.
    (B) The third party observing the foreign refiner analyzing the 
sample.
    (iii) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage 
of the certified Sulfur-FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, and 
from this review determine all of the following:
    (A) The refinery at which the Sulfur-FRGAS was produced.
    (B) That the Sulfur-FRGAS remained segregated from all of the 
following:
    (1) Non-Sulfur-FRGAS and Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (2) Other Certified Sulfur-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
    (3) The independent third party shall submit a report:
    (i) To the foreign refiner containing the information required 
under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, to accompany the 
product transfer documents for the vessel; and
    (ii) To the Administrator containing the information required under 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, within thirty days following 
the date of the independent third party's inspection. This report shall 
include a description of the method used to determine the identity of 
the refinery at which the gasoline was produced, assurance that the 
gasoline remained segregated as specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this 
section, and a description of the gasoline's movement and storage 
between production at the source refinery and vessel loading.
    (4) The independent third party must do all of the following:
    (i) Be approved in advance by EPA, based on a demonstration of 
ability to perform the procedures required in this paragraph (f).
    (ii) Be independent under the criteria specified in Sec.  
80.65(f)(2)(iii).
    (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in 
paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities, facilities and 
documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of this 
paragraph (f).
    (g) Comparison of load port and port of entry testing. (1)(i) 
Except as described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, any 
foreign refiner and any United States importer of Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS shall compare the results from the load port testing under 
paragraph (f) of this section, with the port of entry testing as 
reported under paragraph (o) of this section, for the volume of 
gasoline and the sulfur value.
    (ii) Where a vessel transporting Certified Sulfur-FRGAS off loads 
this gasoline at more than one United States port of entry, and the 
conditions of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met at the first 
United States port of entry, the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of 
this section do not apply at subsequent ports of entry if the United 
States importer obtains a certification from the vessel owner, meeting 
the requirements of paragraph (r) of this section that the vessel has 
not loaded any gasoline or blendstock between the first United States 
port of entry and the subsequent port of entry.
    (2)(i) The requirements of this paragraph (g)(2) apply if:
    (A) The temperature-corrected volumes determined at the port of 
entry

[[Page 30040]]

and at the load port differ by more than one percent; or
    (B) The sulfur value determined at the port of entry is higher than 
the sulfur value determined at the load port, and the amount of this 
difference is greater than the reproducibility amount specified for the 
port of entry test result by ASTM ASTM.
    (ii) The United States importer and the foreign refiner shall treat 
the gasoline as Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, and the foreign refiner 
shall exclude the gasoline volume and properties from its gasoline 
sulfur compliance calculations under Sec.  80.205.
    (h) Attest requirements. All of the following additional procedures 
shall be carried out by any foreign refiner of Sulfur-FRGAS as part of 
the applicable attest engagement for each foreign refinery under Sec.  
80.415:
    (1) The inventory reconciliation analysis under the attest 
engagement provisions of Sec.  80.128(b) and the tender analysis under 
Sec.  80.128(c) shall include Non-Sulfur-FRGAS in addition to the 
gasoline types listed in Sec.  80.128(b) and (c).
    (2) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS, and of Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. Agree the total volume of 
tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory reconciliation 
analysis in the attest engagement provisions of Sec.  80.128(b), and to 
the volumes determined by the third party under paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section.
    (3) For each tender under paragraph (h)(2) of this section where 
the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as a finding the 
name and country of registration of each vessel, and the volumes of 
Sulfur-FRGAS loaded onto each vessel.
    (4) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement guidelines in Sec.  
80.127, and for each vessel selected perform all of the following:
    (i) Obtain the report of the independent third party, under 
paragraph (f) of this section, and of the United States importer under 
paragraph (n) of this section.
    (A) Agree the information in these reports with regard to vessel 
identification, gasoline volumes and test results.
    (B) Identify, and report as a finding, each occasion the load port 
and port of entry parameter and volume results differ by more than the 
amounts allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, and determine whether 
the foreign refiner adjusted its refinery calculations as required in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (ii) Obtain the documents used by the independent third party to 
determine transportation and storage of the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS from 
the refinery to the load port, under paragraph (f) of this section. 
Obtain tank activity records for any storage tank where the Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS is stored, and pipeline activity records for any pipeline 
used to transport the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, prior to being loaded 
onto the vessel. Use these records to determine whether the Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS was produced at the refinery that is the subject of the 
attest engagement, and whether the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS was mixed 
with any Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, or any Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
    (5) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport certified and Non-
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement 
guidelines of Sec.  80.127, and for each vessel selected perform the 
following:
    (i) Obtain a commercial document of general circulation that lists 
vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port and date of 
departure of the vessel, and the port of entry and date of arrival of 
the vessel.
    (ii) Agree the vessel's departure and arrival locations and dates 
from the independent third party and United States importer reports to 
the information contained in the commercial document.
    (6) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, 
and perform all of the following:
    (i) Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the 
gasoline inventory reconciliation analysis in Sec.  80.128(b).
    (ii) Obtain a separate listing of the tenders under paragraph 
(h)(6) of this section where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine 
vessel. Select a sample from this listing in accordance with the 
guidelines in Sec.  80.127, and obtain a commercial document of general 
circulation that lists vessel arrivals and departures, and that 
includes the port and date of departure and the ports and dates where 
the gasoline was off loaded for the selected vessels. Determine and 
report as a finding the country where the gasoline was off loaded for 
each vessel selected.
    (7) In order to complete the requirements of this paragraph (h) an 
auditor must:
    (i) Be independent of the foreign refiner.
    (ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the United 
States and a citizen of the United States, or be approved in advance by 
EPA based on a demonstration of ability to perform the procedures 
required in the attest engagement provisions of Sec. Sec.  80.125 
through 80.130, 80.415 and this paragraph (h).
    (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in 
paragraph (h) of this section with regard to activities and documents 
relevant to compliance with the requirements of the attest engagement 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  80.125 through 80.130, 80.415 and this 
paragraph (h).
    (i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any foreign refiner shall commit 
to and comply with the provisions contained in this paragraph (i) as a 
condition to being approved for small refiner status or small volume 
refinery status.
    (1) Any United States Environmental Protection Agency inspector or 
auditor will be given full, complete and immediate access to conduct 
inspections and audits of the foreign refinery.
    (i) Inspections and audits may be either announced in advance by 
EPA, or unannounced.
    (ii) Access will be provided to any location where:
    (A) Gasoline is produced;
    (B) Documents related to refinery operations are kept;
    (C) Gasoline or blendstock samples are tested or stored; and
    (D) Sulfur-FRGAS is stored or transported between the foreign 
refinery and the United States, including storage tanks, vessels and 
pipelines.
    (iii) Inspections and audits may be by EPA employees or contractors 
to EPA.
    (iv) Any documents requested that are related to matters covered by 
inspections and audits will be provided to an EPA inspector or auditor 
on request.
    (v) Inspections and audits by EPA may include review and copying of 
any documents related to all of the following:
    (A) Approval of the refiner as a small refiner or approval of the 
refinery as a small volume refinery.
    (B) The volume and sulfur content of Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (C) The proper classification of gasoline as being Sulfur-FRGAS or 
as not being Sulfur-FRGAS, or as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (D) Transfers of title or custody to Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (E) Sampling and testing of Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (F) Work performed and reports prepared by independent third 
parties

[[Page 30041]]

and by independent auditors under the requirements of this section and 
Sec.  80.415, including work papers.
    (G) Reports prepared for submission to EPA, and any work papers 
related to such reports.
    (vi) Inspections and audits by EPA may include taking samples of 
gasoline or blendstock, and interviewing employees.
    (vii) Any employee of the foreign refiner must be made available 
for interview by the EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within a 
reasonable time period.
    (viii) English language translations of any documents must be 
provided to an EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within 10 working 
days.
    (ix) English language interpreters must be provided to accompany 
EPA inspectors and auditors, on request.
    (2) An agent for service of process located in the District of 
Columbia will be named, and service on this agent constitutes service 
on the foreign refiner or any employee of the foreign refiner for any 
action by EPA or otherwise by the United States related to the 
requirements of this subpart O.
    (3) The forum for any civil or criminal enforcement action related 
to the provisions of this section for violations of the Clean Air Act 
or regulations promulgated thereunder shall be governed by the Clean 
Air Act, including the EPA administrative forum where allowed under the 
Clean Air Act.
    (4) United States substantive and procedural laws shall apply to 
any civil or criminal enforcement action against the foreign refiner or 
any employee of the foreign refiner related to the provisions of this 
section.
    (5) Submitting a petition for approval as a small refiner or for 
small volume refinery status, producing and exporting gasoline under 
such approval, and all other actions to comply with the requirements of 
this subpart O constitute actions or activities that satisfy the 
provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2), but solely with respect to actions 
instituted against the foreign refiner, its agents and employees in any 
court or other tribunal in the United States for conduct that violates 
the requirements applicable to the foreign refiner under this subpart 
O, including conduct that violates 18 U.S.C. 1001 or Clean Air Act 
section 113(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2)).
    (6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or employees, must not seek 
to detain or to impose civil or criminal remedies against EPA 
inspectors or auditors, whether EPA employees or EPA contractors, for 
actions performed within the scope of EPA employment related to the 
provisions of this section.
    (7) The commitment required by this paragraph (i) must be signed by 
the owner or president of the foreign refiner business.
    (8) In any case where FRGAS produced at a foreign refinery is 
stored or transported by another company between the refinery and the 
vessel that transports the Sulfur-FRGAS to the United States, the 
foreign refiner shall obtain from each such other company a commitment 
that meets the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) 
of this section.
    (j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting a petition for approval as a 
small refiner or approval of a small volume refinery under this subpart 
O and this section, or by producing and exporting gasoline to the 
United States under such an approval under this section, the foreign 
refiner, its agents and employees, without exception, become subject to 
the full operation of the administrative and judicial enforcement 
powers and provisions of the United States without limitation based on 
sovereign immunity, with respect to actions instituted against the 
foreign refiner, its agents and employees in any court or other 
tribunal in the United States for conduct that violates the 
requirements applicable to the foreign refiner under this subpart O, 
including conduct that violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 1001 or Clean 
Air Act section 113(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2)).
    (k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner must meet the requirements of 
this paragraph (k) as a condition to being approved for small refiner 
or small volume refinery status.
    (l) The foreign refiner shall post a bond of the amount calculated 
using the following equation:

Bond = G x $0.01

Where:

Bond = Amount of the bond in U. S. dollars.
G = The largest volume of gasoline produced at the foreign refinery 
and exported to the United States, in gallons, during a single 
calendar year among the most recent of the following calendar years, 
up to a maximum of three calendar years: The calendar year 
immediately preceding the date the approval petition is submitted, 
the calendar year the approval petition is submitted, and each 
succeeding calendar year.

    (2) Bonds shall be posted by performing any of the following:
    (i) Paying the amount of the bond to the Treasurer of the United 
States.
    (ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper amount from a third party 
surety agent that is payable to satisfy United States administrative or 
judicial judgments against the foreign refiner, provided EPA agrees in 
advance as to the third party and the nature of the surety agreement.
    (iii) An alternative commitment that results in assets of an 
appropriate liquidity and value being readily available to the United 
States, provided EPA agrees in advance as to the alternative 
commitment.
    (3) If the bond amount for a foreign refinery increases, the 
foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the shortfall within 
90 days of the date the bond amount changes. If the bond amount 
decreases, the foreign refiner may reduce the amount of the bond 
beginning 90 days after the date the bond amount changes.
    (4) Bonds posted under this paragraph (k) shall:
    (i) Be used to satisfy any judicial judgment that results from an 
administrative or judicial enforcement action for conduct in violation 
of this subpart O, including where such conduct violates Title 18 
U.S.C. section 1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 
7413(c)(2));
    (ii) Be provided by a corporate surety that is listed in the United 
States Department of the Treasury Circular 570 ``Companies Holding 
Certificates of Authority as the Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds 
and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies'' (Available from the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Surety Bond 
Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD, 20782. Also 
available on the internet at https://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html); 
and
    (iii) Include a commitment that the bond will remain in effect for 
at least five years following the end of latest averaging period that 
the foreign refiner produces gasoline pursuant to the requirements of 
this subpart O.
    (5) On any occasion a foreign refiner bond is used to satisfy any 
judgment, the foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the 
amount used within 90 days of the date the bond is used.
    (l) English language reports. Any report or other document 
submitted to EPA by any foreign refiner must be in English, or must 
include an English language translation.
    (m) Prohibitions. (1) No person may combine Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 
with any Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, and no person 
may combine Certified Sulfur-FRGAS with any Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 
produced at a different refinery, until the importer has met all the 
requirements of paragraph (n) of this section, except as provided in 
paragraph (e) of this section.

[[Page 30042]]

    (2) No foreign refiner or other person may cause another person to 
commit an action prohibited in paragraph (m)(1) of this section, or 
that otherwise violates the requirements of this section.
    (n) United States importer requirements. Any United States importer 
shall meet the following requirements:
    (1) Each batch of imported gasoline shall be classified by the 
importer as being Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, and each batch 
classified as Sulfur-FRGAS shall be further classified as Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (2) Gasoline shall be classified as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as 
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS according to the designation by the foreign 
refiner if this designation is supported by product transfer documents 
prepared by the foreign refiner as required in paragraph (d) of this 
section, unless the gasoline is classified as Non-Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) For each gasoline batch classified as Sulfur-FRGAS, any United 
States importer shall perform the following procedures:
    (i) In the case of both Certified and Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, 
have an independent third party:
    (A) Determine the volume of gasoline in the vessel.
    (B) Use the foreign refiner's Sulfur-FRGAS certification to 
determine the name and EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign 
refinery that produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (C) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel 
used to transport the Sulfur-FRGAS to the United States.
    (D) Determine the date and time the vessel arrives at the United 
States port of entry.
    (ii) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, have an independent 
third party:
    (A) Collect a representative sample from each vessel compartment 
subsequent to the vessel's arrival at the United States port of entry 
and prior to off loading any gasoline from the vessel.
    (B) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the 
compartment samples.
    (C) Determine the sulfur value using the methodologies specified in 
Sec.  80.1630, by:
    (1) The third party analyzing the sample; or
    (2) The third party observing the importer analyzing the sample.
    (4) Any importer shall submit reports within thirty days following 
the date any vessel transporting Sulfur-FRGAS arrives at the United 
States port of entry:
    (i) To the Administrator containing the information determined 
under paragraph (n)(3) of this section; and
    (ii) To the foreign refiner containing the information determined 
under paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
    (5) Any United States importer shall meet the applicable 
requirements of this subpart O, including sulfur content standards 
specified in Sec.  80.1603, for any imported gasoline that is not 
classified as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS under paragraph (n)(2) of this 
section.
    (o) Truck imports of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS produced by a foreign 
small refiner or foreign small volume refinery. (1) Any refiner whose 
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS is transported into the United States by truck 
may petition EPA to use alternative procedures to meet all of the 
following requirements:
    (i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
    (ii) Load port and port of entry sampling and testing under 
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section.
    (iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this section.
    (iv) Importer testing under paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
    (2) These alternative procedures must ensure Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 
remains segregated from Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS and from Non-Sulfur-
FRGAS until it is imported into the United States. The petition will be 
evaluated based on whether it adequately addresses all of the 
following:
    (i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline shipments, if applicable, 
from the refinery, that ensure segregation of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 
from that refinery from all other gasoline.
    (ii) Contracts with any terminals and/or pipelines that receive 
and/or transport Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, that prohibit the commingling 
of such Certified Sulfur-FRGAS with any of the following:
    (A) Other Certified Sulfur-FRGAS from other refineries.
    (B) All Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (C) All Non-Sulfur-FRGAS
    (iii) Procedures for obtaining and reviewing truck loading records 
and United States import documents for Certified Sulfur-FRGAS to ensure 
that such gasoline is only loaded into trucks making deliveries to the 
United States.
    (iv) Attest procedures to be conducted annually by an independent 
third party that review loading records and import documents based on 
volume reconciliation, or other criteria, to confirm that all Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS remains segregated throughout the distribution system and 
is only loaded into trucks for import into the United States.
    (3) The petition required by this section must be submitted to EPA 
along with the application for small refiner status or small volume 
refinery status under Sec.  80.1622 and this section.
    (p) Withdrawal or suspension of a foreign refinery's small refiner 
or small volume refinery status approval. EPA may withdraw or suspend 
approval where any of the following occur:
    (1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any requirement of this 
section.
    (2) A foreign government fails to allow EPA inspections as provided 
in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
    (3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, or a right to claim, 
sovereign immunity in an action to enforce the requirements in this 
subpart O.
    (4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil or criminal penalty that 
is not satisfied using the foreign refiner bond specified in paragraph 
(k) of this section.
    (q) [Reserved]
    (r) Additional requirements for petitions, reports and 
certificates. Any petition for approval, any alternative procedures 
under paragraph (o) of this section, and any certification under 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be:
    (1) Submitted in accordance with procedures specified by the 
Administrator, including use of any forms that may be specified by the 
Administrator; and
    (2) Be signed by the president or owner of the foreign refiner 
company, or by that person's immediate designee, and shall contain the 
following declaration:
    I hereby certify: (1) That I have actual authority to sign on 
behalf of and to bind [insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to 
all statements contained herein; (2) that I am aware that the 
information contained herein is being certified, or submitted to the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR Part 80, subparts H and O, and that the 
information is material for determining compliance under these 
regulations; and (3) that I have read and understand the information 
being certified or submitted, and this information is true, complete 
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief after I have taken 
reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the accuracy thereof.
    I affirm that I have read and understand the provisions of 40 CFR 
Part 80, subpart O, including 40 CFR 80.1666 [insert name of foreign 
refiner]. Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and Title 18, United 
States Code, section 1001, the penalty for furnishing false, incomplete 
or misleading information in this certification or

[[Page 30043]]

submission is a fine of up to $10,000, and/or imprisonment for up to 
five years.


Sec.  80.1667  Attest engagement requirements.

    In addition to the requirements for attest engagements that apply 
to refiners and importers under Sec. Sec.  80.125 through 80.130, and 
80.1666, the attest engagements for importers and refiners must include 
the following procedures and requirements each year.
    (a) Refiners subject to national standards and Small refiner and 
Small Volume Refinery Status. (1) If the refiner asserts small refinery 
status or small volume refinery status for the refinery, obtain the EPA 
approval letter for the refinery to determine the refinery's applicable 
annual average standard and credit generation status.
    (2) Determine whether the refinery applied the correct annual 
average sulfur standard and whether it was eligible to generate credits 
and report the finding.
    (3) If the annual average sulfur standard is incorrect or credit 
generation was inappropriate, recalculate compliance using the 
appropriate sulfur standard and using appropriate credits and report as 
a finding.
    (b) EPA reports. (1) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or 
importer's annual sulfur reports filed with EPA for the year.
    (2) Agree the yearly volume of gasoline reported to EPA in the 
sulfur reports with the inventory reconciliation analysis under the 
attest engagement provisions of Sec.  80.128.
    (3) Calculate the annual average sulfur level for all gasoline and 
agree that value with the value reported to EPA.
    (4) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or importer's sulfur 
credit report.
    (5) Agree the information in the refinery's or importer's batch 
reports filed with EPA under Sec. Sec.  80.75 and 80.105, and any 
laboratory test results, with the information contained in the annual 
sulfur report required under Sec.  80.1652.
    (c) Credit generation before 2017. In the case of a refinery that 
generates credits during 2014 through 2016:
    (1) Obtain a written representation from the company representative 
stating the refinery produces gasoline from crude oil.
    (2) Obtain the annual average sulfur level from paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section.
    (3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur 
credits generated, and agree this value with the value reported to EPA.
    (d) Credit generation in 2017 and thereafter. The following 
procedures shall be completed for a refinery or importer that generates 
credits in 2017 and thereafter:
    (1) Obtain the annual average sulfur level for gasoline from 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (2) If the sulfur value under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is 
less than 10 ppm, compute and report as a finding the difference 
between the sulfur level under paragraph (d)(1) of this section and 10 
ppm.
    (3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur 
credits generated, and agree this number with the number reported to 
EPA.
    (e) Credit purchases and sales. The following attest procedures 
shall be completed for a refinery or importer that is a transferor or 
transferee of credits during an averaging period:
    (1) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits transferred 
to another refinery or importer during the year being reviewed; compute 
and report as a finding the number and year of creation of credits 
represented in these documents as being transferred away; and agree 
with the report to EPA.
    (2) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits received 
during the year being reviewed; compute and report as a finding the 
number and year of creation of credits represented in these documents 
as being received; and agree with the report to EPA.
    (f) Credit expiration. A refinery or importer that possesses 
credits during an averaging period must obtain a list of all credits in 
the refiner's or importer's possession at any time during the year 
being reviewed, identified by the year of creation of the credits.
    (g) Credit reconciliation. The following attest procedures shall be 
completed each year credits were in the refiner's or importer's 
possession at any time during the year:
    (1) Obtain the credits remaining or the credit deficit from the 
previous year from the refiner's or importer's report to EPA for the 
previous year.
    (2) Compute and report as a finding the net credits remaining at 
the conclusion of the year being reviewed by totaling:
    (i) Credits remaining from the previous year; plus
    (ii) Credits generated under in an averaging period; plus
    (iii) Credits purchased; minus
    (iv) Credits sold; minus
    (v) Credits used; minus
    (vi) Credits expiring; minus
    (vii) Credit deficit from the previous year.
    (3) Agree the credits remaining or the credit deficit at the 
conclusion of the year being reviewed with the report to EPA.
    (4) If the refinery or importer had a credit deficit for both the 
previous year and the year being reviewed, report this fact as a 
finding.


Sec. Sec.  80.1668-80.1674  [Reserved]


Sec.  80.1675  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that 
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material 
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for 
inspection 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. This material is also 
available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742. Also, this material is available from the source listed in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C-700, West 
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 (1-800-262-1373, www.astm.org).
    (1) ASTM D 4814-11 (``ASTM D 4814''), Standard Specification for 
Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, Approved 2011; IBR approved for 
Sec.  80.177.
    (2) ASTM D 4057-95 (``ASTM D 4507''), Approved 1995; IBR approved 
for Sec.  80.1630.
    (3) ASTM D 4177-95 (``ASTM D 4177''), Approved 1995; IBR approved 
for Sec.  80.1630.
    (4) ASTM D 5842-95 (``ASTM D 5842''), Approved 1995; IBR approved 
for Sec.  80.1630.

PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES

0
38. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
39. Section 85.510 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 30044]]

Sec.  85.510  Exemption provisions for new and relatively new vehicles/
engines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) OBD requirements. (i) The OBD system must properly detect and 
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain 
systems or components including any new monitoring capability necessary 
to identify potential emission problems associated with the new fuel.
    (ii) Conduct all OBD testing necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with 40 CFR 86.010-18 or 86.1806-05.
    (iii) Submit the applicable OBD reporting requirements set forth in 
40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S, and submit the following statement of 
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
    The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has 
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements 
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *
0
40. Section 85.515 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9)(iii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  85.515  Exemption provisions for intermediate age vehicles/
engines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this 
paragraph (b)(9), you must submit to EPA the following statement of 
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
    The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has 
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements 
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *
0
41. Section 85.520 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  85.520  Exemption provisions for outside useful life vehicles/
engines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this 
paragraph (b)(4), you must submit to EPA the following statement of 
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
    The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has 
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements 
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *

Subpart P--[Amended]

0
42. Section 85.1515 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  85.1515  Emission standards and test procedures applicable to 
imported nonconforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.

    (a) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subpart, any 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conditionally imported pursuant 
to Sec.  85.1505 or Sec.  85.1509 and required to be emission tested 
shall be tested using the FCT at 40 CFR part 86 applicable to current 
model year motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines at the time of 
testing or reduced testing requirements as follows:
    (1) ICIs are eligible for reduced testing under this paragraph (a) 
subject to the following conditions:
    (i) The OEM must have a valid certificate of conformity covering 
the vehicle.
    (ii) The vehicle must be in its original configuration as certified 
by the OEM. This applies for all emission-related components, including 
the electronic control module, engine calibrations, and all 
evaporative/refueling control hardware. It also applies for OBD 
software and hardware, including all sensors and actuators.
    (iii) The vehicle modified as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 
this section must fully comply with all applicable emission standards 
and requirements.
    (iv) Vehicles must have the proper OBD systems installed and 
operating. When faults are present, the ICI must test and verify the 
system's ability to find the faults (such as disconnected components), 
set codes, and illuminate the light, and set readiness codes as 
appropriate for each vehicle. When no fault is present, the ICI must 
verify that after sufficient prep driving (typically one FTP test 
cycle), all OBD readiness codes are set and the OBD system does not 
indicate a malfunction (i.e., no codes set and no light illuminated).
    (v) The ICI may not modify more than 300 vehicles in any given 
model year using reduced testing provisions in this paragraph (a).
    (vi) The ICI must state in the application for certification that 
it will meet all the conditions in this paragraph (a)(1).
    (2) The following provisions allow for ICIs to certify vehicles 
with reduced testing:
    (i) In addition to the test waivers specified in 40 CFR 86.1829, 
you may provide a statement in the application for certification, 
supported by engineering analysis, that vehicles comply with any of the 
following standards that apply instead of submitting test data:
    (A) Cold temperature CO and NMHC emission standards specified in 40 
CFR 86.1811.
    (B) SFTP emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816 
for all pollutants.
    (C) For anything other than diesel-fueled vehicles, PM emission 
standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816.
    (D) Any running loss, refueling, spitback, bleed emissions, and 
leak standards specified in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S.
    (ii) You must perform testing and submit test data as follows to 
demonstrate compliance with emission standards:
    (A) Exhaust and fuel economy tests. You must measure emissions over 
the FTP driving cycle and the highway fuel economy driving cycle as 
specified in 40 CFR 600.109 to meet the fuel economy requirements in 40 
CFR part 600 and demonstrate compliance with the exhaust emission 
standards in 40 CFR part 86 (other than PM). Measure exhaust emissions 
and fuel economy with the same test procedures used by the original 
manufacturer to test the vehicle for certification. However, you must 
use an electric dynamometer meeting the requirements of Sec.  86.108 or 
40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, unless we approve a different dynamometer 
based on excessive compliance costs. If you certify based on testing 
with a different dynamometer, you must state in the application for 
certification that all vehicles in the emission family will comply with 
emission standards if tested on an electric dynamometer.
    (B) Evaporative emission test. You may measure evaporative 
emissions as specified in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) to demonstrate 
compliance with the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 
instead of the otherwise specified procedures. Use measurement 
equipment for evaporative measurements specified in 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart B, except that the evaporative emission enclosure does not need 
to accommodate varying ambient temperatures. The evaporative 
measurement procedure is integral to the procedure for measuring 
exhaust emissions over the FTP driving cycle as described in paragraph 
(a)(ii)(2)(A) of this section. Perform canister preconditioning using 
the same

[[Page 30045]]

procedure used by the original manufacturer to certify the vehicle; 
perform this canister loading before the initial preconditioning drive. 
Perform a diurnal emission test at the end of the stabilization period 
before the exhaust emission test by heating the fuel from 60 to 84 
[deg]F, either by exposing the vehicle to increasing ambient 
temperatures or by applying heat directly to the fuel tank. Measure hot 
soak emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.138-96(k). We may approve 
alternative measurement procedures that are equivalent to or more 
stringent than the specified procedures if the specified procedures are 
impractical for particular vehicle models or measurement facilities. 
The sum of the measured diurnal and hot soak values must meet the 
appropriate emission standard as specified in this section.
    (b) The emission standards applicable to nonconforming light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks imported pursuant to this subpart are 
outlined in tables 1 and 2 of this section, respectively. The useful 
life as specified in tables 1 and 2 of this section is applicable to 
imported light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, respectively.
    (c)(1) Nonconforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines of 
1994 OP year and later conditionally imported pursuant to Sec.  85.1505 
or Sec.  85.1509 shall meet all of the emission standards specified in 
40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle or motor vehicle engine. 
The useful life specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine is applicable where useful life 
is not designated in this subpart.
    (2)(i) Nonconforming light-duty vehicles and light light-duty 
trucks (LDV/LLDTs) originally manufactured in OP years 2004, 2005 or 
2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 9 in Tables 
S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the evaporative emission 
standards for light-duty vehicles and light light-duty trucks specified 
in 40 CFR 86.1811-01(e)(5).
    (ii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium-duty 
passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally manufactured in OP years 2004 
through 2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in 
Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the applicable 
evaporative emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e)(5). 
For 2004 OP year HLDTs and MDPVs where modifications commence on the 
first vehicle of a test group before December 21, 2003, this 
requirement does not apply to the 2004 OP year. ICIs opting to bring 
all of their 2004 OP year HLDTs and MDPVs into compliance with the 
exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 
CFR 86.1811-04, may use the optional higher NMOG values for their 2004-
2006 OP year LDT2s and 2004-2008 LDT4s.
    (iii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium-duty 
passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally manufactured in OP years 2007 and 
2008 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 8 in Tables 
S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the applicable evaporative 
standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e)(5).
    (iv) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years 
2007 through 2021 and nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally 
manufactured in OP year 2009 through 2021 must meet the FTP exhaust 
emission standards of bin 5 in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 
86.1811-04, and the evaporative standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-
04(e)(1) through (4).
    (v) ICIs are exempt from the Tier 2 and the interim non-Tier2 
phase-in intermediate percentage requirements for exhaust, evaporative, 
and refueling emissions described in 40 CFR 86.1811-04.
    (vi) In cases where multiple standards exist in a given model year 
in 40 CFR part 86 due to phase-in requirements of new standards, the 
applicable standards for motor vehicle engines required to be certified 
to engine-based standards are the least stringent standards applicable 
to the engine type for the OP year.
    (vii) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years 
2009 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in Table 
S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e). However, LDV/LLDTs originally 
manufactured in OP years 2009 and 2010 and imported by ICIs who qualify 
as small volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 are 
exempt from the LDV/LLDT evaporative emission standards in Table S09-1 
in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 evaporative 
emission standards in Table S04-3 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e).
    (viii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP 
years 2010 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in 
Table S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e). However, HLDTs and MDPVs 
originally manufactured in OP years 2010 and 2011 and imported by ICIs, 
who qualify as small volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-
01, are exempt from the HLDTs and MDPVs evaporative emission standards 
in Table S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 
evaporative emission standards in Table S04-3 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e).
    (ix) Nonconforming LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete heavy-duty 
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR originally manufactured in OP 
years 2022 and later must meet the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative 
emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1811 through 86.1816.
    (3)(i) As an option to the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section, independent commercial importers may elect to meet lower bins 
in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 of 40 CFR 86.1811-04 than specified in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and bank or sell NOx credits as 
permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860-04 and 40 CFR 86.1861-04. An ICI may not 
meet higher bins in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 of 40 CFR 86.1811-04 than 
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section unless it demonstrates to 
the Administrator at the time of certification that it has obtained 
appropriate and sufficient NOx credits from another manufacturer, or 
has generated them in a previous model year or in the current model 
year and not transferred them to another manufacturer or used them to 
address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860-04 and 40 CFR 
86.1861-04.
    (ii) Where an ICI desires to obtain a certificate of conformity 
using a bin higher than specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 
but does not have sufficient credits to cover vehicles produced under 
such certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the 
ICI has also obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicles 
certified using a bin lower than that required under paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section. The ICI may then produce vehicles to the higher bin 
only to the extent that it has generated sufficient credits from 
vehicles certified to the lower bin during the same model year.
    (4) [Reserved]
    (5) Except for the situation where an ICI desires to bank, sell or 
use NOx credits as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the 
requirements of 40 CFR 86.1811-04 related to fleet average NOx 
standards and requirements to comply with such standards do not apply 
to vehicles modified under this subpart.
    (6) ICIs using bins higher than those specified in paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section must monitor their production so that they do not 
produce more vehicles certified to the standards of such bins than 
their available credits can cover. ICIs must not have a credit deficit 
at the end of a model year and are not permitted to use the deficit

[[Page 30046]]

carryforward provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1860-04(e).
    (7) The Administrator may condition the certificates of conformity 
issued to ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject to 
paragraph (c) of this section comply with the appropriate average NOx 
standard for each model year.
    (8)(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years 
2010 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission standards 
in Table S10-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g).
    (ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP 
years 2012 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission 
standards in Table S10-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g).
    (iii) ICIs, which qualify as small volume manufacturers, are exempt 
from the cold temperature NMHC phase-in intermediate percentage 
requirements described in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g)(3). See 40 CFR 86.1811-
04(k)(5)(vi) and (vii).
    (iv) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i) 
and (ii) of this section, ICIs may elect to meet a cold temperature 
NMHC family emission level below the cold temperature NMHC fleet 
average standards specified in Table S10-1 of 40 CFR 86.1811-10 and 
bank or sell credits as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864-10. An ICI may not 
meet a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than the 
fleet average standards in Table S10-1 of 40 CFR 86.1811-10 as 
specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, unless it 
demonstrates to the Administrator at the time of certification that it 
has obtained appropriate and sufficient NMHC credits from another 
manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model year or in the 
current model year and not traded them to another manufacturer or used 
them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864-10.
    (v) Where an ICI desires to obtain a certificate of conformity 
using a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than 
specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, but does 
not have sufficient credits to cover vehicles imported under such 
certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the ICI 
has also obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicles certified 
using a cold temperature NMHC family emission level lower than that 
required under paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section. The ICI 
may then import vehicles to the higher cold temperature NMHC family 
emission level only to the extent that it has generated sufficient 
credits from vehicles certified to a family emission level lower than 
the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standard during the same model 
year.
    (vi) ICIs using cold temperature NMHC family emission levels higher 
than the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standards specified in 
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section must monitor their 
imports so that they do not import more vehicles certified to such 
family emission levels than their available credits can cover. ICIs 
must not have a credit deficit at the end of a model year and are not 
permitted to use the deficit carryforward provisions provided in 40 CFR 
86.1864-10.
    (vii) The Administrator may condition the certificates of 
conformity issued to ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject 
to this paragraph (c)(8) comply with the applicable cold temperature 
NMHC fleet average standard for each model year.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, ICI's must 
not participate in emission-related programs for emissions averaging, 
banking and trading, or nonconformance penalties.

                          Table 1 to Sec.   85.1515--Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 1 2 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Diesel            Evaporative         Useful life
           OP Year                 Hydrocarbon        Carbon  monoxide   Oxides of  nitrogen      particulate         hydrocarbon        (years/miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-76......................  1.5 gpm............  15 gpm.............  3.1 gpm............  ..................  6.0 g/test........  5/50,000
1977-79......................  1.5 gpm............  15 gpm.............  2.0 gpm............  ..................  6.0 g/test........  5/50,000
1980.........................  0.41 gpm...........  7.0 gpm............  2.0 gpm............  ..................  6.0 g/test........  5/50,000
1981.........................  0.41 gpm...........  3.4 gpm............  1.0 gpm............  ..................  2.0 g/test........  5/50,000
1982-86......................  0.41 gpm...........  3.4 gpm............  1.0 gpm............  0.60 gpm..........  2.0 g/test........  5/50,000
1987-93......................  0.41 gpm...........  3.4 gpm............  1.0 gpm............  0.20 gpm..........  2.0 g/test........  5/50,000
1994 and later...............  (\4\)..............  (\4\)..............  (\4\)..............  (\4\).............  (\4\).............  (\4\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty vehicles. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled
  light-duty vehicles. For alternative fueled light-duty vehicles, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon
  equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable.
\2\ No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty vehicle.
\3\ All light-duty vehicles shall meet the applicable emission standards at both low and high-altitudes according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR
  part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing.
\4\ Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.


                            Table 2 to Sec.   85.1515--Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light-Duty Trucks 1 2 3 4 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Evaporative     Useful life (years/
            OP year                 Hydrocarbon        Carbon monoxide    Oxides of nitrogen  Diesel particulate      hydrocarbon           miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-78.......................  2.0 gpm              20 gpm               3.1 gpm             ..................  6.0 g/test          5/50,000
1979-80.......................  1.7 gpm              18 gpm               2.3 gpm             ..................  6.0 g/test          5/50,000
1981..........................  1.7 gpm              18 gpm               2.3 gpm             ..................  2.0 g/test          5/50,000
1982-83.......................  1.7 gpm (2.0)        18 gpm (26)          2.3 gpm (2.3)       0.60 gpm (0.60)     2.0 g/test (2.6)    5/50,000
1984..........................  0.80 gpm (1.0)       10 gpm (14)          2.3 gpm (2.3)       0.60 gpm (0.60)     2.0 g/test (2.6)    5/50,000
1985-86.......................  0.80 gpm (1.0)       10 gpm (14)          2.3 gpm (2.3)       0.60 gpm (0.60)     2.0 g/test (2.6)    11/120,000
1987..........................  0.80 gpm (1.0)       10 gpm (14)          2.3 gpm (2.3)       0.26 gpm (0.26)     2.0 g/test (2.6)    11/120,000
1988-89.......................  0.80 gpm (1.0)       10 gpm (14)          1.2 gpm\6\ (1.2)    0.26 gpm\7\ (2.0)   2.0 g/test (2.6)    11/120,000
                                0.80 gpm (1.0)       10 gpm (14)          1.7 gpm\6\ (1.7)    0.45 gpm\7\ (0.26)  2.0 g/test (2.6)    11/120,000
                                0.80 gpm (1.0)       10 gpm (14)          2.3 gpm\6\ (2.3)    0.45 gpm\7\ (0.26)  2.0 g/test (2.6)    11/120,000
1990-93.......................  0.80 gpm (1.0)       10 gpm (14)          1.2 gpm\8\ (1.2)    0.26 gpm\7\ (0.26)  2.0 g/test (2.6)    11/120,000
                                0.80 gpm (1.0)       10 gpm (14)          1.7 gpm\8\ (1.7)    0.45 gpm\7\ (0.26)  2.0 g/test (2.6)    11/120,000

[[Page 30047]]

 
1994 and later................  (\9\)                (\9\)                (\9\)               (\9\)               (\9\)               (\9\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty trucks. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled light-
  duty trucks. For alternative fueled light-duty trucks, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent
  grams carbon per test, as applicable.
\2\ No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty truck.
\3\ A carbon monoxide standard of 0.50% of exhaust flow at curb idle is applicable to all 1984 and later model year light-duty trucks sold to, or owned
  by, an importer for principal use at other than a designated high-altitude location. This requirement is effective for light-duty trucks sold to, or
  owned by an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location beginning with the 1988 model year.
\4\ All 1982 OP year and later light-duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location shall meet
  high-altitude emission standards according to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year light-duty trucks at the time of
  testing.
\5\ Standards in parentheses apply to motor vehicles sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location. These
  standards must be met at high-altitude according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of
  testing.
\6\ The oxides of nitrogen standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds
  GVWR. The 1.7 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks above 3,750 pound loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR; the 2.3 gpm
  standard applies to light-duty trucks above 6,000 pounds GVWR.
\7\ The diesel particulate standard of 0.26 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 0.45 gpm standard
  applies to light-duty trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight.
\8\ The NOx standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 1.7 gpm standard applies to light-duty
  trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight.
\9\ Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.

0
43. Subpart W, is revised to consist of Sec. Sec.  85.2201, 85.2207, 
85.2222, 85.2223, and 85.2231, to read as follows:
Subpart W--Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests
Sec.
85.2201 Applicability.
85.2207 Onboard diagnostic test standards.
85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test procedures.
85.2223 Onboard diagnostic test report.
85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements.

Subpart W--Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests


Sec.  85.2201  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart describes the test provisions to be employed in 
conjunction with the Emissions Performance Warranty in subpart V of 
this part. These provisions generally rely on a vehicle's onboard 
diagnostic system (OBD) to indicate whether a vehicle passes or fails 
the test.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart may be used to establish 
warranty eligibility for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
medium-duty passenger vehicles when tested during the useful life as 
prescribed in subpart V of this part.


Sec.  85.2207  Onboard diagnostic test standards.

    (a) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if it is a 1996 or newer 
vehicle and the vehicle connector is missing, has been tampered with, 
or is otherwise inoperable.
    (b) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the malfunction indicator 
light (MIL) is commanded to be illuminated and it is not visually 
illuminated according to visual inspection.
    (c) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the MIL is commanded to be 
illuminated for one or more diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), as 
described in 40 CFR 86.1806.


Sec.  85.2222  Onboard diagnostic test procedures.

    The test sequence for the OBD inspection shall consist of the 
following steps:
    (a) The OBD inspection shall be conducted with the key-on/engine 
running, with the exception of inspecting for MIL illumination as 
required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, during which the 
inspection shall be conducted with the key-on/engine off.
    (b) The inspector shall locate the vehicle connector and plug the 
test system into the connector.
    (c) The test system shall send a Mode $01, PID $01 request in 
accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the OBD evaluation status. 
The test system shall determine what monitors are supported by the OBD 
system, and perform the readiness evaluation for applicable monitors in 
accordance with the requirements and specifications in 40 CFR 86.1806.
    (1) Coincident with the beginning of mandatory testing, repair, and 
retesting based upon the OBD test, if the readiness evaluation 
indicates that any onboard tests are not complete, the customer shall 
be instructed to return after the vehicle has been run under conditions 
that allow completion of all applicable onboard tests. If the readiness 
evaluation again indicates that any onboard test is not complete, the 
vehicle shall be failed.
    (2) An exception to paragraph (c)(1) of this section is allowed for 
MY 1996 to MY 2000 vehicles, inclusive, with two or fewer unset 
readiness monitors, and for MY 2001 and newer vehicles with no more 
than one unset readiness monitor. Vehicles from those model years which 
would otherwise pass the OBD inspection, but for the unset readiness 
code in question, may be issued a passing certificate without being 
required to operate the vehicle in such a way as to activate those 
particular monitors. Vehicles from those model years with an unset 
readiness code that also have a DTC stored resulting in an illuminated 
MIL must be failed, though setting the unset readiness flag in question 
shall not be a prerequisite for passing the retest.
    (d) The test system shall evaluate the MIL status bit and record 
status information in the vehicle test record.
    (1) If the MIL status bit indicates that the MIL has been commanded 
to be illuminated, the test system shall send a Mode $03 request in 
accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the stored DTCs. The system 
shall repeat this cycle until the number of codes reported equals the 
number expected based on the Mode $01 response. All DTCs resulting in 
MIL illumination shall be recorded in the vehicle test record and the 
vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection.
    (2) If the MIL bit is not commanded to be illuminated the vehicle 
shall pass the OBD inspection, even if DTCs are present.
    (3) If the MIL bit is commanded to be illuminated, the inspector 
shall visually inspect the MIL to determine if it is illuminated. If 
the MIL is commanded to

[[Page 30048]]

be illuminated but is not, the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection.
    (4) If the MIL does not illuminate at all when the vehicle is in 
the key-on/engine-off condition, the vehicle shall fail the OBD 
inspection, even if no DTCs are present and the MIL has not been 
commanded on.


Sec.  85.2223  Onboard diagnostic test report.

    (a) Motorists whose vehicles fail the OBD test described in Sec.  
85.2222 shall be provided with the OBD test results, including the 
codes retrieved, the name of the component or system associated with 
each fault code, the status of the MIL illumination command, and the 
customer alert statement as stated in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) In addition to any codes that were retrieved, the test report 
shall include the following language:
    Your vehicle's computerized self-diagnostic system (OBD) registered 
the faults listed below. The faults are probably an indication of a 
malfunction of an emission component. However, multiple and/or 
seemingly unrelated faults may be an indication of an emission-related 
problem that occurred previously, but upon further evaluation by the 
OBD system was determined to be only temporary. Therefore, proper 
diagnosis by a qualified technician is required to positively identify 
the source of any emission-related problem.


Sec.  85.2231  Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements.

    (a) The test system interface to the vehicle shall include a plug 
that conforms to the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806.
    (b) The test system shall be capable of communicating with the 
standard data link connector of vehicles with certified OBD systems.
    (c) The test system shall be capable of checking for OBD monitors 
and the evaluation status of supported monitors (test complete/test not 
complete) in Mode $01 PID $01, as well as be able to request the DTCs, 
consistent with the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806.

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES 
AND ENGINES

0
44. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

0
45. Section 86.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (g)(2) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.1  Reference materials.

* * * * *
    (d) California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 
95812, (916) 322-2884, https://www.arb.ca.gov.
    (1) California Requirements Applicable to the LEV III Program, 
Title 13, Sec.  1961.2 and Sec.  1976(b)1)(G) of the California Code of 
Regulations, approved on March 22, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  
86.1803-01.
    (2) California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the National 
Low Emission Vehicle Program, October 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
86.113-04 and 86.612-97.
    (3) California Regulatory Requirements known as On-board 
Diagnostics II (OBD-II), Approved on April 21, 2003, Title 13, 
California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and 
Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year 
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines 
(OBD-II), IBR approved for Sec.  86.1806-05.
    (4) California Regulatory Requirements known as On-board 
Diagnostics II (OBD-II), Approved on November 9, 2007, Title 13, 
California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and 
Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year 
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines 
(OBD-II), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.007-17, 86.1806-05.
    (5) California Regulatory Requirements known as On-board 
Diagnostics II (OBD-II), Approved on June 17, 2010, Title 13, 
California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and 
Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year 
Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines 
(OBD-II), IBR approved for Sec.  86.1806-17.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (2) SAE J1634, Revised October 2012, Battery Electric Vehicle 
Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure, IBR approved for Sec.  
86.1811-04(n).
* * * * *

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
46. Section 86.000-7 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (h)(1).
0
c. By revising paragraph (h)(6).
0
d. By removing paragraph (h)(7).


Sec.  86.000-7  Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right 
of entry.

    Section 86.000-7 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.091-7 or Sec.  86.094-7. Where a paragraph in 
Sec.  86.091-7 or Sec.  86.094-7 is identical and applicable to Sec.  
86.000-7, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding 
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  
86.091-7.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  86.094-7.''
* * * * *
0
(h) * * *
0
(6) EPA may void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to 
Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or 
refueling test procedure and accompanying evaporative and/or refueling 
standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in Sec.  86.098-10 for 
which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this 
section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon 
request.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  86.000-8, 86.000-9, 86.000-16  [Removed]

0
47. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.000-8, 86.000-9, and 86.000-16.


Sec.  86.000-24  [Amended]

0
48. Section 86.000-24 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b)(1) introductory text, 
and (b)(1)(iii) through (f).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
0
d. By removing paragraph (h).


Sec. Sec.  86.000-26, 86.000-28, 86.001-9, 86.001-22  [Removed]

0
49. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.000-26, 86.000-28, 86.001-9, and 86.001-22.
0
50. Section 86.001-23 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
adding a heading to paragraph (c), and removing and reserving 
paragraphs (c)(1), (f), and (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.001-23  Required data.

    Section 86.001-23 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.098-23. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.098-23 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.001-23, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.098-23.''
* * * * *
    (c) Emission data--
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  86.001-25, 86.001-26, 86.001-28, 86.001-30, 86.004-
9  [Removed]

0
51. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.001-25, 86.001-26, 86.001-28, 86.001-30, and 
86.004-9.
0
52. Section 86.004-21 is amended as follows:

[[Page 30049]]

0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i).
0
c. By removing paragraph (b)(5)(v).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l).


Sec.  86.004-21  Application for certification.

    Section 86.004-21 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.094-21. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.094-21 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.004-21, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.094-21.''
* * * * *


Sec.  86.004-25  [Amended]

0
53. Section 86.004-25 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iv).
0
54. Section 86.004-26 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (b).
0
c. By revising paragraph (d).


Sec.  86.004-26  Mileage and service accumulation; emission 
measurements.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) This paragraph (d) applies for heavy-duty engines.
    (2)(i) The results of all emission testing shall be supplied to the 
Administrator. The manufacturer shall furnish to the Administrator 
explanation for voiding any test. The Administrator will determine if 
voiding the test was appropriate based upon the explanation given by 
the manufacturer for the voided test. Tests between test points may be 
conducted as required by the Administrator. Data from all tests 
(including voided tests) may be submitted weekly to the Administrator, 
but shall be delivered to the Administrator within 7 days after 
completion of the test. In addition, all test data shall be compiled 
and provided to the Administrator in accordance with Sec.  86.007-23. 
Where the Administrator conducts a test on a durability data vehicle at 
a prescribed test point, the results of that test will be used in the 
calculation of the deterioration factor.
    (ii) The results of all emission tests shall be recorded and 
reported to the Administrator. These test results shall be rounded as 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to the number of decimal places contained 
in the applicable emission standard expressed to one additional 
significant figure.
    (3) Whenever a manufacturer intends to operate and test a vehicle 
(or engine) that may be used for emission data, the manufacturer shall 
retain in its records all information concerning all emission tests and 
maintenance, including vehicle (or engine) alterations to represent 
other vehicle (or engine) selections. This information shall be 
submitted, including the vehicle (or engine) description and 
specification information required by the Administrator, to the 
Administrator following the emission data test.
    (4) Emission testing of any type with respect to any certification 
vehicle or engine other than that specified in this subpart is not 
allowed except as such testing may be specifically authorized by the 
Administrator.


Sec.  86.004-28  [Amended]

0
55. Section 86.004-28 is amended by removing the introductory text and 
by removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b), (f), and (g).
0
56. Section 86.004-30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(10)(i), and 
(a)(11)(i) and (a)(12) through (a)(16).
0
c. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii).
0
e. By removing paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and (b)(1)(ii)(D).
0
f. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4).


Sec.  86.004-30  Certification.

    Section 86.004-30 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.094-30. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.094-30 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.004-30, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.094-30.''
* * * * *
0
57. Section 86.004-38 is amended by removing the introductory text, 
removing and reserving paragraph (g), and adding paragraph (i) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  86.004-38  Maintenance instructions.

* * * * *
    (i) For each new diesel-fueled engine subject to the standards 
prescribed in Sec.  86.007-11, as applicable, the manufacturer shall 
furnish or cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser a statement 
that ``This engine must be operated only with ultra low-sulfur diesel 
fuel (meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a 
15 ppm sulfur cap).''
0
58. Section 86.005-10 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.005-10  Emission standards for 2005 and later model year Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

    Section 86.005-10 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.099-10. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.099-10 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.005-10, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.099-10.''
* * * * *
    (c) No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient 
atmosphere from any new 1998 or later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty 
engine.
* * * * *
0
59. Section 86.007-17 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.007-17  On-board diagnostics for engines used in applications 
less than or equal to 14,000 pounds GVWR.

    Heavy-duty engines intended to be installed in heavy duty vehicles 
at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are subject to standards under this 
subpart must meet on-board diagnostic requirements as specified in 
Sec.  86.1806-17(a), (c), and (d).


Sec.  86.007-21  [Amended]

0
60. Section 86.007-21 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l).
0
61. Section 86.007-23 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(2), (f), (g), and (l) and revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.007-23  Required data.

    Section 86.007-23 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.098-23 or Sec.  86.001-23. Where a paragraph in 
Sec.  86.098-23 or Sec.  86.001-23 is identical and applicable to Sec.  
86.007-23, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding 
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  
86.098-23.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  86.001-23.''.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (c) Emission data from certification vehicles and engines. The 
manufacturer shall submit emission data for each applicable emission 
standard from vehicles and engines tested in accordance with applicable 
test procedures and in such numbers as specified. These data shall 
include zero-

[[Page 30050]]

mile or zero-hour data, if generated, and emission data generated for 
certification as required under Sec.  86.004-26. However, manufacturers 
may provide a statement in the application for certification that 
vehicles and engines comply with the following standards instead of 
submitting test data, provided that the statement is supported by 
previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate 
information, and good engineering judgment:
    (1) Idle CO, smoke, or particulate matter emissions from methanol-
fueled or gaseous-fueled diesel-cycle certification engines.
    (2) Particulate matter emissions from Otto-cycle certification 
engines or gaseous-fueled certification engines.
    (3) CO emissions from diesel-cycle certification engines.
    (4) Formaldehyde emissions from petroleum-fueled engines.
    (5) Particulate matter and formaldehyde emissions when conducting 
Selective Enforcement Audit testing of Otto-cycle engines.
    (6) Smoke from methanol-fueled or petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle 
certification engines.
    (7) Smoke when conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing of 
diesel-cycle engines.
    (8) Evaporative emissions from vehicles fueled by natural gas, 
liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen.
* * * * *
    (f) through (g) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (l) [Reserved]
* * * * *


Sec.  86.007-30  [Amended]

0
62. Section 86.007--30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7), 
(a)(10)(i), (a)(11)(i), and (a)(12) through (a)(16).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and 
(b)(4).
0
d. By removing paragraph (f).
0
63. Section 86.007-35 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
0
c. By revising paragraph (c).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (f), and (i).


Sec.  86.007-35  Labeling.

* * * * *
    (a) The manufacturer of any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) 
subject to the applicable emission standards (and family emission 
limits, as appropriate) of this subpart, shall, at the time of 
manufacture, affix a permanent legible label, of the type and in the 
manner described below, containing the information hereinafter 
provided, to all production models of such vehicles (or engines) 
available for sale to the public and covered by a Certificate of 
Conformity under Sec.  86.007-30(a).
* * * * *
    (c) Vehicles powered by model year 2007 through 2013 diesel-fueled 
engines must include permanent, readily visible labels on the dashboard 
(or instrument panel) and near all fuel inlets that state ``Use Ultra 
Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only''; or ``Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel 
Only''.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.007-38  [Removed]

0
64. Remove Sec.  86.007-38.
0
65. Section 86.008-10 is amended by removing the introductory text and 
revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.008-10  Emission standards for 2008 and later model year Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) This paragraph (b) applies through model year 2013. See 40 CFR 
1037.103 for provisions that apply in 2014 and later model years. 
Evaporative emissions from heavy-duty vehicles shall not exceed the 
following standards when measured using the test procedures specified 
in 40 CFR 1037.501. The standards apply equally to certification and 
in-use vehicles. The spitback standard also applies to newly assembled 
vehicles. For certification vehicles only, manufacturers may conduct 
testing to quantify a level of nonfuel background emissions for an 
individual test vehicle. Such a demonstration must include a 
description of the source(s) of emissions and an estimated decay rate. 
The demonstrated level of nonfuel background emissions may be 
subtracted from emission test results from certification vehicles if 
approved in advance by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    (e) The standards described in this section do not apply to Otto-
cycle medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) that are subject to 
regulation under subpart S of this part, except as specified in subpart 
S of this part. The standards described in this section also do not 
apply to Otto-cycle engines used in such MDPVs, except as specified in 
subpart S of this part. The term ``medium-duty passenger vehicle'' is 
defined in Sec.  86.1803.
* * * * *
0
66. Section 86.010-38 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) and (i) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.010-38  Maintenance instructions.

* * * * *
    (g) Emission control diagnostic service information. Manufacturers 
are subject to the requirements of Sec.  86.1808-01(f) beginning in the 
2005 model year for manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty 
engines weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that 
are subject to the OBD requirements of this part.
* * * * *
    (i) Through model year 2013, the manufacturer shall furnish or 
cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser the following statement 
for each new diesel-fueled engine subject to the standards prescribed 
in Sec.  86.007-11, as applicable: ``This engine must be operated only 
with ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications for 
highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).''
* * * * *
0
67. Section 86.016-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c) and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.016-1  General applicability.

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply for certain 
types of new heavy-duty engines and vehicles as described in this 
paragraph (a). Note that this subpart does not apply for light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, or medium-duty passenger vehicles (see 
subpart S of this part for requirements that apply for those vehicles). 
In some cases, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines and vehicles can 
choose whether to meet the requirements of this subpart or the 
requirements of subpart S of this part; those provisions are therefore 
considered optional, but only to the extent that manufacturers comply 
with the other set of requirements. In cases where a provision applies 
only for a certain vehicle group based on its model year, vehicle 
class, motor fuel, engine type, or other distinguishing 
characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate 
section. The provisions of this subpart apply for certain heavy-duty 
engines and vehicles as follows:
    (1) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission 
standards apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines 
installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.

[[Page 30051]]

    (2) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission 
standards apply as follows for engines that will be installed in 
incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR:
    (i) These provisions apply for diesel-cycle engines.
    (ii) These provisions are optional for Otto-cycle engines.
    (3) Diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle complete heavy-duty vehicles at or 
below 14,000 pounds GVWR and the corresponding engines are not subject 
to the provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission 
standards, except that these provisions are optional for diesel-cycle 
engines installed in such vehicles through model year 2018.
    (4) The provisions of this subpart related to evaporative emission 
standards apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty vehicles as 
follows:
    (i) These provisions do not apply for complete vehicles at or below 
14,000 pounds GVWR.
    (ii) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and all sizes of incomplete 
heavy-duty vehicles must meet evaporative emission standards as 
specified in Sec.  86.008-10 through model year 2017, and as specified 
in 40 CFR part 1037 in later model years.
    (iii) Note that diesel-fueled vehicles are not subject to 
evaporative emissions under this part.
    (5) The provisions of this subpart related to onboard diagnostics 
apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles 
as follows:
    (i) Engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR must 
meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in Sec.  86.010-18.
    (ii) Engines installed in vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR 
may optionally comply with the onboard diagnostic requirements 
specified in Sec.  86.007-17, in which case those vehicles are not 
subject to separate onboard diagnostic requirements under this part.
    (b) Relationship to subpart S of this part. Unless specified 
otherwise, if engines are not subject to provisions of this subpart or 
if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of this subpart 
as described in paragraph (a) of this section, those engines must be 
installed in vehicles meeting the corresponding requirements under 
subpart S of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine comply 
with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart S of this 
part, the vehicle must be certified under subpart S of this part, and 
the engine does not need to be certified separately.
    (c) Greenhouse gas emission standards. See 40 CFR parts 1036 and 
1037 for greenhouse gas emission standards that apply for heavy-duty 
engines and vehicles.
* * * * *
    (g) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions of this 
subpart also apply for clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 
40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (h) Turbine engines. Turbine engines are deemed to be compression-
ignition engines for purposes of this part.


Sec.  86.079-36  [Removed]

0
68. Remove Sec.  86.079-36.
0
69. Section 86.082-2 is amended by adding definitions for ``Round'' and 
``United States'' in alphabetical order to read as follows.


Sec.  86.082-2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, unless otherwise 
specified.
* * * * *
    United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.085-20  [Removed]

0
70. Remove Sec.  86.085-20.


Sec.  86.085-37  [Amended]

0
71. Section 86.085-37 is amended by removing paragraph (b).


Sec.  86.087-2  [ Removed]

0
72. Remove Sec.  86.087-2.


Sec.  86.091-29  [Amended]

0
73. Section 86.091-29 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a).
    Section 86.094-7 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.094-7  Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right 
of entry.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (6) EPA may void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to 
Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or 
refueling test procedure and accompanying evaporative and/or refueling 
standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in Sec.  86.098-10 for 
which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this 
section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon 
request.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.094-13  [Removed]

0
75. Remove Sec.  86.094-13.


Sec.  86.094-14  [Amended]

0
76. Section 86.094-14 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(c)(5) and (c)(7)(i)(A)(1).


Sec.  86.094-16  [Removed]

0
77. Remove Sec.  86.094-16.


Sec.  86.094-21  [Amended]

0
78. Section 86.094-21 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) and 
by removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(iii)(B), (b)(8), 
(d), and (g).


Sec.  86.094-25  [Amended]

0
79. Section 86.094-25 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b)(3)(i)(A), and 
(b)(3)(ii).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) through (b)(3)(vii).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6), (d), and 
(g).


Sec. Sec.  86.094-26 and 86.094-28  [Removed]

0
80. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.094-26 and 86.094-28.


Sec.  86.094-30  [Amended]

0
81. Section 86.094-30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(4), (a)(5), and 
(a)(7).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(14).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and 
(b)(4).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraph (d).


Sec. Sec.  86.095-23, 86.095-26, and 86.095-30  [Removed]

0
82. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.095-23, 86.095-26, and 86.095-30.
0
83. Section 86.095-35 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(4) introductory text.
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
0
d. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text.


Sec.  86.095-35  Labeling.

    (a) * * *
    (1)-(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (4) Heavy-duty vehicles employing a fuel or fuels covered by 
evaporative emission standards. This paragraph (a)(4) applies through 
model year 2013. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply in 2014 
and later model years.
* * * * *
    (d)-(f) [Reserved]
    (g) Incomplete vehicle fuel tank capacity. This paragraph (g) 
applies

[[Page 30052]]

through model year 2013. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply 
in 2014 and later model years.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  86.096-7, 86.096-8, and 86.096-21  [Removed]

0
84. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.096-7, 86.096-8, and 86.096-21.


Sec.  86.096-24  [Amended]

0
85. Section 86.096-24 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(11)
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(14)(ii), (a)(14)(iii), and 
(a)(14)(vii).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2), and 
(d).
0
d. By removing paragraphs (g) and (h).


Sec. Sec.  86.096-26, 86.096-30, 86.096-35, 86.096-38, and 86.097-
9  [Removed]

0
86. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.096-26, 86.096-30, 86.096-35, 86.096-38, and 
86.097-9.


Sec.  86.098-23  [Amended]

0
87. Section 86.098-23 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i), (e)(2), and (e)(3).


Sec. Sec.  86.098-24, 86.098-25, 86.098-26, 86.098-28, 86.098-30, 
86.098-35, 86.099-8, 86.099-9, and 86.099-17  [Removed]

0
88. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.098-24, 86.098-25, 86.098-26, 86.098-28, 
86.098-30, 86.098-35, 86.099-8, 86.099-9, and 86.099-17.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
89. Section 86.101 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.101  General applicability.

    (a) General provisions. This subpart describes test procedures for 
measuring exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions from motor 
vehicles subject to emission standards under subpart S of this part. 
This generally includes light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
complete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. The 
following provisions apply for all testing under this subpart:
    (1) Provisions of this subpart apply to tests performed by both the 
Administrator and manufacturers.
    (2) References in this subpart to engine families and emission 
control systems are deemed to apply to durability groups and test 
groups as applicable.
    (3) Except as noted, heavy-duty vehicles are subject to all the 
same provisions of this subpart that apply to light-duty trucks.
    (4) The procedures in this subpart apply for testing vehicles 
powered by any fuel, except as specified in subpart S of this part.
    (5) All emission control systems designed for production vehicles 
must be functioning during testing. Maintenance to correct component 
malfunction or failure must be authorized in accordance with Sec.  
86.1834.
    (6) Evaporative emission measurement procedures of this subpart 
include specifications for testing methanol-fueled vehicles. For 
vehicles fueled with other oxygenated fuels, use good engineering 
judgment to apply these procedures. For example, if you are testing an 
ethanol-fueled vehicle, calibrate your evaporative emission enclosure 
with ethanol and propane.
    (b) Migration to 40 CFR part 1066. This subpart transitions to rely 
on the test procedure specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as 
follows:
    (1) Through model year 2021, manufacturers may use the test 
procedures specified in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section. For any 
EPA testing before model year 2022, EPA will use the manufacturer's 
selected procedures for determining road load parameters and applying 
cycle-verification criteria. For any other parameters, EPA may conduct 
testing using either of the specified procedures. As allowed under this 
part, manufacturers may use carryover data from previous model years to 
demonstrate compliance with emission standards, without regard to the 
provisions of this section.
    (2) Manufacturers must use the following procedures before model 
year 2022:
    (i) For vehicles certified to any of the Tier 3 emission standards 
specified in subpart S of this part, verify overall driver accuracy 
based on driven cycle energy and report information as described in 40 
CFR 1066.430(j).
    (ii) The equipment specifications and measurement procedures 
related to PM emissions from 40 CFR part 1066 apply for any vehicles 
certified to the Tier 3 PM emission standards specified in subpart S of 
this part.
    (3) For model years 2022 and later, manufacturers must use the test 
procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) Interim procedures. Test vehicles as described in this subpart 
for the appropriate model year, through model year 2021, as follows:
    (1) Sections 86.106 through 86.115 set forth general testing 
specifications and equipment requirements. Sections 86.116 through 
86.126 discuss calibration methods and frequency. Sections 86.127 
through 86.145 describe procedures for measuring exhaust and 
evaporative emissions. Sections 86.146 through 86.157 lay out refueling 
test procedures. Sections 86.158 through 86.166 cover procedures 
related to the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure and testing related 
to air conditioning systems. The test procedure for measuring fuel 
system leaks is described in 40 CFR 1066.840.
    (2) Alternate equipment, procedures, and calculation methods may be 
used if shown to yield equivalent or superior results, and if approved 
in advance by the Administrator.
    (d) Long-term procedures. Test vehicles as described in this 
subpart and in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as follows:
    (1) Use fuel for testing and service accumulation as specified in 
Sec.  86.113.
    (2) For exhaust emission testing, measure emissions for all 
pollutants with an applicable emission standard. Calculate emission 
results as described in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart G.
    (3) The test sequence for the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) includes 
steps to precondition vehicles for evaporative emission measurements; 
these steps are required for exhaust testing whether or not testing 
includes evaporative emission measurements.
    (4) Perform evaporative emission tests as follows:
    (i) Use evaporative testing equipment meeting the specifications in 
Sec.  86.107. This equipment must meet calibration requirements as 
specified in Sec.  86.117.
    (ii) Generate fuel test temperature profiles as described in Sec.  
86.129-94(d).
    (iii) Follow the general provisions and driving schedules described 
in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart I. Evaporative testing consists of vehicle 
preconditioning as described in Sec.  86.132, diurnal measurement as 
described in Sec.  86.133, running loss testing as described in Sec.  
86.134, and hot soak testing as described in Sec.  86.138.
    (iv) Calculate emission results as described in Sec.  86.143.
    (v) Test fuel systems for leaks as described in 40 CFR 1066.840.
    (5) Keep records as described in Sec.  86.142.
    (6) Perform refueling emission tests, calculate emission results, 
and keep associated records as described in Sec.  86.146 through 
86.157.
0
90. Section 86.102 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.102  Definitions.

    The definitions in Sec.  86.1803 apply to this subpart.
0
91. Section 86.106-96 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read 
as follows:

[[Page 30053]]

Sec.  86.106-96  Equipment required; overview.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Fuel, analytical gas, and driving schedule specifications. Fuel 
specifications for exhaust and evaporative emission testing and for 
mileage accumulation for petroleum-fueled and methanol-fueled vehicles 
are specified in Sec.  86.113. Analytical gases are specified in Sec.  
86.114. The Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), US06, and SC03 
driving schedules, for use in exhaust emission tests, and the New York 
City Cycle (NYCC), for use with the UDDS in running loss tests, are 
specified in Sec. Sec.  86.115, 86.130, 86.159, 86.160, and appendix I 
to this part.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.106-00  [Removed]

0
92. Section 86.106-00 is removed.


Sec.  86.107-96  [Amended]

0
93. Section 86.107-96 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(e).


Sec. Sec.  86.108-79, 86.110-90  [Removed]

0
94. Sections 86.108-79 and 86.110-90 are removed.
0
95. Section 86.110-94 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.110-94  Exhaust gas sampling system; diesel-cycle vehicles, 
and Otto-cycle vehicles requiring particulate emissions measurements.

* * * * *
    (d) Filters, particulate sampling. Use fluorocarbon-coated glass 
fiber filters or fluorocarbon-based (membrane) filters to collect 
particulate matter, as follows:
    (1) Use primary and back-up test filters as follows for particulate 
measurements:
    (i) During each phase of the UDDS, sample dilute exhaust 
simultaneously with paired primary and back-up test filters.
    (ii) Position the back-up filter holder 3 to 4 inches downstream of 
the primary filter holder.
    (iii) Determine the net weight of particulate material collected on 
each primary test filter and each back-up test filter using the 
procedure described in Sec.  86.139.
    (iv) Determine a ratio of net weights using the following formula:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.140
    
    (v) If the ratio is greater than 0.95, base the particulate 
emission calculations on the net weight of the primary filter only.
    (vi) If the ratio is less than 0.95, base the particulate emission 
calculations on the combined net weights of the back-up test filter and 
the primary test filter.
    (2) The particulate filter must have a 47 mm diameter (37 mm stain 
area).


Sec. Sec.  86.111-90 and 86.115-00   [Removed]

0
96. Sections 86.111-90 and 86.115-00 are removed.
0
97. Section 86.113-04 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and 
(a)(3)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.113-04  Fuel specifications.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Manufacturers may use California test fuels, as follows:
    (i) For model year 2014 and earlier vehicles certified for 50-state 
sale, manufacturers may perform exhaust emission tests using California 
Phase 2 gasoline as specified in Chapter 4 of the California Regulatory 
Requirements Applicable to the National Low Emission Vehicle Program, 
October 1996 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  86.1). However, the 
Administrator may use or require the use of test fuel meeting the 
specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for certification 
confirmatory testing, selective enforcement auditing and in-use 
testing.
    (ii) For model year 2015 and later, manufacturers may certify 50-
state vehicles based on testing used to meet California's LEV III 
standards, including the use of California Phase 3 gasoline (E10), 
subject to the following provisions:
    (A) The Administrator will also use this E10 fuel for any testing 
to confirm that vehicles meet the LEV III standards. Note that all 
evaporative testing with the E10 fuel must be conducted with 
temperatures meeting the specifications adopted by the California Air 
Resources Board.
    (B) The manufacturer must also use this E10 fuel for fuel economy 
measurements, with any appropriate corrections related to ethanol 
content in the fuel.
    (C) The vehicles must also meet standards at high-altitude 
conditions. The high-altitude standards for a given vehicle are the LEV 
III standards that apply for low-altitude testing, except that testing 
is based on the fuel specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 
Note that heavy-duty vehicles certified under this paragraph 
(a)(2)(ii)(C) are not subject to SFTP standards at high-altitude 
conditions. Manufacturers may alternatively use the E15 test fuel 
specified in Sec.  86.113-07 for high-altitude testing.
    (D) The vehicle must meet the applicable cold-temperature standards 
using the fuel specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (E) Such vehicles are considered to be Tier 2 vehicles for EPA 
certification; however, manufacturers must exclude them from the fleet-
average NOX calculation in subpart S of this part.
    (3) * * *
    (i) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, unleaded 
gasoline representative of commercial gasoline that will be generally 
available through retail outlets must be used in service accumulation. 
Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, where the vehicle is to 
be used for evaporative emission durability demonstration, such fuel 
must contain ethanol as required by Sec.  86.1824-08(f)(1) . Leaded 
gasoline must not be used in service accumulation.
* * * * *
0
98. Section 86.113-07 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.113-07  Fuel specifications.

    Section 86.113-07 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.113-94. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.113-94 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.113-07, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.113-94.''
    (a) Gasoline fuel. This paragraph (a) describes how to transition 
to an ethanol-blend test fuel for vehicles certified under subpart S of 
this part. You may use the test fuels specified in Sec.  86.113-04(a) 
for vehicles that are not yet subject to testing with the new fuel. You 
may use the specified ethanol-blend test fuel anytime earlier than we 
specify. Manufacturers must certify using service accumulation fuel and 
E15 test fuel as specified in 40 CFR 1065, subpart H, on the following 
schedule:
    (1) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards as specified in Sec.  86.1813. Use the 
E15 test

[[Page 30054]]

fuel to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust emission 
standards as specified in Sec.  86.1811 and 86.1816. Where testing with 
E15 test fuel is required, this applies for all testing for 
demonstrating compliance with exhaust emission standards and fuel 
economy requirements. For vehicles certified for 50-state sale through 
model year 2019, you may instead use California Phase 3 gasoline (E10) 
as adopted in California's LEV III program for exhaust and evaporative 
emission testing at low-altitude conditions; the Administrator will 
also use this E10 fuel for any low-altitude testing with such vehicles. 
In the case of evaporative emission tests with California Phase 3 
gasoline, perform tests based on the temperatures specified by the 
California Air Resources Board.
    (2) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the 
evaporative emission standards specified in Sec.  86.1811-10 starting 
in model year 2020. You may not certify these vehicles using carryover 
data based on measurements with E0 test fuel.
    (3) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the 
refueling emission standards for any vehicles that must be certified to 
meet the diurnal plus hot soak standards with E15 test fuel under 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (4) For any vehicles that require testing to demonstrate compliance 
with the refueling spitback standard, use the E15 test fuel starting in 
model year 2022.
    (5) If a vehicle uses E15 test fuel for evaporative emission 
testing and E0 or E10 is the applicable test fuel for exhaust emission 
testing, or vice versa, exhaust measurement and reporting requirements 
apply over the course of the evaporative emission test, but the vehicle 
need not meet the exhaust emission standards during the evaporative 
emission test run.
    (6) Use service accumulation fuel as described in 40 CFR part 1065, 
subpart H, with the additional provisions specified in Sec.  86.113-
04(a)(3).
* * * * *


Sec.  86.113-94  [Amended]

0
99. Section 86.113-94 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a).
0
100. Section 86.115-78 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  86.115-78  EPA dynamometer driving schedules.

    (a) The driving schedules for the Urban Dynamometer Driving 
Schedule, US06, SC03, and the New York City Cycles are specified in 
appendix I of this part. The driving schedules are defined by a smooth 
trace drawn through the specified speed vs. time relationships. They 
each consist of a distinct non-repetitive series of idle, acceleration, 
cruise, and deceleration modes of various time sequences and rates.
    (b) The driver should attempt to follow the target schedule as 
closely as possible (refer to Sec.  86.128 for additional cycle driving 
instructions). The speed tolerance at any given time for these 
schedules, or for a driver's aid chart approved by the Administrator, 
are as follows:
* * * * *
0
101. Section 86.117-96 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (c)(1)(ix) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.117-96  Evaporative emission enclosure calibrations.

    The calibration of evaporative emission enclosures consists of 
three parts: initial and periodic determination of enclosure background 
emissions (hydrocarbons and methanol); initial determination of 
enclosure internal volume; and periodic hydrocarbon and methanol 
retention check and calibration. Ethanol retention checks may be 
performed instead of methanol retention checks. Alcohol retentions may 
be omitted if no alcohol-fueled vehicles will be tested in the 
evaporative enclosure. Alternate calibration methods may be used if 
shown to yield equivalent or superior results, and if approved in 
advance by the Administrator; specifically, more extreme temperatures 
may be used for determining calibration without affecting the validity 
of test results.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vii) Inject into the enclosure 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure methanol 
at a recommended temperature of at least 150[emsp14][deg]F (65 [deg]C) 
and/or 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure propane at lab ambient temperature. The 
injected quantity may be measured by volume flow or by mass 
measurement. The method used to measure the quantity of methanol and 
propane must have an accuracy of 0.5 percent of the 
measured value (less accurate methods may be used with the advance 
approval of the Administrator).
* * * * *
    (ix) To verify the enclosure calibration, calculate the mass of 
propane and the mass of methanol using the measurements taken in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (viii) of this section. See paragraph (d) of 
this section. This quantity must be within 5 percent of 
that measured in paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of this section. Evaluate long-
term trends using good engineering judgment to minimize measurement 
bias. Keep records to document such evaluations and make them available 
to EPA upon request.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  86.118-78, 86.127-96, and 86.128-00  [Removed]

0
102. Sections 86.118-78, 86.127-96, and 86.128-00 are removed.
0
103. Section 86.128-79 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.128-79  Transmissions.

* * * * *
    (d) The vehicle shall be driven with appropriate accelerator pedal 
movement necessary to achieve the speed versus time relationship 
prescribed by the driving schedule. Both smoothing of speed variations 
and excessive accelerator pedal perturbations are to be avoided.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.129-80  [Amended]

0
104. Section 86.129-80 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a).


Sec.  86.130-00  [Removed]

0
105. Section 86.130-00 is removed.
0
106. Section 86.130-96 is amended by adding introductory text, revising 
paragraph (e), and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.130-96  Test sequence; general requirements.

    Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are applicable to 
vehicles tested for the FTP test. Paragraph (e) of this section is 
applicable to vehicles tested for the SFTP supplemental tests of air 
conditioning (SC03) and aggressive driving (US06). Paragraph (f) of 
this section is applicable to all emission testing.
* * * * *
    (e) The supplemental tests for exhaust emissions related to 
aggressive driving (US06) and air conditioning (SC03) use are conducted 
as stand-alone tests as described in Sec. Sec.  86.158 through 86.160. 
These tests may be performed in any sequence that maintains the 
appropriate preconditioning requirements as specified in Sec.  86.132.
    (f) If tests are invalidated after collection of emission data from 
previous test segments, the test may be repeated to collect only those 
data points needed to complete emission

[[Page 30055]]

measurements. Compliance with emission standards may be determined by 
combining emission measurements from different test runs. If any 
emission measurements are repeated, the new measurements supersede 
previous values.


Sec.  86.131-00  [Removed]

0
107. Section 86.131-00 is removed.
0
108. Section 86.131-96 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.131-96  Vehicle preparation.

* * * * *
    (f) For vehicles to be tested for aggressive driving emissions 
(US06), provide a throttle position sensing signal that is compatible 
with the test dynamometer. This signal provides the input information 
that controls dynamometer dynamic inertia weight adjustments (see 
Sec. Sec.  86.108-00(b)(2)(ii) and 86.129-00(f)(2)). If a manufacturer 
chooses not to implement dynamic inertia adjustments for a portion or 
all of their product line, this requirement is not applicable.
    (g) You may disable any AECDs that have been approved solely for 
emergency vehicle applications under paragraph (4) of the definition of 
defeat device in Sec.  86.1803. The emission standards do not apply 
when any of these AECDs are active.


Sec.  86.132-96  [Amended]

0
109. Section 86.132-96 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(k).
0
110. Section 86.133-96 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.133-96  Diurnal emission test.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Manufacturers may use a pressurized fuel system if they 
demonstrate that fuel vapor would not be vented to the atmosphere if 
there is a leak in the fuel system or if the fuel cap is removed. 
Without this demonstration, tank pressure must not exceed 10 inches of 
water during the diurnal emission test.
* * * * *
0
111. Section 86.134-96 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1)(xvi) and 
adding paragraph (g)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.134-96  Running loss test.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (xvi) Manufacturers may use a pressurized fuel system if they 
demonstrate that fuel vapor would not be vented to the atmosphere if 
there is a leak in the fuel system or if the fuel cap is removed. 
Without this demonstration, tank pressure must not exceed 10 inches of 
water during the running loss test, except that temporary exceedances 
are allowed for vehicles whose tank pressure remained below 10 inches 
of water during the entire outdoor driving period specified in Sec.  
86.129. These temporary pressure exceedances may not occur for more 
than 10 percent of the total driving time.
* * * * *
    (4) High-altitude testing. For testing under high-altitude 
conditions, decrease the target ambient and fuel temperatures by 
5[emsp14][deg]F. For example, the fuel temperature profile should be 
adjusted downward based on a nominal starting temperature of 
90[emsp14][deg]F, and the nominal temperature in the enclosure should 
be 90[emsp14][deg]F.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.135-00  [Removed]

0
112. Section 86.135-00 is removed.
0
113. Section 86.135-90 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.135-90  Dynamometer procedure.

    (a) The dynamometer run consists of two tests--a ``cold'' start 
test, after a minimum 12-hour and a maximum 36-hour soak according to 
the provisions of Sec. Sec.  86.132 and 86.133, and a ``hot'' start 
test following the ``cold'' start by 10 minutes. Engine startup (with 
all accessories turned off), operation over the UDDS and engine 
shutdown make a complete cold start test. Engine startup and operation 
over the first 505 seconds of the driving schedule complete the hot 
start test. The exhaust emissions are diluted with ambient air in the 
dilution tunnel as shown in Figure B94-5 and Figure B94-6. A dilution 
tunnel is not required for testing vehicles waived from the requirement 
to measure particulate matter. Six particulate samples are collected on 
filters for weighing; the first sample plus backup is collected during 
the first 505 seconds of the cold start test; the second sample plus 
backup is collected during the remainder of the cold start test 
(including shutdown); the third sample plus backup is collected during 
the hot start test. Continuous or batch proportional samples of gaseous 
emissions are collected for analysis during each test phase. Use the 
following measurement procedures for each type of engine:
    (1) For gasoline-fueled, natural gas-fueled and liquefied petroleum 
gas-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the composite samples collected in bags 
are analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and 
NOX.
    (2) For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles (optional for 
natural gas-fueled, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled and methanol-fueled 
diesel-cycle vehicles), THC is sampled and analyzed continuously 
according to the provisions of Sec.  86.110. Parallel samples of the 
dilution air are similarly analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, 
CH4, and NOX.
    (3) For natural gas-fueled, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled and 
methanol-fueled vehicles, bag samples are collected and analyzed for 
THC (if not sampled continuously), CO, CO2, CH4, 
and NOX.
    (4) For methanol-fueled vehicles, methanol and formaldehyde samples 
are taken for both exhaust emissions and dilution air (a single 
dilution air formaldehyde sample, covering the total test period may be 
collected). Parallel bag samples of dilution air are analyzed for THC, 
CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX.
* * * * *
    (d) Practice runs over the prescribed driving schedule may be 
performed at test point, provided an emission sample is not taken, for 
the purpose of finding the appropriate throttle action to maintain the 
proper speed-time relationship, or to permit sampling system 
adjustment. Both smoothing of speed variations and excessive 
accelerator pedal perturbations are to be avoided. When using two-roll 
dynamometers a truer speed-time trace may be obtained by minimizing the 
rocking of the vehicle in the rolls; the rocking of the vehicle changes 
the tire rolling radius on each roll. This rocking may be minimized by 
restraining the vehicle horizontally (or nearly so) by using a cable 
and winch.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.135-94 and 86.137-90  [Removed]

0
114. Sections 86.135-94 and 86.137-90 are removed.
0
115. Section 86.137-94 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(16) 
through (b)(24) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.137-94  Dynamometer test run, gaseous and particulate 
emissions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (16) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the 
cooling fan and close the engine compartment cover.
    (17) Turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the 
tailpipe(s) of the vehicle.
    (18) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(12) of this 
section for the hot start test, except only two evacuated sample bags, 
two methanol

[[Page 30056]]

sample impingers, two formaldehyde sample impingers, and one pair of 
particulate sample filters, as appropriate, are required. The step in 
paragraph (b)(9) of this section shall begin between 9 and 11 minutes 
after the end of the sample period for the cold start test.
    (19) At the end of the deceleration scheduled to occur at 505 
seconds, simultaneously turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and 
the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1; mark the 
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart and turn off the No. 
1 particulate sample pump, if applicable) and position the sample 
selector valve to the ``standby'' position. (Engine shutdown is not 
part of the hot start test sample period.) Record the measured roll or 
shaft revolutions (and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow measurement 
instrument). Carefully remove the third pair of particulate sample 
filters from the holder and place in a clean petri dish and cover, if 
applicable.
    (20) As soon as possible, transfer the hot start ``transient'' 
exhaust and dilution air samples to the analytical system and process 
the samples according to Sec.  86.140, obtaining a stabilized reading 
of the exhaust bag sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end 
of the sample collection phase of the test. Obtain methanol and 
formaldehyde sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours of the end 
of the sample period. If it is not possible to perform analysis on the 
methanol and formaldehyde samples within 24 hours, the samples should 
be stored in a dark, cold (4-10 [deg]C) environment until analysis. 
Analyze the samples within fourteen days.
    (21) As soon as possible, and in no case longer than one hour after 
the end of the hot start phase of the test, transfer the six 
particulate filters to the weighing chamber for post-test conditioning, 
if applicable.
    (22) Disconnect the exhaust tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s) and 
drive the vehicle from dynamometer.
    (23) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.
    (24) Vehicles to be tested for evaporative emissions proceed 
according to Sec.  86.134; vehicles to be tested with the supplemental 
two-diurnal test sequence for evaporative emissions proceed according 
to Sec.  86.138-96(k). For all others, this completes the test 
sequence.


Sec.  86.137-96  [Removed]

0
116. Section 86.137-96 is removed.
0
117. Section 86.142-90 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.142-90  Records required.

* * * * *
    (d) Test results. Also include a comparison of drive cycle energy 
and target cycle energy relative to both inertia and road load forces 
as specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle or test phase, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *
0
118. Section 86.143-96 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.143-96  Calculations; evaporative emissions.

* * * * *
    (c) If the test fuel contains at least 25% oxygenated compounds by 
volume, use the following equation to calculate a hydrocarbon 
equivalent mass for comparing to the standard:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.007

Where:

MTHCE = the C1-equivalent sum of the 
concentration of carbon mass contributions of non-oxygenated 
hydrocarbons, alcohols, and aldehydes.
mHC = the mass contribution from nonoxygenated 
hydrocarbons.
ni = the number of carbon atoms in the molecular 
representation of the oxygenated emission component i. For example, 
for methanol (CH3OH), n = 1 and for ethanol 
(C2H5OH), n = 2.
MWi = the molecular weight of the oxygenated emission 
component i, as described in 40 CFR 1065.1005.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  86.162-00 and 86.167-17   [Removed]

0
119. Sections 86.162-00 and 86.167-17 are removed.
0
120 . Subpart C is revised to consist of Sec. Sec.  86.201 and 86.213 
to read as follows:
Subpart C--Emission Regulations for 1994 and Later Model Year Gasoline-
Fueled New Light-Duty Vehicles, New Light-Duty Trucks and New Medium-
Duty Passenger Vehicles; Cold Temperature Test Procedures
Sec.
86.201 General applicability.
86.213 Fuel specifications.

Subpart C--Emission Regulations for 1994 and Later Model Year 
Gasoline-Fueled New Light-Duty Vehicles, New Light-Duty Trucks and 
New Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles; Cold Temperature Test 
Procedures


Sec.  86.201  General applicability.

    (a) Vehicles are subject to cold-testing requirements as described 
in subpart S of this part and 40 CFR part 600. Perform testing to 
measure CO and NMHC emissions and determine fuel economy as described 
in 40 CFR part 1066; see especially 40 CFR 1066.710.
    (b) Manufacturers may certify vehicles using carryover data based 
on previously published cold-testing procedures. In addition, we may 
approve the use of previously published cold-testing procedures as an 
alternative procedure under 40 CFR 1066.10(c).
    (c) Section 86.213 describes special provisions related to test 
fuel specifications.


Sec.  86.213  Fuel specifications.

    (a) Gasoline. Use a gasoline test fuel with ethanol (low-level 
blend only) or without ethanol as follows:
    (1) You must certify using service accumulation fuel and E15 test 
fuel as specified in Sec.  86.113 for any vehicles required to use an 
ethanol-blend test fuel for measuring exhaust emissions. You may use 
this test fuel any time earlier than we specify.
    (2) You may use the test fuel specified in this paragraph (a)(2) 
for vehicles that are not yet subject to exhaust testing with an 
ethanol-blend test fuel under Sec.  86.113. Manufacturers may certify 
based on this fuel using carryover data until testing with the ethanol-
blend test fuel is required. The following specifications apply for 
gasoline test fuel without ethanol:

         Table 1 of Sec.   86.213-Cold Temperature Test Fuel Specifications for Gasoline Without Ethanol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Item                          Regular                Premium \1\        Reference procedure \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(RON+MON)/2 \3\......................  87.80.3....  92.30.5....  ASTM D2699.
Sensitivity\3\.......................  7.5....................  7.5....................
Distillation Range ([deg]F)..........  .......................  .......................  ASTM D86
    Evaporated initial boiling point.  76-96..................  76-96..................
    10% evaporated...................  98-118.................  105-125................

[[Page 30057]]

 
    50% evaporated...................  179-214................  195-225................
    90% evaporated...................  316-346................  316-346................
    Evaporated final boiling point...  413 Maximum............  413 Maximum............
Hydrocarbon composition (vol %)......  .......................  .......................  ASTM D1319.
    Olefins..........................  12.50.5....  10.50.5....
    Aromatics........................  26.44.0....  32.04.0....
    Saturates........................  Remainder..............  Remainder..............
Lead, g/gallon.......................  0.01, Maximum..........  0.01, Maximum..........  ASTM D3237.
Phosphorous, g/gallon................  0.005 Maximum..........  0.005 Maximum..........  ASTM D3231.
Total sulfur, wt. %..................  0.0015-0.008...........  0.0015-0.008 \4\.......  ASTM D3120.
RVP, psi.............................  11.50.3....  11.50.3....  ASTM D4953.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The premium fuel specifications apply for vehicles designed to use high-octane premium fuel.
\2\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   86.1.
\3\ Octane specifications are optional for manufacturer testing.
\4\ Sulfur concentration will not exceed 0.0045 weight percent for EPA testing.

    (3) Manufacturers may use the E0 gasoline test fuel specified in 
Sec.  86.113 for certification instead of the fuel specified in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, as long as the change in test fuel 
does not cause cold NMHC, CO, or CO2 emissions to decrease; 
manufacturers must keep records documenting these emission effects and 
make them available to EPA upon request.
    (4) We may approve alternate fuel specifications that are 
substantially equivalent to those in paragraph (a)(2) of this section 
for a manufacturer's testing.
    (b) Diesel fuel. Diesel fuel for testing under this subpart must 
meet the specifications for low-temperature test fuel in 40 CFR 
1065.703.

Subpart D--[Removed and reserved]

0
121. Subpart D, consisting of Sec. Sec.  86.301-79 through 86.348-79, 
is removed and resereved.

Subpart F--[Amended]


Sec.  86.505-78--[Removed]  

0
122. Remove Sec.  86.505-78.


Sec.  86.513-94--[Amended]  

0
123. Section 86.513-94 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a) and by removing and reserving paragraphs (e) and (f).
0
124. Section 86.515-78 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.515-78  EPA urban dynamometer driving schedule.

    (a) The dynamometer driving schedules are listed in appendix I. The 
driving schedules are defined by a smooth trace drawn through the 
specified speed vs. time relationships. They consist of a nonrepetitive 
series of idle, acceleration, cruise, and deceleration modes of various 
time sequences and rates. Appropriate driving schedules are as follows:
    (1) Class I--Appendix I(b).
    (2) Class II--Appendix I(a)(2).
    (3) Class III--Appendix I(a)(2).
* * * * *
    (d) For motorcycles with an engine displacement less than 50 cc and 
a top speed less than 58.7 km/hr (36.5 mph), the speed indicated for 
each second of operation on the applicable Class I driving trace (speed 
versus time sequence) specified in appendix I(b) shall be adjusted 
downward by the ratio of actual top speed to specified maximum test 
speed. Calculate the ratio with three significant figures by dividing 
the top speed of the motorcycle in km/hr by 58.7. For example, for a 
motorcycle with a top speed of 48.3 km/hr (30 mph), the ratio would be 
48.3/58.7 = 0.823. The top speed to be used under this section shall be 
indicated in the manufacturer's application for certification, and 
shall be the highest sustainable speed of the motorcycle with an 80 kg 
rider on a flat paved surface. If the motorcycle is equipped with a 
permanent speed governor that is unlikely to be removed in actual use, 
measure the top speed in the governed configuration; otherwise measure 
the top speed in the ungoverned configuration.

Subpart G--[Amended]

0
125. Section 86.608-98 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.608-98  Test procedures.

    (a) The prescribed test procedures are the Federal Test Procedure, 
as described in subpart B of this part, and the cold temperature CO 
test procedure as described in subpart C of this part. For purposes of 
Selective Enforcement Audit testing, the manufacturer shall not be 
required to perform any of the test procedures in subpart B of this 
part relating to evaporative emission testing, other than refueling 
emissions testing, except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) The Administrator may omit any of the testing procedures 
described in paragraph (a) of this section. Further, the Administrator 
may, on the basis of a written application by a manufacturer, approve 
optional test procedures other than those in subparts B and C of this 
part for any motor vehicle which is not susceptible to satisfactory 
testing using the procedures in subparts B and C of this part.
    (2) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart B of 
this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing:
    (i) For mileage accumulation, the manufacturer may use test fuel 
meeting the specifications for mileage and service accumulation fuels 
of Sec.  86.113. Otherwise, the manufacturer may use fuels other than 
those specified in this section only with the advance approval of the 
Administrator.
    (ii) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel 
at other than the approximate mid-volume of the fuel tank, as specified 
in Sec.  86.131-96(a) with only a single temperature sensor, and may 
drain the test fuel from other than the lowest point of the tank, as

[[Page 30058]]

specified in Sec. Sec.  86.131-96(b) and 86.152-98(a), provided an 
equivalent method is used. Equivalency documentation shall be 
maintained by the manufacturers and shall be made available to the 
Administrator upon request. Additionally, for any test vehicle that has 
remained under laboratory ambient temperature conditions for at least 6 
hours prior to testing, the vehicle soak described in Sec.  86.132-
96(c) may be eliminated upon approval of the Administrator. In such 
cases, the vehicle shall be operated through the preconditioning drive 
described in Sec.  86.132-96(c) immediately following the fuel drain 
and fill procedure described in Sec.  86.132-96(b).
    (iii) The manufacturer may perform additional preconditioning on 
Selective Enforcement Audit test vehicles other than the 
preconditioning specified in Sec.  86.132 only if the additional 
preconditioning was performed on certification test vehicles of the 
same configuration.
    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) The manufacturer may substitute slave tires for the drive wheel 
tires on the vehicle as specified in Sec.  86.135-90(e): Provided, that 
the slave tires are the same size.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (vii) In performing exhaust sample analysis under Sec.  86.140-94.
    (A) When testing diesel vehicles, or methanol-fueled Otto-cycle 
vehicles, the manufacturer shall allow a minimum of 20 minutes warm-up 
for the HC analyzer, and for diesel vehicles, a minimum of two hours 
warm-up for the CO, CO2. and NOx analyzers. (Power is normally left on 
infrared and chemiluminescent analyzers. When not in use, the chopper 
motors of the infrared analyzers are turned off and the phototube high 
voltage supply to the chemiluminescent analyzers is placed in the 
standby position.)
    (B) The manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from 
condensing in the sample collection bags.
    (viii) The manufacturer need not comply with Sec.  86.142 or Sec.  
86.155, since the records required therein are provided under other 
provisions of this subpart G.
    (ix) If a manufacturer elects to perform the background 
determination procedure described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi) of this 
section in addition to performing the refueling emissions test 
procedure, the elapsed time between the initial and final FID readings 
shall be recorded, rounded to the nearest second rather than minute as 
described in Sec.  86.154-98(e)(8). In addition, the vehicle soak 
described in Sec.  86.153-98(e) shall be conducted with the windows and 
luggage compartment of the vehicle open.
    (x) The Administrator may elect to perform a seal test, described 
in Sec.  86.153-98(b), of both integrated and non-integrated systems 
instead of the full refueling test. When testing non-integrated 
systems, a manufacturer may conduct the canister purge described in 
Sec.  86.153-98(b)(1) directly following the preconditioning drive 
described in Sec.  86.132-96(e) or directly following the exhaust 
emissions test described in Sec.  86.137-96.
    (xi) In addition to the refueling test, a manufacturer may elect to 
perform the following background emissions determination immediately 
prior to the refueling measurement procedure described in Sec.  86.154, 
provided EPA is notified of this decision prior to the start of testing 
in an SEA.
    (A) The SHED shall be purged for several minutes immediately prior 
to the background determination. Warning: If at any time the 
concentration of hydrocarbons, of methanol, or of methanol and 
hydrocarbons exceeds 15,000 ppm C, the enclosure should be immediately 
purged. This concentration provides a 4:1 safety factor against the 
lean flammability limit.
    (B) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon analyzer shall be zeroed and 
spanned immediately prior to the background determination. If not 
already on, the enclosure mixing fan and the spilled fuel mixing blower 
shall be turned on at this time.
    (C) Place the vehicle in the SHED. The ambient temperature level 
encountered by the test vehicle during the entire background emissions 
determination shall be 80[emsp14][deg]F 3[emsp14][deg]F. 
The windows and luggage compartment of the vehicle must be open and the 
gas cap must be secured.
    (D) Seal the SHED. Immediately analyze the ambient concentration of 
hydrocarbons in the SHED and record. This is the initial background 
hydrocarbon concentration.
    (E) Soak the vehicle for ten minutes 1 minute.
    (F) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon analyzer shall be zeroed and 
spanned immediately prior to the end of the background determination.
    (G) Analyze the ambient concentration of hydrocarbons in the SHED 
and record. This is the final background hydrocarbon concentration.
    (H) The total hydrocarbon mass emitted during the background 
determination is calculated according to Sec.  86.156. To obtain a per-
minute background emission rate, divide the total hydrocarbon mass 
calculated in this paragraph by the duration of the soak, rounded to 
the nearest second, described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi)(G) of this 
section.
    (I) The background emission rate is multiplied by the duration of 
the refueling measurement obtained in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this 
section. This number is then subtracted from the total grams of 
emissions calculated for the refueling test according to Sec.  86.156-
98(a) to obtain the adjusted value for total refueling emissions. The 
final results for comparison with the refueling emission standard shall 
be computed by dividing the adjusted value for total refueling mass 
emissions by the total gallons of fuel dispensed in the refueling test 
as described in Sec.  86.156-98(b).
    (xii) In addition to the requirements of subpart B of this part, 
the manufacturer shall prepare gasoline-fueled and methanol-fueled 
vehicles as follows prior to emission testing:
    (A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel system to ensure the 
absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by applying a 
pressure of 14.50.5 inches of water (3.60.1 
kPa) to the fuel system, allowing the pressure to stabilize, and 
isolating the fuel system from the pressure source. Following isolation 
of the fuel system, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of 
water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If required, the manufacturer shall 
perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section and report this action in accordance with Sec.  86.609-98(d).
    (B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall 
exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling 
emission control systems.
    (C) The manufacturer may not modify the test vehicle's evaporative 
or refueling emission control systems by component addition, deletion, 
or substitution, except to comply with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section if approved in advance by the Administrator.
    (3) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart C of 
this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing:
    (i) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel 
at other than the approximate mid-volume of the fuel tank, as specified 
in Sec.  86.107-96(e), and may drain the test fuel from other than the 
lowest point of the fuel tank, provided an equivalent method is used. 
Equivalency documentation shall be maintained by the manufacturer and 
shall be made available to the Administrator upon request.

[[Page 30059]]

    (ii) In performing exhaust sample analysis under Sec.  86.140, the 
manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from condensing in 
the sample collection bags.
    (iii) The manufacturer need not comply with Sec.  86.142 since the 
records required therein are provided under other provisions of this 
subpart G.
    (iv) In addition to the requirements of subpart C of this part, the 
manufacturer shall prepare gasoline-fueled vehicles as follows prior to 
exhaust emission testing:
    (A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel system to ensure the 
absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by applying a 
pressure of 14.50.5 inches of water (3.60.1 
kPa) to the fuel system allowing the pressure to stabilize and 
isolating the fuel system from the pressure source. Following isolation 
of the fuel system, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of 
water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If required, the manufacturer shall 
perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section and report this action in accordance with Sec.  86.609-98(d).
    (B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall 
exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling 
emission control system.
    (C) The manufacturer shall not modify the test vehicle's 
evaporative or refueling emission control system by component addition, 
deletion, or substitution, except if approved in advance by the 
Administrator, to comply with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
0
126. Section 86.609-98 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.609-98  Calculation and reporting of test results.

    (a) Initial test results are calculated following the test 
procedures specified in Sec.  86.608-98(a). Round the initial test 
results to the number of decimal places contained in the applicable 
emission standard expressed to one additional significant figure.
    (b) Final test results for each test vehicle are calculated by 
summing the initial test results derived in paragraph (a) of this 
section for each test vehicle, dividing by the number of times that 
specific test has been conducted on the vehicle, and rounding to the 
same number of decimal places contained in the applicable standard 
expressed to one additional significant figure.
    (c) Final deteriorated test results--(1) For each test vehicle. The 
final deteriorated test results for each light-duty vehicle tested for 
exhaust emissions and/or refueling emissions according to subpart B, 
subpart C, or subpart R of this part are calculated by first 
multiplying or adding, as appropriate, the final test results by or to 
the appropriate deterioration factor derived from the certification 
process for the engine or evaporative/refueling family and model year 
to which the selected configuration belongs, and then by multiplying by 
the appropriate reactivity adjustment factor, if applicable, and 
rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in the 
applicable emission standard. For the purpose of this paragraph (c), if 
a multiplicative deterioration factor as computed during the 
certification process is less than one, that deterioration factor is 
one. If an additive deterioration factor as computed during the 
certification process is less than zero, that deterioration factor will 
be zero.
    (2) Exceptions. There are no deterioration factors for light-duty 
vehicle emissions obtained during spitback testing in accordance with 
Sec.  86.146-96. Accordingly, for the fuel dispensing spitback test, 
the term ``final deteriorated test results'' means the final test 
results derived in paragraph (b) of this section for each test vehicle, 
rounded to the same number of decimal places contained in the 
applicable emission standard.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.610-98  [Amended]

0
127. Section 86.610-98 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(c)(2).
0
128. Section 86.612-97 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.612-97  Suspension and revocation of certificates of 
conformity.

    (a) The certificate of conformity is immediately suspended with 
respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to Sec.  86.610-98 (b) 
effective from the time that testing of that vehicle is completed.
    (b) The Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity for 
a configuration that does not pass a selective enforcement audit 
pursuant to Sec.  86.610-98(c) based on the first test, or all tests, 
conducted on each vehicle. This suspension will not occur before ten 
days after failure to pass the audit.
    (c) If the results of vehicle testing pursuant to the requirements 
of this subpart indicates the vehicles of a particular configuration 
produced at more than one plant do not conform to the regulations with 
respect to which the certificate of conformity was issued, the 
Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity with respect to 
that configuration for vehicles manufactured by the manufacturer in 
other plants of the manufacturer.
    (d) The Administrator will notify the manufacturer in writing of 
any suspension or revocation of a certificate of conformity in whole or 
in part: Except, that the certificate of conformity is immediately 
suspended with respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to Sec.  86.610-
98(b) and as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (e) The Administrator may revoke a certificate of conformity for a 
configuration when the certificate has been suspended pursuant to 
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the proposed remedy for the 
nonconformity, as reported by the manufacturer to the Administrator, is 
one requiring a design change(s) to the engine and/or emission control 
system as described in the Application for Certification of the 
affected configuration.
    (f) Once a certificate has been suspended for a failed vehicle as 
provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer must 
take the following actions:
    (1) Before the certificate is reinstated for that failed vehicle--
    (i) Remedy the nonconformity; and
    (ii) Demonstrate that the vehicle's final deteriorated test results 
conform to the applicable emission standards or family particulate 
emission limits, as defined in this part 86 by retesting the vehicle in 
accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
    (2) Submit a written report to the Administrator within thirty days 
after successful completion of testing on the failed vehicle, which 
contains a description of the remedy and test results for the vehicle 
in addition to other information that may be required by this subpart.
    (g) Once a certificate has been suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) 
or (c) of this section, the manufacturer must take the following 
actions before the Administrator will consider reinstating such 
certificate:
    (1) Submit a written report to the Administrator which identifies 
the reason for the noncompliance of the vehicles, describes the 
proposed remedy, including a description of any proposed quality 
control and/or quality assurance measures to be taken by the 
manufacturer to prevent the future occurrence of the problem, and 
states the date on which the remedies will be implemented.
    (2) Demonstrate that the engine family or configuration for which 
the certificate of conformity has been suspended does in fact comply 
with the requirements of

[[Page 30060]]

this subpart by testing vehicles selected from normal production runs 
of that engine family or configuration at the plant(s) or the 
facilities specified by the Administrator, in accordance with: the 
conditions specified in the initial test order pursuant to Sec.  86.603 
for a configuration suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this 
section.
    (3) If the Administrator has not revoked the certificate pursuant 
to paragraph (e) of this section and if the manufacturer elects to 
continue testing individual vehicles after suspension of a certificate, 
the certificate is reinstated for any vehicle actually determined to 
have its final deteriorated test results in conformance with the 
applicable standards through testing in accordance with the applicable 
test procedures.
    (h) Once a certificate for a failed engine family or configuration 
has been revoked under paragraph (e) of this section and the 
manufacturer desires to introduce into commerce a modified version of 
that engine family or configuration, the following actions will be 
taken before the Administrator may issue a certificate for the new 
engine family or configuration:
    (1) If the Administrator determines that the proposed change(s) in 
vehicle design may have an effect on emission performance deterioration 
and/or fuel economy, he/she shall notify the manufacturer within five 
working days after receipt of the report in paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section whether subsequent testing under this subpart will be 
sufficient to evaluate the proposed change(s) or whether additional 
testing will be required.
    (2) After implementing the change(s) intended to remedy the 
nonconformity, the manufacturer shall demonstrate, if the certificate 
was revoked pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, that the 
modified vehicle configuration does in fact conform with the 
requirements of this subpart by testing vehicles selected from normal 
production runs of that modified vehicle configuration in accordance 
with the conditions specified in the initial test order pursuant to 
Sec.  86.603. The Administrator shall consider this testing to satisfy 
the testing requirements of Sec.  86.079-32 or Sec.  86.079-33 if the 
Administrator had so notified the manufacturer. If the subsequent 
testing results in a pass decision pursuant to the criteria in Sec.  
86.610-98(c), the Administrator shall reissue or amend the certificate, 
if necessary, to include that configuration: Provided, that the 
manufacturer has satisfied the testing requirements specified in 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section. If the subsequent audit results in a 
fail decision pursuant to the criteria in Sec.  86.610-98(c), the 
revocation remains in effect. Any design change approvals under this 
subpart are limited to the modification of the configuration specified 
by the test order.
    (i) A manufacturer may at any time subsequent to an initial 
suspension of a certificate of conformity with respect to a test 
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, but not later than 
fifteen (15) days or such other period as may be allowed by the 
Administrator after notification of the Administrator's decision to 
suspend or revoke a certificate of conformity in whole or in part 
pursuant to paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of this section, request that the 
Administrator grant such manufacturer a hearing as to whether the tests 
have been properly conducted or any sampling methods have been properly 
applied.
    (j) After the Administrator suspends or revokes a certificate of 
conformity pursuant to this section or notifies a manufacturer of his 
intent to suspend, revoke or void a certificate of conformity under 
Sec.  86.007-30(e) or Sec.  86.1850, and prior to the commencement of a 
hearing under Sec.  86.614, if the manufacturer demonstrates to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that the decision to suspend, revoke or 
void the certificate was based on erroneous information, the 
Administrator shall reinstate the certificate.
    (k) To permit a manufacturer to avoid storing non-test vehicles 
when conducting testing of an engine family or configuration subsequent 
to suspension or revocation of the certificate of conformity for that 
engine family or configuration pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (e) 
of this section, the manufacturer may request that the Administrator 
conditionally reinstate the certificate for that engine family or 
configuration. The Administrator may reinstate the certificate subject 
to the condition that the manufacturer consents to recall all vehicles 
of that engine family or configuration produced from the time the 
certificate is conditionally reinstated if the engine family or 
configuration fails the subsequent testing and to remedy any 
nonconformity at no expense to the owner.

Subpart H--[Removed and reserved]

0
129. Subpart H, consisting of Sec. Sec.  86.701-94 through 86.709-99, 
is removed and reserved.

Subpart M--[Removed and reserved]

0
130. Subpart M, consisting of Sec. Sec.  86.1201-90 through 86.1246-96, 
is removed and reserved.

Subpart N--Exhaust Test Procedures for Heavy-Duty Engines

0
131. The heading of subpart N is revised to read as set forth above.
0
132. Section 86.1305-2010 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1305, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1305 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1305  Introduction; structure of subpart.

    (a) This subpart specifies the equipment and procedures for 
performing exhaust-emission tests on Otto-cycle and diesel-cycle heavy-
duty engines. Subpart A of this part sets forth the emission standards 
and general testing requirements to comply with EPA certification 
procedures.
    (b) Use the applicable equipment and procedures for spark-ignition 
or compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to determine 
whether engines meet the duty-cycle emission standards in subpart A of 
this part. Measure the emissions of all regulated pollutants as 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the duty cycles and procedures 
specified in Sec. Sec.  86.1333, 86.1360, and 86.1362. Adjust emission 
results from engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent 
regeneration events as described in Sec.  86.004-28.
    (c) The provisions in Sec. Sec.  86.1370 and 86.1372 apply for 
determining whether an engine meets the applicable not-to-exceed 
emission standards.
    (d) Measure smoke using the procedures in subpart I of this part 
for evaluating whether engines meet the smoke standards in subpart A of 
this part.
    (e) Use the fuels specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid 
tests, as follows:
    (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 ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065 for emission testing.
    (3) For gasoline-fueled engines, use the appropriate E0 fuel 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065, except that the sulfur concentration 
must be between 0.0015 and 0.008 weight percent and research octane 
must be at least 93.
    (f) You may use special or alternate procedures to the extent we 
allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10. In addition, for 2010 and earlier 
model year engines, you may use modified test procedures

[[Page 30061]]

as needed to conform to the procedures that were specified at the time 
of emission testing for the model year in question.
    (g) This subpart applies to you as a manufacturer, and to anyone 
who does testing for you.
    (h) For testing conducted with engines installed in vehicles, 
including field testing conducted to measure emissions under Not-To-
Exceed test procedures, use the test procedures and equipment specified 
in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J.


Sec. Sec.  86.1305-90, 86.1305-2004, 86.1306-07, 86.1306-96, 86.1308-
84, 86.1309-90, 86.1310-90, 86.1310-2007, 86.1311-94, 86.1312-88, 
86.1312-2007, 86.1313-94, 86.1313-98, 86.1313-2004, 86.1313-2007, 
86.1314-94, 86.1316-94, 86.1318-84, 86.1319-90, 86.1320-90, 86.1321-94, 
86.1322-84, 86.1323-84, 86.1323-2007, 86.1324-84, 86.1325-94, 86.1326-
90, 86.1327-96, 86.1327-98, 86.1330-90, and 86.1332-90  [Removed]

0
133. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1305-90, 86.1305-2004, 86.1306-07, 86.1306-
96, 86.1308-84, 86.1309-90, 86.1310-90, 86.1310-2007, 86.1311-94, 
86.1312-88, 86.1312-2007, 86.1313-94, 86.1313-98, 86.1313-2004, 
86.1313-2007, 86.1314-94, 86.1316-94, 86.1318-84, 86.1319-90, 86.1320-
90, 86.1321-94, 86.1322-84, 86.1323-84, 86.1323-2007, 86.1324-84, 
86.1325-94, 86.1326-90, 86.1327-96, 86.1327-98, 86.1330-90, and 
86.1332-90.
0
134. Section 86.1333-2010 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1333, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1333 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1333  Transient test cycle generation.

    (a) * * *
    (1) To unnormalize rpm, use the following equations:
    (i) For diesel engines:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.141
    
Where:

Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part 
1065.

    (ii) For Otto-cycle engines:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.142
    
Where:

Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part 
1065.
* * * * *
    (d) Determine idle speeds as specified in 40 CFR 1065.510.


Sec. Sec.  86.1333-90, 86.1334-84, 86.1335-90, 86.1336-84, 86.1337-96, 
86.1337-2007, 86.1338-84, 86.1338-2007, 86.1339-90, 86.1340-90, 
86.1340-94, 86.1341-90, 86.1341-98, 86.1342-90, 86.1342-94, 86.1343-88, 
and 86.1344-94   [Removed]

0
135. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1333-90, 86.1334-84, 86.1335-90, 86.1336-84, 
86.1337-96, 86.1337-2007, 86.1338-84, 86.1338-2007, 86.1339-90, 
86.1340-90, 86.1340-94, 86.1341-90, 86.1341-98, 86.1342-90, 86.1342-94, 
86.1343-88, and 86.1344-94.
0
136. Section 86.1360-2007 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1360, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1360 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), 
(c), and (f)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1360  Supplemental emission test; test cycle and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Perform testing as described in Sec.  86.1362 for determining 
whether an engine meets the applicable standards when measured over the 
supplemental emission test.
* * * * *
    (c) The engine speeds A, B and C, referenced in the table in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must be determined as follows:
Speed A = nlo+ 0.25 x (nhi-nlo)
Speed B = nlo+ 0.50 x (nhi-nlo)
Speed C = nlo+ 0.75 x (nhi-nlo)

Where:

nhi = High speed as determined by calculating 70% of the 
maximum power. The highest engine speed where this power value 
occurs on the power curve is defined as nhi.
nlo = Low speed as determined by calculating 50% of the 
maximum power. The lowest engine speed where this power value occurs 
on the power curve is defined as nlo. Maximum power = the 
maximum observed power calculated according to the engine mapping 
procedures defined in 40 CFR 1065.510.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) If the Maximum Allowable Emission Limit for any point, as 
calculated under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, is greater 
than the applicable Not-to-Exceed limit (if within the Not-to-Exceed 
control area defined in Sec.  86.1370(b)), then the Maximum Allowable 
Emission Limit for that point shall be defined as the applicable Not-
to-Exceed limit.
* * * * *
0
137. Section 86.1362-2010 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1362, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1362 is amended by revising the introductory text 
and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1362  Steady-state testing with a ramped-modal cycle.

    This section describes how to test engines under steady-state 
conditions.
* * * * *
    (f) For 2007 through 2010 model years, manufacturers may follow the 
mode order described in this paragraph (f) instead of the mode order 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. Any EPA testing with these 
engines will rely on the same procedure used by the manufacturer for 
certification.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Time in mode
              RMC mode                   (seconds)        Engine speed 1 2            Torque (percent) 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Steady-state....................               170  Warm Idle.............  0.
1b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
2a Steady-state....................               170  A.....................  100.

[[Page 30062]]

 
2b Transition......................                20  A.....................  Linear Transition.
3a Steady-state....................               102  A.....................  25.
3b Transition......................                20  A.....................  Linear Transition.
4a Steady-state....................               100  A.....................  75.
4b Transition......................                20  A.....................  Linear Transition.
5a Steady-state....................               103  A.....................  50.
5b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
6a Steady-state....................               194  B.....................  100.
6b Transition......................                20  B.....................  Linear Transition.
7a Steady-state....................               219  B.....................  25.
7b Transition......................                20  B.....................  Linear Transition.
8a Steady-state....................               220  B.....................  75.
8b Transition......................                20  B.....................  Linear Transition.
9a Steady-state....................               219  B.....................  50.
9b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
10a Steady-state...................               171  C.....................  100.
10b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
11a Steady-state...................               102  C.....................  25.
11b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
12a Steady-state...................               100  C.....................  75.
12b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
13a Steady-state...................               102  C.....................  50.
13b Transition.....................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
14 Steady-state....................               168  Warm Idle.............  0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
\2\ Advance from one mode to the next within a 20-second transition phase. During the transition phase, command
  a linear progression from the speed or torque setting of the current mode to the speed or torque setting of
  the next mode.
\3\ The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed.

Sec. Sec.  86.1362-2007 and 86.1363-2007  [Removed]

0
138. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1362-2007 and 86.1363-2007.
0
139. Section 86.1370-2007 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1370, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1370 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), 
(b)(3), (b)(6), and (f) introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1370  Not-To-Exceed test procedures.

    (a) General. The purpose of this test procedure is to measure in-
use emissions of heavy-duty diesel engines while operating within a 
broad range of speed and load points (the Not-To-Exceed Control Area) 
and under conditions which can reasonably be expected to be encountered 
in normal vehicle operation and use. Emission results from this test 
procedure are to be compared to the Not-To-Exceed Limits specified in 
Sec.  86.007-11(a)(4), or to later Not-To-Exceed Limits. The Not-To-
Exceed Limits do not apply for engine-starting conditions. Tests 
conducted using the procedures specified in this subpart are considered 
valid Not-To-Exceed tests (Note: duty cycles and limits on ambient 
conditions do not apply for Not-To-Exceed tests).
    (b) * * *
    (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 
this section, all operating speed and load points with brake specific 
fuel consumption (BSFC) values within 5% of the minimum BSFC value of 
the engine. For the purposes of this requirement, BFSC must be 
calculated under the general test cell conditions specified in 40 CFR 
part 1065. The manufacturer may petition the Administrator at 
certification to exclude such points if the manufacturer can 
demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points 
in normal vehicle operation and use. Engines equipped with drivelines 
with multi-speed manual transmissions or automatic transmissions with a 
finite number of gears are not subject to the requirements of this 
paragraph (b)(3).
* * * * *
    (6)(i) For petroleum-fueled diesel cycle engines, the manufacturer 
may identify particular engine-vehicle combinations and may petition 
the Administrator at certification to exclude operating points from the 
Not-to-Exceed Control Area defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
this section if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not 
capable of operating at such points when used in the specified engine-
vehicle combination(s).
    (ii) For diesel cycle engines that are not petroleum-fueled, the 
manufacturer may petition the Administrator at certification to exclude 
operating points from the Not-to-Exceed Control Area defined in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section if the manufacturer can 
demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points 
in normal vehicle operation and use.
* * * * *
    (f) NTE cold temperature operating exclusion. Engines equipped with 
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) whose operation within the NTE control 
area specified in paragraph (b) of this section when operating during 
cold temperature conditions as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section are not subject to the NTE emission limits during the specified 
cold temperature operation conditions.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.1372-2007  [Redesignated as Sec.  86.1372]

0
140. Section 86.1372-2007 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1372.


Sec. Sec.  86.1375-2007 and 86.1380-2004  [Removed]

0
141. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1375-2007 and 86.1380-2004.

Subpart O--[Removed and reserved]

0
142. Subpart O, consisting of Sec. Sec.  86.1401 through 86.1442, is 
removed and reserved.

Subpart R--[Removed and reserved]

0
143. Subpart R, consisting of Sec. Sec.  86.1701-99 through 86.1780-99, 
is removed and reserved.

Subpart S--[Amended]

0
144. Section 86.1801-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through 
(d) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

[[Page 30063]]

Sec.  86.1801-12  Applicability.

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain 
types of new vehicles as described in this paragraph (a). Where the 
provisions apply for a type of vehicle, they apply for vehicles powered 
by any fuel. In some cases, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines and 
vehicles can choose whether to meet the requirements of this subpart or 
the requirements of subpart A of this part; those provisions are 
therefore considered optional, but only to the extent that 
manufacturers comply with the other set of requirements. In cases where 
a provision applies only to a certain vehicle group based on its model 
year, vehicle class, motor fuel, engine type, or other distinguishing 
characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate 
section. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain vehicles as 
follows:
    (1) The provisions of this subpart apply for light-duty vehicles, 
and light-duty trucks,
    (2) The provisions of this subpart apply for medium-duty passenger 
vehicles. The provisions of this subpart also apply for other complete 
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, except as follows:
    (i) The provisions of this subpart are optional for diesel-cycle 
vehicles through model year 2018.
    (ii) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart do not 
apply if engines meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in 
Sec.  86.007-17.
    (iii) Greenhouse gas emission standards apply as specified in 40 
CFR parts 1036 and 1037 instead of the standards specified in this 
subpart.
    (3) The provisions of this subpart generally do not apply to 
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles or to complete vehicles above 14,000 
pounds GVWR (see subpart A of this part and 40 CFR part 1037). However, 
this subpart applies to such vehicles in the following cases:
    (i) Incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR 
may be optionally certified to the exhaust emission standards in this 
subpart that apply for complete heavy-duty vehicles.
    (ii) The evaporative and refueling emission standards apply for 
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR starting 
with model year 2018. Evaporative emission standards also apply for 
vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in 40 CFR part 1037.
    (iii) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart do not 
apply for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR; these requirements apply 
for incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR only if the 
installed engine does not meet the onboard diagnostic requirements 
specified in Sec.  86.007-17.
    (b) Relationship to subpart A of this part. Unless specified 
otherwise, if heavy-duty vehicles are not subject to provisions of this 
subpart or if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of 
this subpart as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the engines 
installed in those vehicles must meet the corresponding requirements 
under subpart A of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine 
comply with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart A of 
this part, the vehicle must be certified under this subpart, and the 
engine does not need to be certified separately.
    (c) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions of this 
subpart also apply to clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 
40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (d) Small volume manufacturers. Special certification procedures 
are available for small-volume manufacturers as described in Sec.  
86.1838.
    (e) You. The term ``you'' in this subpart refers to manufacturers 
subject to the emission standards and other requirements of this 
subpart.
* * * * *
0
145. Section 86.1803-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the definition for ``Certification Short Test (CST)''.
0
b. By adding definitions for ``Class 2b'' and ``Class 3'' in 
alphabetical order.
0
c. By revising the definitions for ``Family emission limit (FEL)'', 
``Heavy-duty vehicle'', and ``Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV)''.
0
d. By adding definitions for ``LEV III'' and ``Low-altitude 
conditions'' in alphabetical order.
0
e. By removing the definition for ``Low altitude conditions''.
0
f. By adding a definition for ``Rated power'' in alphabetical order.
0
g. By revising the definition for ``Round, rounded or rounding''.
0
h. By adding definitions for ``Section 177 states'', ``Tier 3'', and 
``United States'' in alphabetical order.
0
i. By revising the definition for ``U.S. sales''.
0
j. By adding definitions for ``Volatile liquid fuel'' and ``We (us, 
our)'' in alphabetical order.


Sec.  86.1803-01  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Class 2b means relating to heavy-duty vehicles at or below 10,000 
pounds GVWR.
    Class 3 means relating to heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds 
GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
    Family emission limit (FEL) means a bin standard or emission level 
selected by the manufacturer that serves as the applicable emission 
standard for the vehicles in the family or test group in the context of 
fleet-average standards or emission credits.
* * * * *
    Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor vehicle rated at more than 8,500 
pounds GVWR or that has a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 pounds 
or that has a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet. 
Note that MDPVs are heavy-duty vehicles that are in many cases subject 
to requirements that apply for light-duty trucks.
* * * * *
    Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means a motor vehicle which draws 
propulsion energy from onboard sources of stored energy that are both 
an internal combustion engine or heat engine using consumable fuel, and 
a rechargeable energy storage system such as a battery, capacitor, 
hydraulic accumulator, or flywheel.
* * * * *
    LEV III means relating to the LEV III emission standards in Title 
13, Sec. Sec.  1961.2 and 1976(b)1)(G) of the California Code of 
Regulations, as adopted by the California Air Resources Board 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  86.1).
* * * * *
    Low-altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 549 meters 
(1,800 feet).
* * * * *
    Rated power means an engine's maximum power output in an installed 
configuration, as determined by using SAE J1349 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  86.1).
* * * * *
    Round, rounded or rounding has the meaning given in 40 CFR 
1065.1001, unless otherwise specified.
* * * * *
    Section 177 states means the states that have adopted California's 
motor vehicle standards for a particular model year under section 177 
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7507).
* * * * *
    Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 emission standards described in 
Sec. Sec.  86.1811-17, 86.1813-17, and 86.1816-18.
* * * * *

[[Page 30064]]

    United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
    U.S. sales means, unless otherwise specified, sales in any state of 
the United States except for California or the section 177 states. Sale 
location is based on the point of first sale to a dealer, distributor, 
fleet operator, broker, or other entity.
* * * * *
    Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel other than diesel or biodiesel 
that is a liquid at atmospheric pressure and has a Reid Vapor Pressure 
higher than 2.0 pounds per square inch.
* * * * *
    We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.
* * * * *


Sec.  86.1805-01  [Removed]

0
146. Remove Sec.  86.1805-01.
0
147. A new Sec.  86.1805-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1805-17  Useful life.

    (a) General provisions. The useful life values specified in this 
section apply for all exhaust, evaporative, refueling, and OBD emission 
requirements described in this subpart, except for standards that are 
specified to apply only at certification. These useful life 
requirements also apply to all air conditioning leakage credits, air 
conditioning efficiency credits, and other credit programs used by the 
manufacturer to comply with the fleet-average CO2 emission 
standards in Sec.  86.1818. Useful life values are specified as a given 
number of calendar years and miles of driving, whichever comes first.
    (b) Greenhouse gas pollutants. The emission standards in Sec.  
86.1818 apply for a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles for LDVs 
and LLDTs and 11 years or 120,000 miles for HLDTs, MDPVs, and heavy-
duty vehicles. Manufacturers may alternatively certify based on a 
longer useful life as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Criteria pollutants. The useful life provisions of this 
paragraph (c) apply for all emission standards not covered by paragraph 
(b) of this section. Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this 
section and in Sec. Sec.  86.1811, 86.1813, and 86.1816, the useful 
life for LDT2s, HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs is 15 years or 150,000 miles. 
The useful life for LDV and LDT1 is 10 years or 120,000 miles. 
Manufacturers may optionally certify LDVs and LDT1s to a useful life of 
15 years or 150,000 miles, in which case the longer useful life would 
apply for all the standards and requirements. LDVs and LDT1s certified 
to the longer useful life are subject to higher numerical FTP emission 
standard for NMOG+NOx as specified in Sec.  86.1811-17(b).
    (d) Intermediate useful life. Where exhaust emission standards are 
specified for an intermediate useful life, these standards apply for 
five years or 50,000 miles.
    (e) Interim provisions. The useful life provisions of Sec.  
86.1805-12 apply for vehicles not yet subject to Tier 3 requirements. 
For example, vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR are not subject to the 
useful life provisions in this section until model year 2019 unless 
manufacturers voluntarily certify to the Tier 3 requirements earlier 
than the regulations require. Also, where the transition to Tier 3 
standards involves a phase-in percentage for a given standard, vehicles 
not included as part of the phase-in portion of the fleet continue to 
be subject to the useful life provisions of Sec.  86.1805-12 with 
respect to that standard.


Sec. Sec.  86.1806-01 and 86.1806-04  [Removed]

0
148. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1806-01 and 86.1806-04.
0
149. Section 86.1806-05 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) 
introductory text and (j) and adding paragraph (k)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.1806-05  On-board diagnostics for vehicles less than or equal 
to 14,000 pounds GVWR.

* * * * *
    (b) Malfunction descriptions. The OBD system must detect and 
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain 
systems or components according to the following malfunction 
definitions as measured and calculated in accordance with test 
procedures set forth in subpart B of this part (chassis-based test 
procedures), excluding those test procedures defined as 
``Supplemental'' test procedures in Sec.  86.004-2 and codified in 
Sec. Sec.  86.158, 86.159, and 86.160. For clean alternative fuel 
conversion manufacturers, your OBD system is expected to detect and 
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain 
systems or components according to the malfunction definitions 
described in this paragraph (b) as measured and calculated in 
accordance with the chassis-based test procedures set forth in subpart 
B of this part to the extent feasible, excluding the elements of the 
Supplemental FTP (see Sec.  86.1803). However, at a minimum, systems 
must detect and identify malfunctions as described in paragraph (k)(7) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (j) California OBDII compliance option. Manufacturers may comply 
with California's OBD requirements instead of meeting the requirements 
of this section as follows:
    (1) Through the 2006 model year, demonstration of compliance with 
California OBDII requirements (Title 13 California Code of Regulations 
Sec.  1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved and filed on April 
21, 2003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  86.1), shall satisfy the 
requirements of this section, except that compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch evaporative leak 
detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering 
protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this 
section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do not 
apply. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of 
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, applies only to 
vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
    (2) For 2007 through 2012 model year vehicles, demonstration of 
compliance with California OBD II requirements (Title 13 California 
Code of Regulations Sec.  1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), approved on November 
9, 2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  86.1), shall satisfy the 
requirements of this section, except that compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch evaporative leak 
detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering 
protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this 
section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) do not 
apply. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of 
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, applies only to 
vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
    (3) Beginning with the 2013 model year, manufacturers may 
demonstrate compliance with California's 2010 OBD requirements as 
described in Sec.  86.1806-17(a).
    (4) For all model years, the deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) 
of this section and the evaporative leak detection requirement of 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, if applicable, apply to manufacturers 
selecting this paragraph for demonstrating compliance.
    (k) * * *
    (7) For clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers (e.g., 
natural

[[Page 30065]]

gas, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, ethanol), in lieu of the 
requirements specified for other manufacturers in this paragraph (k), 
you may demonstrate that the malfunction indicator light will 
illuminate, at a minimum, under any of the following circumstances when 
the vehicle is operated on the applicable alternative fuel:
    (i) Otto-cycle. A catalyst is replaced with a defective catalyst 
system where the catalyst brick for the monitored volume has been 
removed (i.e., empty catalyst system) resulting in an increase of 1.5 
times the NMOG (or NMOG+NOX) standard or FEL above the NMOG 
(or NMOG+NOX) emission level measured using a representative 
4000 mile catalyst system.
    (ii)(A) Diesel. If monitored for emissions performance--a catalyst 
is replaced with a defective catalyst system where the catalyst brick 
for the monitored volume has been removed (i.e., empty catalyst can) 
resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable 
standard or FEL for NOX (or NMOG+NOX) or PM.
    (B) If monitored for performance--a particulate trap is replaced 
with a trap that has catastrophically failed.
    (iii)(A) Otto-cycle. An engine misfire condition is induced that 
completely disables one or more cylinders, either through mechanical or 
electrical means, resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times 
the applicable standards or FEL for CO, NMOG, or NOX (or 
NMOG+NOx).
    (B) Diesel. An engine misfire condition resulting in complete lack 
of cylinder firing is induced and is not detected.
    (iv) If so equipped, any oxygen sensor is replaced with a 
completely defective oxygen sensor, or an electronic simulation of 
such, resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable 
standard or FEL for CO, NMOG, or NOX (or 
NMOG+NOX).
    (v) If so equipped and applicable, a vapor leak is introduced in 
the evaporative and/or refueling system (excluding the tubing and 
connections between the purge valve and the intake manifold) greater 
than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by a 0.040 inch diameter 
orifice, or the evaporative purge air flow is blocked or otherwise 
eliminated from the complete evaporative emission control system. At a 
minimum, gas cap removal or complete venting of the evaporative and/or 
refueling system may be introduced resulting in a gross leak of the 
complete evaporative emission control system.
    (vi) A malfunction condition is induced resulting in complete 
disablement in any emission-related powertrain system or component, 
including but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation 
(EGR) system, if equipped, the secondary air system, if equipped, and 
the fuel control system, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions 
exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard or FEL for PM, CO, 
NMOG, or NOX (or NMOG+NOx).
    (vii) A malfunction condition is induced that completely disables 
an electronic emission-related powertrain system or component not 
otherwise described in this paragraph (k) that either provides input to 
or receives commands from the on-board computer resulting in a 
measurable impact on emissions. At a minimum, manufacturers may be 
required to perform this disablement on critical inputs and outputs 
where lack of the input and output disables an entire monitor as 
described in this paragraph (k)(7)(vii), disables multiple monitors 
(e.g., two or more) used by the on-board computer, or renders the 
entire on-board computer and its functions inoperative.
    (viii) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers must use 
good engineering judgment to induce malfunctions and may perform more 
stringent malfunction demonstrations than described in this paragraph 
(k)(7). In addition, the Administrator reserves the right to request a 
clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer to perform stricter 
demonstration requirements, to the extent feasible, on clean 
alternative fuel conversions.
* * * * *
0
150. A new Sec.  86.1806-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1806-17  On-board diagnostics.

    Model year 2017 and later vehicles must have onboard diagnostic 
(OBD) systems as described in this section. OBD systems must generally 
detect malfunctions in the emission control system, store fault codes 
corresponding to detected malfunctions, and alert operators 
appropriately.
    (a) Vehicles must comply with the 2010 OBD requirements adopted for 
California as described in this paragraph (a). California's 2010 OBD 
requirements are part of Title 13, Sec.  1968.2 of the California Code 
of Regulations, approved on June 17, 2010 (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  86.1). The following clarifications and exceptions apply for 
vehicles certified under this subpart:
    (1) For vehicles not certified in California, references to 
vehicles meeting certain California Air Resources Board emission 
standards are understood to refer to the corresponding EPA emission 
standards for a given family, where applicable. Use good engineering 
judgment to correlate the specified standards with the bin standards 
that apply under this subpart.
    (2) Vehicles must comply with OBD requirements throughout the 
useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805. If the specified useful life 
is different for evaporative and exhaust emissions, the useful life 
specified for evaporative emissions applies for monitoring related to 
fuel-system leaks and the useful life specified for exhaust emissions 
applies for all other parameters.
    (3) The purpose and applicability statements in 13 CCR 1968.2(a) 
and (b) do not apply.
    (4) The anti-tampering provisions in 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4) do not 
apply.
    (5) The requirement to verify proper alignment between the camshaft 
and crankshaft described in 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C) applies only 
for vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
    (6) The deficiency provisions described in paragraph (c) of this 
section apply instead of 13 CCR 1968.2(k).
    (b) The following additional provisions apply:
    (1) OBD systems must record in computer memory the result of the 
most recent successfully completed diagnostic check for a 0.020 inch 
leak. The required data records include the miles driven since the last 
check occurred and the pass/fail result. The system may be designed to 
keep data only from the previous 750 miles of driving. The leak check 
results must be scan readable, and must be retained in system memory 
even if codes are cleared or the vehicle loses battery power.
    (2) For every family selected for making the full OBD demonstration 
for certification, that demonstration must also include a test showing 
that the OBD system is capable of detecting an implanted 0.020 inch 
leak in the fuel system. Manufacturers may separately perform this test 
with any number of additional families. For any untested families, the 
statement specified in Sec.  86.1844-01(d)(8) applies with regard to 
this leak monitoring requirement.
    (3) For vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel 
tank capacity, you may request our approval for a leak threshold 
greater than 0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches. We 
will generally approve a leak threshold equal to the standard that 
applies under Sec.  86.1813.
    (c) You may ask us to accept as compliant a vehicle that does not 
fully

[[Page 30066]]

meet specific requirements under this section. Such deficiencies are 
intended to allow for minor deviations from OBD standards under limited 
conditions. We expect vehicles to have functioning OBD systems that 
meet the objectives stated in this section. The following provisions 
apply regarding OBD system deficiencies:
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, we will 
not approve a deficiency that involves the complete lack of a major 
diagnostic monitor, such as monitors related to exhaust aftertreatment 
devices, oxygen sensors, air-fuel ratio sensors, NOx sensors, engine 
misfire, evaporative leaks, and diesel EGR (if applicable).
    (2) We will approve a deficiency only if you show us that full 
compliance is infeasible or unreasonable considering any relevant 
factors, such as the technical feasibility of a given monitor, or the 
lead time and production cycles of vehicle designs and programmed 
computing upgrades.
    (3) Our approval for a given deficiency applies only for a single 
model year, though you may continue to ask us to extend a deficiency 
approval in renewable one-year increments. We may approve an extension 
if you demonstrate an acceptable level of effort toward compliance and 
show that the necessary hardware or software modifications would pose 
an unreasonable burden.
    (d) For alternative-fuel vehicles, manufacturers may request a 
waiver from specific requirements for which monitoring may not be 
reliable for operation with the alternative fuel. However, we will not 
waive requirements that we judge to be feasible for a particular 
manufacturer or vehicle model.
    (e) For alternative-fuel conversions, manufacturers may meet the 
requirements of Sec.  86.1806-05 instead of the requirements of this 
section.


Sec.  86.1807-01  [Amended]

0
151. Section 86.1807-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(3)(ix).
0
152. Section 86.1808-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3) introductory text, 
(f)(6)(ii)(D), (f)(7)(i) introductory text, (f)(7)(ii)(B), (f)(10)(ii), 
(f)(13) introductory text, (f)(13)(iv), and (f)(16)(i).
0
b. By adding paragraph (g).


Sec.  86.1808-01  Maintenance instructions.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Applicability. Manufacturers are subject to the provisions of 
this paragraph (f) beginning in the 1996 model year for manufacturers 
of light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, and beginning in the 2005 
model year for manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty 
engines weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that 
are subject to the OBD requirements of this part.
* * * * *
    (3) Information dissemination. By December 24, 2003, each 
manufacturer shall provide or cause to be provided to the persons 
specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section and to any other 
interested parties a manufacturer-specific World Wide Web site 
containing the information specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this 
section for 1996 and later model year vehicles which have been offered 
for sale; this requirement does not apply to indirect information, 
including the information specified in paragraphs (f)(12) through 
(f)(16) of this section. Upon request and approval of the 
Administrator, manufacturers who can demonstrate significant hardship 
in complying with this provision within four months after the effective 
date may request an additional six months lead time to meet this 
requirement. Each manufacturer Web site shall:
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Any alternative means proposed by a manufacturer must be 
available to aftermarket technicians at a fair and reasonable price.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) All information required to be made available by this section 
shall be made available at a fair and reasonable price. In determining 
whether a price is fair and reasonable, consideration may be given to 
relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) The Administrator will act on the request within 180 days 
following receipt of a complete request or following receipt of any 
additional information requested by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Provide on the manufacturer's Web site an index of all 
emissions-related training information available for purchase by 
aftermarket service providers for 1994 and newer vehicles. For model 
years subsequent to 2003, the required information must be made 
available for purchase within 3 months of model introduction and then 
must be made available at the same time it is made available to 
manufacturer-franchised dealerships, whichever is earlier. The index 
shall describe the title of the course or instructional session, the 
cost of the video tape or duplicate, and information on how to order 
the item(s) from the manufacturer Web site. All of the items available 
must be shipped within 24 hours of the order being placed and are to be 
made available at a fair and reasonable price as described in paragraph 
(f)(7) of this section. Manufacturers unable to meet the 24 hour 
shipping requirement under circumstances where orders exceed supply and 
additional time is needed by the distributor to reproduce the item 
being ordered may exceed the 24 hour shipping requirement, but in no 
instance can take longer than 14 days to ship the item.
* * * * *
    (13) Generic and enhanced information for scan tools. By September 
25, 2003, manufacturers shall make available to equipment and tool 
companies all generic and enhanced service information including bi-
directional control and data stream information as defined in paragraph 
(f)(2)(ii) of this section. This requirement applies for 1996 and later 
model year vehicles.
* * * * *
    (iv) Manufacturers can satisfy the requirement of paragraph 
(f)(13)(iii) of this section by making available diagnostic trouble 
trees on their Web sites in full-text.
* * * * *
    (16) * * *
    (i) Manufacturers who have developed special tools to extinguish 
the malfunction indicator light (MIL) for Model Years 1994 through 2003 
shall make available the necessary information to equipment and tool 
companies to design a comparable generic tool. This information shall 
be made available to equipment and tool companies no later than 
September 23, 2003.
* * * * *
    (g) Through model year 2013, the manufacturer shall furnish or 
cause to be furnished to the purchaser the following statement for each 
new diesel-fueled Tier 2 vehicle (certified using a test fuel with 15 
ppm sulfur or less): ``This vehicle must be operated only with ultra 
low sulfur diesel fuel (that is, diesel fuel meeting EPA specifications 
for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).''


Sec.  86.1808-07  [Removed]

0
153. Remove Sec.  86.1808-07.

[[Page 30067]]

0
154. Section 86.1810-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(m), and revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1810-01  General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe 
condition; waivers.

* * * * *
    (f) Altitude requirements. Unless otherwise specified, emission 
standards apply at low-altitude conditions and at high-altitude 
conditions. The following exceptions apply:
    (1) The supplemental exhaust emission standards as described in 
Sec.  86.1811-04(f) apply only at low-altitude conditions;
    (2) The cold temperature NMHC emission standards as described in 
Sec.  86.1811-10(g) apply only at low-altitude conditions;
    (3) The evaporative emission standards specified in Sec.  86.1811-
09(e) apply at low-altitude conditions. The evaporative emission 
standards specified in Sec.  86.1811-04(e) continue to apply at high-
altitude conditions for 2009 and later model year vehicles.
* * * * *
0
155. A new Sec.  86.1810-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1810-17  General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe 
condition; waivers.

    The following provisions apply to all vehicles certified under this 
subpart:
    (a) Any device, system or element of design installed on or 
incorporated in a new motor vehicle to enable such vehicle to conform 
to the standards imposed by this subpart:
    (1) Shall not in its operation or function cause the emission into 
the ambient air of any noxious or toxic substance that would not be 
emitted in the operation of such vehicle without such system, except as 
specifically permitted by regulation; and
    (2) Shall not in its operation, function or malfunction result in 
any unsafe condition endangering the vehicle, its occupants, or persons 
or property in close proximity to the vehicle.
    (b) In establishing the physically adjustable range of each 
adjustable parameter on a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer shall 
ensure that, taking into consideration the production tolerances, safe 
vehicle drivability characteristics are available within that range.
    (c) Unless otherwise specified, the emission standards of this 
subpart apply equally for certification and for in-use vehicles 
throughout the specified useful-life period. Also, manufacturers must 
use good engineering judgment to determine that all of a vehicle's 
emission-related components are designed to operate properly throughout 
the specified useful-life period.
    (d) Crankcase emissions prohibited. Vehicles may not discharge 
crankcase emissions into the ambient atmosphere.
    (e) On-board diagnostics. All vehicles must have an on-board 
diagnostic system as described in Sec.  86.1806.
    (f) Altitude requirements. Emission standards apply at low-altitude 
conditions and at high-altitude conditions, except as noted in this 
subpart.
    (g) The cold CO and cold NMHC standards in this subpart refer to 
test procedures set forth in subpart C of this part and 40 CFR part 
1066, subpart H. All other emission standards in this subpart rely on 
test procedures set forth in subpart B of this part. These procedures 
rely on the test specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as 
described in subparts B and C of this part.
    (h) Multi-fueled vehicles (including dual-fueled and flexible-
fueled vehicles) shall comply with all requirements established for 
each consumed fuel (or blend of fuels in the case of flexible fueled 
vehicles). In the case of flexible-fueled vehicles operating on ethanol 
and gasoline, this involves additional exhaust emission measurements 
using the fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.725. No additional evaporative 
emission testing is required.


Sec.  86.1811-01  [Removed]

0
156. Remove Sec.  86.1811-01.
0
157. Section 86.1811-04 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(h) and revising paragraphs (j) and (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1811-04  Emission standards for light-duty vehicles, light-
duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

* * * * *
    (j) Highway NOX exhaust emission standard. The 
NOX emissions measured on the federal Highway Fuel Economy 
Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, must not be greater than 1.33 times 
the applicable FTP NOX standard to which the manufacturer 
certifies the test group. Both the measured emissions and the product 
of the NOX standard and 1.33 must be rounded to the nearest 
0.01 g/mi before being compared.
* * * * *
    (n) Requirements for vehicles with rechargeable energy storage 
systems. Manufacturers must test electric vehicles according to the 
procedures specified in SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
86.1). Manufacturers must measure emissions from hybrid electric 
vehicles (including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) according to the 
procedures specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
86.1), except that these procedures do not apply for plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles during charge-depleting operation,
* * * * *
0
158. A new Sec.  86.1811-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1811-17  Exhaust emission standards for light-duty vehicles, 
light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

    (a) Applicability and general provisions. This section describes 
exhaust emission standards that apply for model year 2017 and later 
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger 
vehicles. MDPVs are subject to all the same provisions of this section 
that apply to LDT4s. Some of the provisions of this section also apply 
to heavy-duty vehicles as specified in Sec.  86.1816. See Sec.  86.1818 
for greenhouse gas emission standards. See Sec.  86.1813 for 
evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section may apply to 
vehicles from model years earlier than 2017 as specified in paragraph 
(b)(9) of this section.
    (b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. Exhaust emissions may not 
exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows:
    (1) Measure emissions using the chassis dynamometer procedures of 
subpart B of this part, as follows:
    (i) Establish appropriate load settings based on loaded vehicle 
weight (see Sec.  86.1803).
    (ii) Use appropriate driving schedules. Measurements involve 
testing over multiple driving schedules. The Federal Test Procedure 
(FTP) is based on testing with the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 
(UDDS). The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) involves testing 
with the UDDS, the US06 driving schedule, and the SC03 driving 
schedule. See 40 CFR 1066.801 for further information on these test 
cycles. SFTP emissions in particular are calculated as a composite of 
test results over these driving schedules based on the following 
calculation:

SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35[sdot]FTP + 0.28[sdot]US06 + 0.37[sdot]SC03

    (iii) For vehicles that qualify for the derived 5-cycle method for 
determining fuel economy label values and are therefore not required to 
operate over the SC03 driving schedule under 40 CFR 600.115, you may 
alternatively use FTP emission results to substitute for the SC03 value 
in the calculation under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for a 
given vehicle for any testing under this section.

[[Page 30068]]

    (iv) Use E15 test fuel as required in Sec.  86.113, except as 
specified in this section.
    (v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however, 
for certain vehicles you may measure exhaust emissions based on 
nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR 1066.665.
    (vi) Measure emissions from hybrid electric vehicles to demonstrate 
compliance with the Tier 3 standards according to the procedures 
specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  86.1).
    (2) Table 1 of this section describes fully phased-in Tier 3 
standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the 
identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOX 
apply on a fleet-average basis using discrete bin standards as 
described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards 
include additional emission standards for high-altitude testing and for 
CO emissions when testing over the FTP driving schedule. The SFTP 
standards for NMOG+NOx apply on a fleet-average basis as described in 
paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Table 1 follows:

                                     Table 1 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Fully Phased-In Tier 3 Exhaust Emission Standards
                                                                        [g/mile]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      NMOG+NOX                                                       PM                        CO          Formaldehyde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              FTP \1\                                      SFTP             FTP            US06 \2\           SFTP             FTP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.030..............................................................           0.050            0.003            0.010              4.2            0.004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fleet-average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is 0.026 g/mile for LDV and LDT1 if a manufacturer certifies one or more test groups based on a
  useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given model year.
\2\ The US06 emission standard for PM is 0.020 g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR.

    (3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply for testing 
at low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions as specified in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The SFTP standards specified in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section apply only for testing at low-altitude 
conditions.
    (4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is based on a 
fleet average for a given model year. You must specify a family 
emission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the 
emission standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP 
testing. Calculate your fleet-average emission level as described in 
Sec.  86.1860 based on the FEL that applies for low-altitude testing to 
show that you meet the specified standard. For multi-fueled vehicles, 
calculate fleet-average emission levels based only on emission levels 
for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may generate or use 
emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading as described in 
Sec.  86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission 
standard for NMOG+NOX. You comply with the emission standard 
for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that your 
fleet-average emission level is at or below the applicable standard. 
You may exchange FTP credits between or among any test groups subject 
to standards under this section. You may not exchange FTP and SFTP 
credits.
    (i) You may specify any of the FELs from Table 2 of this section 
for demonstrating that your fleet-average emission level complies with 
the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX under low-altitude 
conditions. These FEL values define emission bins that also determine 
corresponding emission standards for NMOG+NOX emissions 
under high-altitude conditions, and for CO emissions, as follows:

                         Table 2 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards (g/mile)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   NMOG+NOX FELs
                            FEL name                                  for low      NMOG+NOX for   CO for low and
                                                                     altitude     high  altitude  high  altitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160.........................................................           0.160           0.160             4.2
Bin 125.........................................................           0.125           0.160             2.1
Bin 70..........................................................           0.070           0.105             1.7
Bin 50..........................................................           0.050           0.070             1.7
Bin 30..........................................................           0.030           0.050             1.0
Bin 20..........................................................           0.020           0.030             1.0
Bin 0...........................................................           0.000           0.000             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (ii) Manufacturers earn a compliance credit of 0.005 g/mile 
NMOG+NOX for vehicles that are certified for a useful life 
of 150,000 miles or 15 years and that are covered by an extended 
warranty over the same period for all components whose failure triggers 
MIL illumination. Manufacturers may apply the compliance credit as 
follows:
    (A) You may subtract your official FTP emission result for 
certification by the amount of the compliance credit if that allows you 
to certify to a more stringent bin. In that case, you may use the more 
stringent bin standard for calculating the fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX emission level. For any compliance testing with 
these vehicles, the applicable FTP bin standard for NMOG+NOX 
is higher than the specified bin standard by the amount of the 
compliance credit. For example, if the official FTP emission result for 
NMOG+NOX is 0.052 g/mile, this qualifies for an FEL of 0.050 
g/mile for calculating the fleet average and the vehicle is subject to 
an FTP bin standard of 0.055 g/mile.
    (B) If the amount of the compliance credit does not allow you to 
certify to a more stringent bin, calculate the fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX emission level using an FEL for these vehicles that 
is smaller than the bin standard by the amount of the compliance 
credit. For any compliance testing with these vehicles, the specified 
bin standard applies. For example, if the official FTP emission result 
for NMOG+NOX is 0.038

[[Page 30069]]

g/mile, calculate the fleet-average NMOG+NOX emission level 
by specifying an FEL of 0.045 g/mile; these vehicles are subject to the 
specified FTP bin standard of 0.050 g/mile.
    (iii) If you qualify for a compliance credit for direct ozone 
reduction under the LEV III program, you may apply the compliance 
credit approved for California vehicles as described in paragraphs 
(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (iv) You may combine the adjustments in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and 
(iii) of this section if you qualify for them separately.
    (5) The SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is also 
based on a fleet average in a given model year. You must specify FELs 
as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet-
average emission level to show that you meet the SFTP emission standard 
for NMOG+NOX, except that you may specify FELs in any even 
increment of 0.010 g/mile up to a maximum value of 0.180 g/mile. You 
may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, and 
trading as described in Sec.  86.1860 for demonstrating compliance with 
the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX. You comply with the 
emission standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to 
show that your fleet-average emission level is at or below the 
applicable standard. You may exchange SFTP credits between or among any 
test groups subject to standards under this section. You may not 
exchange FTP and SFTP credits. The SFTP standards described in this 
section apply only for testing at low-altitude conditions.
    (6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, and formaldehyde; it also includes 
measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life (for some 
vehicles). Vehicles meeting all these requirements are considered Final 
Tier 3 vehicles. Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements 
are considered Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase 
in over several years. The following provisions describe the primary 
approach for phasing in the Tier 3 PM standards:
    (i) You must meet the FTP and the US06 PM standards with 20, 20, 
40, 70, and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all 
vehicles subject to this section in model years 2017 through 2021, 
respectively. Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must 
also meet the Tier 3 US06 standard for PM. In model year 2017, the 
phase-in requirement applies only for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds 
GVWR; however, if you certify these vehicles to the Tier 3 PM standards 
in the model year 2017, you may count those projected U.S. sales toward 
your calculation for meeting the phase-in percentage for that year 
(numerator only).
    (ii) You may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in 
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section if you instead comply with an 
indexed PM phase-in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii). 
To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2017, 
and include a detailed plan for complying with the indexed phase-in 
schedule. You comply with the indexed phase-in schedule by calculating 
a PM phase-in index at or above 540 using the following equation for 
model years 2017 through 2021:

PM phase-in index = 5[middot]APP2017 + 
4[middot]APP2018 + 3[middot]APP2019 + 
2[middot]APP2020 + APP2021

Where:

APP = The actual phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 
p.m. standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales, 
as described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section.

    (iii) You may alternatively ask us to approve calculation of the 
annual percentage for a given model year based on production volumes 
instead of sales volumes.
    (iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those 
standards over the useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805-17. Note 
that Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for 
PM emission standards than for other emission standards.
    (v) Any vehicles not included for demonstrating compliance with the 
Tier 3 p.m. phase-in requirement must instead comply with an FTP 
emission standard for PM of 0.010 g/mile, and a composite SFTP emission 
standard for PM of 0.070 g/mile.
    (vi) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test 
fuel used for measuring NMOG+NOX emissions.
    (vii) You may certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover 
data.
    (viii) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in 
paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards on a different schedule.
    (7) The following provisions describe the primary approach for 
phasing in the Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2025 and earlier model 
years:
    (i) FTP phase-in. The fleet-average FTP emission standard for 
NMOG+NOX phases in over several years as described in this 
paragraph (b)(7)(i). You must identify FELs as described in paragraph 
(b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet-average emission level to 
show that you meet the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX 
that applies for each model year. For model year 2017, do not include 
vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator). 
Through model year 2019, you may also certify to transitional Bin 85 or 
Bin 110 standards, which consist of all-altitude FTP emission standards 
for NMOG+NOX of 0.085 or 0.110 g/mile, respectively; 
additional FTP standards for PM, CO, and formaldehyde apply as 
specified in this section for vehicles certified to Bin 125 standards. 
Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease through the phase-in 
period as shown in the following table:

    Table 3 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Declining Fleet-Average Tier 3 FTP
                     Emission Standards for NMOG+NOX
                                [g/mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model Year                  LDV, LDT1 \1\    LDT2, HLDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 \2\................................           0.086           0.101
2018....................................           0.079           0.092
2019....................................           0.072           0.083
2020....................................           0.065           0.074
2021....................................           0.058           0.065
2022....................................           0.051           0.056
2023....................................           0.044           0.047
2024....................................           0.037           0.038
2025....................................           0.030           0.030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If a manufacturer certifies one or more LDV or LDT1 test groups
  based on a useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given model
  year, calculate the adjusted fleet-average standard by multiplying the
  specified value by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest 0.001 g/mile.
  Through model year 2019, apply this adjustment only if one or more
  test groups is certified to Bin 70 or lower standards based on a
  useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years.
\2\ Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards
  starting with the 2018 model year.

     (ii) SFTP phase-in. The fleet-average SFTP emission standard for 
NMOG+NOX phases in over several years as described in this 
paragraph (b)(7)(ii). You must identify FELs as described in paragraph 
(b)(5) of this section and calculate a fleet-average emission level to 
show that you meet the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX 
that applies for each model year.
    (A) Calculate the fleet-average emission level together for all 
your light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, except for those 
certified using the provisions of paragraph (b)(7)(ii)(C) of this 
section. For model year 2017, do not include vehicles above 6,000 
pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator).

[[Page 30070]]

    (B) Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease through the 
phase-in period as shown in the following table:

    Table 4 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Declining Fleet-Average Tier 3 SFTP
                           Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NMOG+NOX  (g/
                       Model lYear                             mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 \1\................................................           0.103
2018....................................................           0.097
2019....................................................           0.090
2020....................................................           0.083
2021....................................................           0.077
2022....................................................           0.070
2023....................................................           0.063
2024....................................................           0.057
2025....................................................           0.050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards
  starting with the 2018 model year.

     (C) You may use the Option 1 provisions specified in the LEV III 
program to demonstrate compliance with EPA's SFTP standards instead of 
the phased-in fleet-average SFTP standards specified in this paragraph 
(b)(7)(ii).
    (iii) Interim provisions. (A) For LDT2 and HLDT certified to Bin 
125 or Bin 160 standards under this section through model year 2019, 
the Tier 2 useful life period applies as specified in Sec.  86.1805-12.
    (B) You may alternatively use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.  
86.113 through model year 2019 for vehicles certified to bins higher 
than Bin 70. You may not certify these vehicles in model year 2020 
using carryover data.
    (iv) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in 
paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards on a different schedule.
    (8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an alternative approach to 
phasing in the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this approach, 
you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles subject to 
this section according to this schedule. Under this alternative phase-
in, you must meet all the FTP and SFTP emission standards as specified 
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section with 40, 70, and 100 
percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to 
this section in model years 2019 through 2021, respectively. Any 
vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards during the phase-in period 
must continue to comply with the Tier 2 standards in Sec.  86.1811-
04(c) and (f), including the Tier 2 SFTP emission standards for 
NMHC+NOX and CO for 4,000-mile testing as specified in Sec.  
86.1811-04(f)(1). Vehicles subject to Tier 2 standards under this 
paragraph (b)(8) are subject to the useful life provisions in Sec.  
86.1805-12. Each vehicle counting toward the phase-in percentage under 
this paragraph (b)(8) must meet all the standards that apply based on 
the useful life provisions of Sec.  86.1805-17, and must use the Tier 3 
test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113-07. Vehicles certified under this 
paragraph (b)(8) may not generate or use emission credits.
    (9) You may not use credits generated from Tier 2 vehicles for 
demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards except as specified 
in this paragraph (b)(9). You may generate early credits with U.S. 
sales of Tier 2 vehicles in the two model years before the Tier 3 
standards start to apply for a given vehicle model. Separate from any 
Tier 2 demonstrations, calculate early Tier 3 emission credits as 
described in Sec.  86.1861 by determining a fleet-average value for FTP 
emissions of NMOG+NOX based on the applicable bin standards 
and subtracting this value from 0.160 g/mile. Calculate your fleet-
average value for the model year based on vehicles at or below 6,000 
pounds GVWR in 2015, on all sizes of vehicles in 2016, and on vehicles 
above 6,000 pounds GVWR in 2017. Vehicles certified to the Tier 2 
standards must meet all the Tier 2 requirements in Sec.  86.1811-10. 
You must also continue to meet the fleet-average Tier 2 standards as 
long as they apply. You may use these early credits as described in 
Sec.  86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission 
standard for NMOG+NOX; however, starting in model year 2018, 
use of early credits is subject to a limitation based on credits 
generated in California, as follows:
    (i) For the applicable model years in which you generate emission 
credits relative to California's LEV III fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX standard, determine the actual California sales of 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks and the actual nationwide 
sales of those same vehicles. In 2015, count sales only from vehicle 
models at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR. For each model year, multiply the 
credits generated under the California program by the ratio of 
nationwide sales to California sales to calculate an effective 
nationwide quantity. Sum these results for model years 2015 through 
2017.
    (ii) You may not use more early credits generated under this 
paragraph (b)(9) to meet Tier 3 emission standards than the calculated 
value of the effective nationwide credit quantity summed in paragraph 
(b)(9)(i) of this section. If your generated credits are greater than 
this threshold, determine the percentage of your generated early 
credits that exceed the threshold. Calculate an adjusted quantity of 
early credits generated under this paragraph (b)(9) by decreasing the 
generated quantity from each model year by the calculated percentage 
that exceed the applicable threshold. This adjusted quantity of credits 
may be used for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards, 
subject to the five-year credit life described in Sec.  86.1861.
    (10) The following alternate standards apply for in-use testing 
with 2021 and earlier model year vehicles:
    (i) The alternate in-use PM emission standard for FTP testing is 
0.006 g/mile.
    (ii) The alternate in-use PM emission standards for SFTP testing 
are 0.015 g/mile for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and 0.025 
g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR.
    (iii) Alternate in-use NMOG+NOX emission standards for 
FTP testing apply for vehicles certified to Bin 70 and lower. Calculate 
these alternate standards by multiplying the applicable FEL by 1.4. 
These alternate standards apply only for testing at low-altitude 
conditions.
    (11) Keep records as needed to show that you meet the requirements 
specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for 
complying with declining fleet-average average standards.
    (c) Highway NMOG+NOX exhaust emission standard. 
NMOG+NOX emissions measured on the federal Highway Fuel 
Economy Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the 
applicable NMOG+NOX bin standard for FTP testing. 
Demonstrate compliance with this standard for low-mileage vehicles by 
applying the appropriate deterioration factor.
    (d) Special provisions for Otto-cycle engines. The following 
special provisions apply for vehicles with Otto-cycle engines:
    (1) Enrichment limits. The nominal air-fuel ratio throughout the 
US06 cycle may not be richer than the leanest air-fuel mixture required 
for lean best torque, except as allowed under paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section. Unless we approve otherwise in advance, lean best torque is 
the leanest air-fuel ratio required at any speed and load point with a 
fixed spark advance to make peak torque. The allowable tolerance around 
the nominal value for any given speed and load point over the US06 
cycle for a particular vehicle is 4 percent, which is calculated as the 
nominal mass-based air-fuel ratio for lean best torque divided by 1.04.
    (2) Engine protection. AECDs that use commanded enrichment to 
protect the engine or emission control hardware

[[Page 30071]]

must not use enrichment more frequently or to a greater degree than is 
needed for this purpose. For purposes of this section, commanded 
enrichment includes intended engine operation at air-fuel ratios rich 
of stoichiometry, except the following:
    (i) Cycling back and forth in a narrow window between rich and lean 
operation as a result of feedback controls targeted to maintain overall 
engine operation at stoichiometry.
    (ii) Small changes in the target air-fuel ratio to optimize vehicle 
emissions or drivability. This may be called ``closed-loop biasing.''
    (iii) Temporary enrichment in response to rapid throttle motion.
    (iv) Enrichment during cold-start and warm-up conditions.
    (v) Temporary enrichment for running OBD checks to comply with 
Sec.  86.1806.
    (3) A/C-on specific calibrations. (i) A/C-on specific calibrations 
(e.g., air-fuel ratio, spark timing, and exhaust gas recirculation) 
that differ from A/C-off calibrations may be used for a given set of 
engine operating conditions (e.g., engine speed, manifold pressure, 
coolant temperature, air charge temperature, and any other parameters). 
Such calibrations must not unnecessarily reduce emission control 
effectiveness during A/C-on operation when the vehicle is operated 
under conditions that may reasonably be expected during normal 
operation and use. If emission control effectiveness decreases as a 
result of such calibrations, the manufacturer must describe in the 
Application for Certification the circumstances under which this occurs 
and the reason for using these calibrations.
    (ii) For AECDs involving commanded enrichment, these AECDs must not 
operate differently for A/C-on operation than for A/C-off operation, 
except as provided under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This 
includes both the sensor inputs for triggering enrichment and the 
degree of enrichment employed.
    (4) ``Lean-on-cruise'' calibration strategies. Manufacturers may 
use ``lean-on-cruise'' strategies subject to the following 
specifications:
    (i) A ``lean-on-cruise'' strategy is defined as the use of an air-
fuel ratio significantly leaner than stoichiometry during non-
deceleration conditions at speeds above 40 mph.
    (ii) You must not employ ``lean-on-cruise'' strategies during 
vehicle operation in normal driving conditions, including A/C usage, 
unless at least one of the following conditions is met:
    (A) Such strategies are substantially employed during the FTP, 
US06, or SC03 duty cycle.
    (B) Such strategies are demonstrated not to significantly reduce 
vehicle emission control effectiveness over the operating conditions in 
which they are employed.
    (C) Such strategies are demonstrated to be necessary to protect the 
vehicle occupants, engine, or emission control hardware.
    (iii) If you propose to use a ``lean-on-cruise'' strategy, you 
mustdescribe in the application for certification the circumstances 
under which such a calibration would be used and the reasons for using 
it.
    (e) through (f) [Reserved]
    (g) Cold temperature exhaust emission standards. The following 
standards apply for vehicles tested over the test procedures specified 
in subpart C of this part:
    (1) Cold temperature CO standards. These cold temperature CO 
standards are applicable only to gasoline-fueled vehicles. These 
standards apply for testing at low-altitude conditions and high-
altitude conditions. Cold temperature CO exhaust emission standards 
apply when measured using the test procedures specified in subpart C of 
this part, as follows:
    (i) For LDVs and LDT1s, the standard is 10.0 g/mile CO.
    (ii) For LDT2s, LDT3s and LDT4s, the standard is 12.5 grams per 
mile CO.
    (2) Cold temperature NMHC standards. Fleet average cold temperature 
NMHC standards are applicable only to gasoline-fueled vehicles, and 
apply equally to certification and in-use except as otherwise specified 
in Sec.  86.1811-10(u) for in-use standards for applicable phase-in 
models. Testing with other fuels such as E85, or testing on diesel 
vehicles, is not required. Multi-fuel, bi-fuel or dual-fuel vehicles 
must comply with requirements using gasoline only.
    (i) The standards are shown in the following table:

    Table 5 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Fleet Average Cold Temperature NMHC
                       Exhaust Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Cold temperature
                                                          NMHC sales-
               Vehicle weight category                   weighted fleet
                                                        average standard
                                                            (g/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDVs & LLDTs (<=6,000 lbs GVWR)......................                0.3
HLDTs >6,000 lbs GVWR................................                0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (ii) The manufacturer must calculate its fleet average cold 
temperature NMHC emission level(s) as described in Sec.  86.1864-10(m).
    (iii) The standards specified in this paragraph (g)(2) apply only 
for testing at low-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must 
submit an engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration 
approaches are utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation from low 
altitude emission control practices must be included in the auxiliary 
emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. 
Any AECD specific to high altitude must require engineering emission 
data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and validity of 
the AECD.
    (h) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers meeting 
the eligibility requirements in Sec.  86.1838 may delay complying with 
the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also 
applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.  
86.113 through model year 2022. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in 
model year 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such 
manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline 
under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency 
criterion does not apply and there is no maximum duration of the 
hardship relief.


Sec. Sec.  86.1812-01 and 86.1813-01   [Removed]

0
159. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1812-01 and 86.1813-01.
0
160. A new Sec.  86.1813-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1813-17  Evaporative and refueling emission standards.

    Vehicles must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as 
specified in this section. The emission standards apply for total 
hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE) measurements using the test procedures 
specified in subpart B of this part, as appropriate. Note that Sec.  
86.1829 allows you to certify without testing in certain circumstances. 
Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, evaporative and 
refueling emission standards do not apply for diesel-fueled vehicles. 
Unless otherwise specified, MDPVs are subject to all the same 
provisions of this section that apply to LDT4s.
    (a) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Vehicles may not exceed 
the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, as follows:
    (1) Measure emissions using the test procedures of subpart B of 
this part, as follows:

[[Page 30072]]

    (i) Follow the vehicle preconditioning and exhaust testing 
procedures as described in subpart B of this part.
    (ii) Measure diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emissions as shown 
in Sec.  86.130.
    (iii) Use E15 test fuel as required in Sec.  86.113, except as 
specified in this section.
    (iv) Emissions are measured as total hydrocarbon; however, in the 
case of E15 test fuel, multiply measured values by 1.1 to convert 
values to total hydrocarbon equivalent.
    (2) Diurnal and hot soak emissions may not exceed the Tier 3 
emission standards, as follows:
    (i) The emission standard for the sum of diurnal and hot soak 
measurements from the two-diurnal test sequence and the three-diurnal 
test sequence is based on a fleet average in a given model year. You 
must specify a family emission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL 
serves as the emission standard for the test group with respect to all 
required diurnal and hot soak testing. Calculate your fleet average 
emission level as described in Sec.  86.1860 based on the FEL that 
applies for low-altitude testing to show that you meet the specified 
standard. For multi-fueled vehicles, calculate fleet-average emission 
levels based only on emission levels for testing with gasoline. You may 
generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, or trading for 
vehicles required to meet the Tier 3 standards, other than electric 
vehicles and gaseous-fueled vehicles, as described in Sec.  86.1861 for 
demonstrating compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal emission 
standard starting in the 2017 model year. You comply with the emission 
standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that 
your fleet-average emission level is at or below the applicable 
standard. You may exchange credits between or among test groups within 
an averaging set as described in Sec.  86.1861. Separate diurnal plus 
hot soak emission standards apply as shown for high-altitude 
conditions. The sum of diurnal and hot soak measurements may not exceed 
the following fleet-average Tier 3 standards:

   Table 1 of Sec.   86.1813-17--Tier 3 Diurnal Plus Hot Soak Emission
                                Standards
                            [Grams per test]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Low-        High-
               Vehicle category                   altitude     altitude
                                                 conditions   conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1.....................................        0.300         0.65
LDT2..........................................        0.400         0.85
HLDT..........................................        0.500     \1\ 1.15
HDV...........................................        0.600         1.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1.25 g/test for MDPVs.

    (ii) Specify FELs as follows:
    (A) You may specify the low-altitude FEL in increments of 0.025 g 
above or below the otherwise applicable Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak 
standard, up to the maximum values specified in the following table:

 Table 2 of Sec.   86.1813-17--Tier 3 FEL Caps for Low-Altitude Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Vehicle category                         FEL caps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV.....................................................           0.500
LLDT....................................................           0.650
HLDT....................................................           0.900
MDPV....................................................           1.000
HDV.....................................................             1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (B) Calculate the FEL for testing at high-altitude conditions 
based on the difference between the low-altitude FEL and the standard. 
For example, if a light-duty vehicle was certified with an FEL of 0.400 
g instead of the 0.300 g standard, the FEL for testing under high-
altitude conditions would be 0.75 g (0.65+0.10).
    (iii) Hydrocarbon emissions must not exceed 0.020 g for LDVs and 
LDTs and 0.030 g for HDVs when tested using the Bleed Emission Test 
Procedure adopted by the California Air Resources Board (incorporated 
by reference in Sec.  86.1). This procedure quantifies diurnal 
emissions without measuring hot soak emissions. The standards in this 
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) do not apply for testing at high-altitude 
conditions. For vehicles with non-integrated refueling emission control 
systems, the bleed emission test and standard do not apply to the 
refueling canister.
    (3) Running losses may not exceed 0.05 g per mile when measured 
using the test procedures specified in Sec.  86.134.
    (4) Fuel systems for vehicles operating on one or more volatile 
liquid fuels may not exceed an effective leak diameter of 0.02 inches 
when measured using the procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.840. For 
vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel tank 
capacity, you may request our approval for a leak standard greater than 
0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches.
    (5) The Tier 3 evaporative emission standards start to phase in 
with model year 2017 for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and 
with model year 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. Table 3 of 
this section specifies the minimum percentage of each manufacturer's 
sales in each model year that must be certified to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards. Calculate annual percentages based on 
actual nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to standards under this 
paragraph (a) for the applicable model year; however, if all your FELs 
for Tier 3 test groups are at the applicable standard (neither 
generating nor using emission credits), the phase-in requirements are 
based on projected sales. Also, if you certify vehicles above 6,000 
pounds GVWR to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in model year 
2017, you may count projected U.S. sales of those vehicles toward your 
calculation for meeting the 40 percent requirement in 2017 (numerator 
only). Manufacturers may meet this requirement using the additional 
alternative phase-in provisions in paragraph (g) of this section. 
Vehicles from the identified model years not certified to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards continue to be subject to the 
evaporative emission standards specified in Sec.  86.1811-09(e) or 
Sec.  86.1816-08(d), including the useful life provisions of Sec.  
86.1805-12. Note that this subjects LDVs and LDT1s to a 150,000 mile 
useful life for evaporative emissions if the vehicles are subject to a 
150,000 mile useful life for exhaust emissions. Keep records as needed 
to show that you meet the phase-in requirements specified in this 
section.

   Table 3 of Sec.   86.1813-17--Default Phase-In Schedule for Tier 3
                     Evaporative Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Minimum
                                                         percentage of
                     Model year                        vehicles subject
                                                         to the Tier 3
                                                           standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................................              1 2 40
2018................................................                  60
2019................................................                  60
2020................................................                  80
2021................................................                  80
2022................................................                 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The phase-in percentage for model year 2017 applies only for
  vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR.
\2\ The leak standard specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section does
  not apply for model year 2017.

    (6) For model year 2017, exclude vehicle sales from California and 
section

[[Page 30073]]

177 states from the calculation to demonstrate compliance with the 
phase-in schedule in paragraph (a)(5) or (g) of this section, and from 
the credit calculation in Sec.  86.1860.
    (b) Refueling emissions. Vehicles must meet the refueling emission 
standards in this paragraph (b) when measured over the procedure 
specified in Sec.  86.150. These standards apply starting with model 
year 2018 for vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR. The following 
refueling standards apply:
    (1) 0.20 g THCE per gallon of fuel dispensed for gasoline-fueled, 
diesel-fueled and methanol-fueled vehicles.
    (2) 0.15 g THC per gallon of fuel dispensed for liquefied petroleum 
gas-fueled vehicles.
    (c) Fuel spitback. For vehicles fueled by volatile liquid fuels, 
fuel spitback emissions may not exceed 1.0 g THCE when measured using 
the test procedures specified in Sec.  86.146. The fuel spitback 
standard applies only to newly assembled vehicles.
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) Auxiliary engines and separate fuel systems. The provisions of 
40 CFR 1037.103(f) apply for vehicles with auxiliary engines. This 
includes any engines installed in the final vehicle configuration that 
contribute no motive power through the vehicle's transmission.
    (f) Refueling provisions for gaseous fuel vehicles. The following 
provisions apply specifically for gaseous fuel vehicles:
    (1) Refueling receptacles on natural gas-fueled vehicles must 
comply with the receptacle provisions of the ANSI/AGA NGV1-1994 
standard (incorporated by reference in Sec.  86.1).
    (2) With our advance approval, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled 
vehicles with gauges or valves that can be opened to release fuel or 
fuel vapor during refueling (such as fixed liquid level gauges) may be 
tested for refueling emissions without opening such gauges or valves, 
as outlined in Sec.  86.157-98(d)(2). We will approve your request if 
you can show that such gauges or valves will not be open during in-use 
refueling due to inaccessibility or other design features that would 
prevent them from opening or make this very unlikely.
    (g) Alternative phase-in options for Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards. You may use any of the following alternative methods to 
transition to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards:
    (1) Starting in model year 2015, you may earn an ``allowance'' for 
each vehicle at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that you certify early to 
the Tier 3 standards in paragraph (a) of this section, as long as the 
vehicle is not sold in California or any of the section 177 states. 
This applies in model years 2015 and 2016 for vehicles at or below 
6,000 pounds GVWR and in model years 2015 through 2017 for vehicles 
above 6,000 pounds GVWR. For each allowance you earn, you may count it 
as one compliant vehicle in a later model year during the phase-in 
period. As an example, selling 100,000 Tier 3 vehicles in 2016 and a 
total of 400,000 vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR in 2017 would 
allow a manufacturer to ``spend'' up to 40,000 allowances in both 2017 
and 2018, leaving a total of 20,000 allowances for 2019 through 2022. 
Calculate the total phase-in percentage in each model year by adding 
the allowances to the number of compliant vehicles (in the numerator), 
without increasing total sales (in the denominator). For each allowance 
you earn, you may alternatively count it as one compliant vehicle for 
model year 2018 under the phase-in schedule described in paragraph 
(g)(5) of this section; however, you may not use those allowances to 
increase the value of APP in any model year by more than 10 percentage 
points. Vehicles earning allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) may not 
have an FEL above the applicable Tier 3 standard, and may not generate 
emission credits. Allowances may not be traded to another company. You 
may earn additional allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) as follows:
    (i) To the extent that you over-comply with the 40-percent phase-in 
requirement in model year 2017, you may count your actual U.S. sales 
exceeding the required number of Tier 3 vehicles as allowances toward 
meeting the phase-in requirement in 2018 and later model years.
    (ii) For vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR that you certify to the 
refueling emission standards in paragraph (b) of this section in model 
years 2015 through 2017, a single vehicle may produce two allowances if 
it is certified to the Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak standard and the 
refueling standard. Allowances earned under this paragraph (g)(1)(ii) 
may alternatively be used in model years 2018 through 2022 to phase in 
the refueling standard.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) You may disregard the percentage phase-in specified in 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section for 2017 if you choose 50-state 
certification for all your vehicles meeting the LEV III PZEV 
evaporative standards in 2017. Under this option, you may not produce a 
higher-emitting version of those vehicle models for sale outside of 
California or the section 177 states. Such vehicles may be certified 
using carryover data under the California program; however, they may 
generate or use emission credits only if they are certified to meet the 
emission standards of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Vehicles that 
comply under this paragraph (g)(3) may not generate allowances under 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section, regardless of the calculated 
percentage of compliant vehicles in model year 2017.
    (4) If you certify model year 2019 or earlier vehicles to the LEV 
III emission standards in California, you may certify those as Tier 3 
vehicles that count toward meeting the phase-in requirements of this 
section. Such vehicles must still be certified to the leak standard 
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and the high-altitude 
standards in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. You may not certify 
vehicles under this paragraph (g)(4) after model year 2019. Vehicles 
meeting the LEV III standards may also generate allowances under 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section; however, these vehicles may generate 
or use emission credits under this subpart only if they are not used to 
generate allowances and if they are certified using the Option 2 
procedures under the LEV III program (including the bleed emission 
test).
    (5) You may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section for 2018 through 2022 if you instead 
comply with the alternate phase-in schedule described in this paragraph 
(g)(5). To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 
2018, and include a detailed plan for complying with the alternate 
phase-in schedule. You comply with the alternate phase-in schedule by 
calculating an evaporative phase-in index at or above 1,040 using the 
following equation for model years 2018 through 2022:

Evaporative phase-in index = 5[middot]APP2018 + 
4[middot]APP2019 + 3[middot]APP2020 + 
2[middot]APP2021 + APP2022

Where:

APP = The actual phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards for the indicated model year, based 
on actual sales; you may instead ask us to calculate the annual 
percentage based on actual production volumes.

    (6) You may alternatively use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.  
86.113 through model year 2019 for vehicles certified to emission 
standards comparable to the standards in this section based on testing 
specified by the California Air Resources Board. You may not certify 
these vehicles in model year 2020 using carryover data.

[[Page 30074]]

    (h) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers meeting 
the eligibility requirements in Sec.  86.1838 may delay complying with 
the requirements in this section until model year 2022. If meeting the 
Tier 3 standards in model year 2022 would cause severe economic 
hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended 
compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except 
that the solvency criterion does not apply and there is no maximum 
duration of the hardship relief.


Sec. Sec.  86.1814-01, 86.1814-02, 86.1815-01, and 86.1815-
02  [Removed]

0
161. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1814-01, 86.1814-02, 86.1815-01, and 86.1815-
02.
0
162. A new Sec.  86.1816-18 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1816-18  Emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

    (a) Applicability and general provisions. This section describes 
exhaust emission standards that apply for model year 2018 and later 
complete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. These 
standards are optional for incomplete heavy-duty vehicles and for heavy 
duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as described in Sec.  86.1801. 
Greenhouse gas emission standards are specified in Sec.  86.1818 for 
MDPVs and in 40 CFR 1037.104 for other HDVs. See Sec.  86.1813 for 
evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section may apply to 
vehicles before model year 2018 as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of 
this section. Separate requirements apply for MDPVs as specified in 
Sec.  86.1811. See subpart A of this part for requirements that apply 
for incomplete heavy-duty vehicles and for heavy-duty engines certified 
independent of the chassis. The following general provisions apply:
    (1) Test all vehicles as described in this section using a chassis 
dynamometer; establish appropriate load settings based on adjusted 
loaded vehicle weight (see Sec.  86.1803).
    (2) Some provisions apply differently depending on the vehicle's 
power-to-weight ratio. Determine a vehicle's power-to-weight ratio by 
dividing the engine's rated power by the vehicle's GVWR (in hp/pound). 
For purposes of this section, if a test group includes multiple 
configurations, use the vehicle with the highest power-to-weight ratio 
to characterize the test group.
    (3) Use E15 test fuel as required in Sec.  86.113, except as 
specified in this section.
    (4) Measure emissions from hybrid electric vehicles to demonstrate 
compliance with the standards of this section according to the 
procedures specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
86.1).
    (b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. Exhaust emissions may not 
exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows:
    (1) Measure emissions using the procedures of subpart B of this 
part, using specific driving schedules and additional procedures as 
follows:
    (i) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) is based on testing with the 
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) specified in paragraph (a) of 
Appendix I of this part.
    (ii) The Heavy-Duty Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (HD-SFTP) 
involves testing with the UDDS, the SC03 driving schedule specified in 
paragraph (h) of Appendix I of this part, and one of the following 
additional driving schedules:
    (A) For Class 2b vehicles, the US06 driving schedule specified in 
paragraph (g) of Appendix I of this part.
    (B) For Class 2b vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 
0.024 hp/pound that are certified to optional standards under 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (4) of this section, the highway portion of the 
US06 driving schedule characterized as the ``second bag'' in Sec.  
86.159-08(a).
    (C) For Class 3 vehicles, the LA-92 driving schedule as specified 
in paragraph (c) of Appendix I of this part.
    (iii) HD-SFTP emissions are calculated as a composite of test 
results over these driving schedules based on the following 
calculation:

HD-SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35[middot]FTP + 0.28[middot]HDSIM + 0.37[middot]SC03

Where:

HDSIM = the appropriate driving schedule specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.

    (iv) You may alternatively use FTP emission results to substitute 
for the SC03 value in the calculation under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of 
this section for a given vehicle for any testing under this section.
    (v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however, 
you may measure exhaust emissions based on nonmethane hydrocarbon 
instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR 1066.665.
    (2) Table 1 of this section describes fully phased-in Tier 3 
standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the 
identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOX 
apply on a fleet-average basis using discrete bin standards as 
described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards 
include additional emission standards for CO emissions, and for 
NMOG+NOX standards when testing over the HD-SFTP driving 
schedule. Table 1 follows:

               Table 1 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Fully Phased-in Tier 3 HDV Exhaust Emission Standards
                                                    [g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fleet-average                PM                 Formaldehyde
                                                     NMOG+NOX    -----------------------------------------------
                    HDV Class                    ----------------
                                                        FTP             FTP           HD-SFTP           FTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2b..............................................           0.178           0.008       \1\ 0.010           0.006
3...............................................           0.247           0.010           0.007           0.006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving
  schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the HD-SFTP standard for PM is 0.007 g/mile
  instead of the value specified in the table.

    (3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply equally for 
testing at low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions. The 
HD-SFTP standards described in this section apply only for testing at 
low-altitude conditions.
    (4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is based on a 
fleet average in a given model year. You must specify a family emission 
limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission 
standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP testing. 
Calculate your fleet-average emission level as described in Sec.  
86.1860 to show that you meet the specified standard. For multi-fueled 
vehicles, calculate fleet-average emission levels based only on 
emission levels for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may

[[Page 30075]]

generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, or trading as 
described in Sec.  86.1860 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP 
emission standard for NMOG+NOX. You comply with the emission 
standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that 
your fleet-average emission level is at or below the applicable 
standard. You may exchange credits between or among any test groups 
subject to standards under this section. You may specify any of the 
FELs from Table 2 or Table 3 of this section for demonstrating that 
your fleet-average emission level complies with the FTP emission 
standard for NMOG+NOX. These FEL values define emission bins 
that also determine corresponding emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX emissions over the HD-SFTP driving schedule and for 
CO emissions, as follows:

                          Table 2 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Tier 3 Bin Standards--Class 2b
                                                    [g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            FEL Name                                                            CO
-----------------------------------------------------------------    NMOG+NOX    -------------------------------
                    FTP (FEL)                       HD-SFTP \1\                         FTP           HD-SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 250.........................................           0.250           0.800             6.4            22.0
Bin 200.........................................           0.200           0.800             4.2            22.0
Bin 170.........................................           0.170           0.450             4.2            12.0
Bin 150.........................................           0.150           0.450             3.2            12.0
Bin 0 \2\.......................................           0.000           0.000             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving
  schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the following HD-SFTP bin standards for
  NMOG+NOX apply instead of those identified in the table: 0.350 g/mile for Bin 150 and Bin 170; and 0.550 g/
  mile for Bin 200 and Bin 250.
\2\ Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the
  standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.


                           Table 3 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Tier 3 Bin Standards--Class 3
                                                    [g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NMOG+NOX                           CO
                    FEL Name                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FTP (FEL)        HD-SFTP           FTP           HD-SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 400.........................................           0.400           0.550             7.3             6.0
Bin 270.........................................           0.270           0.550             4.2             6.0
Bin 230.........................................           0.230           0.350             4.2             4.0
Bin 200.........................................           0.200           0.350             3.7             4.0
Bin 0 \1\.......................................           0.000           0.000             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the
  standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, and formaldehyde; it also includes 
measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life. Vehicles 
meeting all these requirements are considered Final Tier 3 vehicles. 
Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements are considered 
Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase in over several 
years. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 PM standards during the 
phase-in period must continue to comply with the PM standards in Sec.  
86.1816-08. Paragraph (b)(7) of this section describes how to 
transition to Tier 3 standards for emissions other than PM. The 
following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the 
Tier 3 PM standards:
    (i) You must meet the FTP emission standard for PM with 20, 40, 70, 
and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles 
subject to this section in model years 2018 through 2021, respectively. 
Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must also meet the 
Tier 3 HD-SFTP standard for PM.
    (ii) You may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in 
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section if you instead comply with an 
indexed PM phase-in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii). 
To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2018, 
and include a detailed plan for complying with the indexed phase-in 
schedule. You comply with the indexed phase-in schedule by calculating 
a PM phase-in index at or above 440 using the following equation for 
model years 2018 through 2021:

PM phase-in index = 4[middot]APP2018 + 
3[middot]APP2019 + 2[middot]APP2020 + 
APP2021

Where:

APP = The actual phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 
PM standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales, as 
described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section.

    (iii) You may alternatively ask us to approve calculation of the 
annual percentage for a given model year based on production volumes 
instead of sales volumes.
    (iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those 
standards over the useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805-17. Note 
that Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for 
PM emission standards than for other emission standards.
    (v) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test fuel 
used for measuring NMOG+NOX emissions.
    (vi) You may certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover 
data.
    (vii) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in 
paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards on a different schedule.
    (7) The following provisions describe the primary approach for 
phasing in the Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2022 and earlier model 
years:
    (i) The fleet-average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX 
phases in over several years as described in this paragraph (b)(7)(i). 
You must identify

[[Page 30076]]

FELs as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a 
fleet-average emission level to show that you meet the FTP emission 
standard for NMOG+NOX that applies for each model year. You 
may certify using transitional bin standards specified in Table 5 of 
this section through model year 2021; include these vehicles in the 
fleet-average calculation by treating the sum of the NMOG and 
NOX emission standards as the Family Emission Limit under 
Sec.  86.1860. You may alternatively use the E0 test fuel specified in 
Sec.  86.113 for vehicles certified to the transitional bins; the 
useful life period for these vehicles is 120,000 miles or 11 years. 
Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease as shown in the following 
table:

   Table 4 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Declining Fleet-Average FTP Emission
                         Standards for NMOG+NOX
                                [g/mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model year                    Class 2b         Class 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 \1\................................           0.333           0.548
2017 \1\................................           0.310           0.508
2018....................................           0.278           0.451
2019....................................           0.253           0.400
2020....................................           0.228           0.349
2021....................................           0.203           0.298
2022....................................           0.178           0.247
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fleet-average standards are shown for 2016 and 2017 for purposes of
  voluntary early compliance as described in paragraph (b)(10) of this
  section.


                                           Table 5 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Transitional Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards
                                                                      [g/mile] \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Class                         FEL name                 NMOG               NOX               PM                CO           Formaldehyde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2b................................  Bin 395                                0.195             0.200             0.012               6.4             0.032
                                    Bin 340                                0.140             0.200             0.012               6.4             0.032
3.................................  Bin 630                                0.230             0.400             0.012               7.3             0.040
                                    Bin 570                                0.170             0.400             0.012               7.3             0.040
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles certified to Transitional Tier 3 FTP bins are not subject to HD-SFTP standards.

    (ii) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in 
paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards on a different schedule.
    (8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an alternative approach to 
phasing in all the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this 
approach, you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles 
subject to this section according to this schedule. You may meet the 
standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section according to 
the phase-in schedule specified in Table 6 of this section based on the 
indicated percentage of your projected nationwide sales in each model 
year. These vehicles must meet the applicable FTP emission standard for 
CO and the HD-SFTP emissions standards for NMOG+NOX and CO 
that apply for Class 2b Bin 170 and Class 3 Bin 230 as described in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You may use averaging, banking, and 
trading relative to the Tier 3 FTP emission standard for 
NMOG+NOX during the phase-in period, but only if all the 
vehicles certified under Sec.  86.1816-08 have FELs that are at or 
below the applicable NMHC and NOX standards. Any vehicles 
not subject to Tier 3 standards during the phase-in period must 
continue to comply with the gaseous exhaust emission standards in Sec.  
86.1816-08. Each vehicle counting toward the PM phase-in percentage 
under this paragraph (b)(8) in model years 2019 and 2020 must also be 
included in the portion of the fleet meeting the Tier 3 standards for 
pollutants other than PM. Each vehicle counting toward the phase-in 
percentage for any pollutant must use the Tier 3 test fuel specified in 
Sec.  86.113-07. To generate emission credits during the phase-in 
period, all pre-Tier 3 vehicles must have FELs at or below the 
NOX and NMHC standards in Sec.  86.1816-08. Determine 
emission credits by calculating fleet-average emission levels for Tier 
3 and pre-Tier 3 vehicles together; for pre-Tier 3 vehicles use an 
NMOG+NOX equivalent FEL of 0.395 g/mile for Class 2b 
vehicles and 0.630 g/mile for Class 3 vehicles. You may optionally meet 
the Tier 3 standards before model year 2019.

                                          Table 6 of Sec.   86.1816-18
                                         [Alternative Phase-In Schedule]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Class 2b                               Class 3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Model year                                    Other than PM                         Other than PM
                                              PM             (percent)              PM             (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019................................                 40                 65                 40                 60
2020................................                 70                 77                 70                 73
2021................................                100                 88                100                 87
2022................................                100                100                100                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (9) You may not use credits generated from vehicles certified under 
Sec.  86.1816-08 for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 
standards.
    (10) [Reserved]
    (11) You may voluntarily certify your vehicles under this section 
in model years 2016 and 2017. If you do this, the fleet-average FTP 
emission standards for NMOG+NOX apply to all your complete 
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in 
paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section. Use any of the available bin 
standards as described in this section. Vehicles certified under

[[Page 30077]]

this paragraph (b)(10) must comply with the PM standards specified in 
Sec.  86.1816-08 instead of the Tier 3 p.m. standards specified in this 
section.
    (12) Keep records as needed to show that you meet the requirements 
specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for 
complying with declining fleet-average average standards.
    (c) Highway NMOG+NOX exhaust emission standard. 
NMOG+NOX emissions measured on the highway test cycle in 40 
CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the applicable 
NMOG+NOX bin standard for FTP testing. Demonstrate 
compliance with this standard for low-mileage vehicles by applying the 
appropriate deterioration factor.
    (d) Provisions for Otto-cycle engines. The special provisions 
described in Sec.  86.1811-17(d) apply to vehicles with Otto-cycle 
engines that are certified under this section.
    (e) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers meeting 
the eligibility requirements in Sec.  86.1838 may delay complying with 
the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also 
applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.  
86.113 through model year 2021. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in 
model year 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such 
manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline 
under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency 
criterion does not apply and there is no maximum duration of the 
hardship relief.
0
163. Section Sec.  86.1817-08 is amended by revising the introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1817-08  Complete heavy-duty vehicle averaging, trading, and 
banking program.

    Section 86.1817-08 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.1817-05. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.1817-05 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.1817-08, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.1817-05.'' This section does not apply for 
NOX or NMOG+NOX emissions for vehicles certified 
to the Tier 3 standards in Sec.  86.1816-18, including those vehicles 
that certify to the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018.
* * * * *
0
164. Section 86.1818-12 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.1818-12  Greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

    (a) Applicability. (1) This section contains standards and other 
regulations applicable to the emission of the air pollutant defined as 
the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous 
oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 
hexafluoride. This section applies to 2012 and later model year LDVs, 
LDTs and MDPVs, including multi-fuel vehicles, vehicles fueled with 
alternative fuels, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles, electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. Unless otherwise 
specified, multi-fuel vehicles must comply with all requirements 
established for each consumed fuel. The provisions of this section, 
except paragraph (c), also apply to clean alternative fuel conversions 
as defined in 40 CFR 85.502, of all model year light-duty vehicles, 
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. Manufacturers 
that qualify as a small business according to the requirements of Sec.  
86.1801-12(j) are exempt from the emission standards in this section. 
Manufacturers that have submitted a declaration for a model year 
according to the requirements of Sec.  86.1801-12(k) for which approval 
has been granted by the Administrator are conditionally exempt from the 
emission standards in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section for 
the approved model year.
    (2) The standards specified in this section apply only for testing 
at low-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an 
engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches 
are utilized at high altitude. Any deviation from low altitude emission 
control practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control 
device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD 
specific to high altitude requires engineering emission data for EPA 
evaluation to quantify any emission impact and determine the validity 
of the AECD.
* * * * *
0
165. Section Sec.  86.1821-01 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.1821-01  Evaporative/refueling family determination.

* * * * *
    (f) For vehicles to be classed in the same leak family, they must 
be similar with respect to the items listed in paragraph (b) of this 
section and use the same OBD method for detecting leaks.
0
166. Section Sec.  86.1823-08 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.1823-08  Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust 
emissions.

* * * * *
    (g) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good 
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components 
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the 
vehicles in actual use.
* * * * *
0
167. Section Sec.  86.1824-08 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), 
(f)(1), and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1824-08  Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative 
emissions.

* * * * *
    (a) Durability program objective. The durability program must 
predict an expected in-use emission deterioration rate and emission 
level that effectively represents a significant majority of the 
distribution of emission levels and deterioration in actual use over 
the full useful life of candidate in-use vehicles of each vehicle 
design which uses the durability program. This requirement applies for 
all SHED-based measurements. It does not apply for spitback or leak 
standards.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) For gasoline fueled vehicles certified to meet the evaporative 
emission standards set forth in this subpart, any mileage accumulation 
method for evaporative emissions must employ gasoline fuel for the 
entire mileage accumulation period which contains ethanol in, at least, 
the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and 
that is commercially available in any state in the United States. 
Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the manufacturer must 
determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the 
highest legal concentration commercially available during the calendar 
year before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage 
accumulation. The manufacturer must also provide information acceptable 
to the Administrator to indicate that the mileage accumulation method 
is of sufficient design, duration and severity to stabilize the 
permeability of all non-metallic fuel and evaporative system components 
to the mileage accumulation fuel constituents.
* * * * *
    (h) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good 
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components 
are

[[Page 30078]]

designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the vehicles 
in actual use.
* * * * *
0
168. Section Sec.  86.1825-08 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.1825-08  Durability demonstration procedures for refueling 
emissions.

* * * * *
    (h) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good 
engineering judgment to determine that all emission-related components 
are designed to operate properly for the full useful life of the 
vehicles in actual use.
* * * * *
0
169. Section Sec.  86.1826-01 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1826-01  Assigned deterioration factors for small-volume 
manufacturers and small-volume test groups.

    (a) Applicability. This program is an option available for small-
volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups as described in Sec.  
86.1838.
    (b) Determination of deterioration factors. No service accumulation 
method or vehicle/component selection method is required. Deterioration 
factors for all types of regulated emissions are assigned using the 
provisions in this paragraph (b). A separate assigned deterioration 
factor is required for each durability group. Manufacturers shall use 
good engineering judgment in applying deterioration factors. 
Manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that the 
Administrator determines and prescribes.
    (1) The deterioration factors will be the Administrator's estimate, 
periodically updated and published in a guidance document, of the 70th 
percentile deterioration factors calculated using the industry-wide 
database of previously completed durability data vehicles or engines 
used for certification.
    (2) The Administrator may use discretion to develop assigned 
deterioration factors using alternative methods if there is 
insufficient information to calculate an appropriate industry-wide 
deterioration factor (for example: A new engine technology coupled with 
a proven emission control system). These methods may include the use of 
assigned deterioration factors based on similar durability vehicles.
    (3) Alternatively, with advance approval from the Administrator, a 
manufacturer may use deterioration factors developed by another 
manufacturer. The manufacturer seeking to use these deterioration 
factors must--
    (i) Demonstrate that the engines from the two manufacturers share 
technical parameters to the degree that would support the conclusion 
that a common deterioration factor should apply for both vehicle 
configurations as defined in Sec.  86.1803.
    (ii) Provide supporting information, such as histograms of exhaust 
temperature data, comparisons of vehicle weight and road load 
horsepower, or comparisons of powertrains and emission control systems.
0
170. Section 86.1828-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(d) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1828-01  Emission data vehicle selection.

* * * * *
    (g) Cold temperature NMHC testing. For cold temperature NMHC 
exhaust emission compliance for each durability group, the manufacturer 
must select the vehicle expected to emit the highest NMHC emissions at 
20[emsp14][deg]F on candidate in-use vehicles from the test vehicles 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. When the expected worst-
case cold temperature NMHC vehicle is also the expected worst-case cold 
temperature CO vehicle as selected in paragraph (c) of this section, 
then cold testing is required only for that vehicle; otherwise, testing 
is required for both the worst-case cold temperature CO vehicle and the 
worst-case cold temperature NMHC vehicle.
0
171. Section 86.1829-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C).
0
b. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(i).
0
c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv).
0
d. By revising paragraph (b)(4).
0
f. By removing and reserving paragraph (d).


Sec.  86.1829-01  Durability and emission testing requirements; 
waivers.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Testing at low altitude. One EDV in each evaporative/refueling 
family and evaporative/refueling emission control system combination 
must be tested in accordance with the evaporative/refueling test 
procedure requirement of subpart B of this part. The configuration of 
the EDV will be determined under the provisions of Sec.  86.1828-01. 
The EDV must also be tested for exhaust emission compliance using the 
FTP and SFTP procedures of subpart B of this part. In lieu of testing 
natural gas or hydrogen fueled vehicles to demonstrate compliance with 
the evaporative and refueling emission standards specified in this 
subpart, a manufacturer may provide a statement in its application for 
certification that, based on the manufacturer's engineering evaluation 
of appropriate testing and/or design parameters, all light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and complete heavy-duty vehicles comply 
with applicable emission standards. This same testing exemption applies 
for vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas, except that refueling 
tests are required for systems that allow venting during the refueling 
operation.
* * * * *
    (iv) For diesel-fueled vehicles, a manufacturer may provide a 
statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply 
with the refueling emission standard instead of submitting test data. 
Such a statement must be based on previous emission tests, development 
tests, or other appropriate information, and good engineering judgment.
* * * * *
    (4) Electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. For electric vehicles 
and fuel cell vehicles, manufacturers may provide a statement in the 
application for certification that vehicles comply with all the 
requirements of this subpart instead of submitting test data. Such a 
statement must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, 
or other appropriate information, and good engineering judgment.
* * * * *
0
172. A new Sec.  86.1829-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1829-17  Durability and emission testing requirements; 
waivers.

    This section describes general testing requirements for certifying 
vehicles under this subpart, and includes several provisions allowing 
for statements of compliance instead of testing in certain 
circumstances. Where a manufacturer provides a statement instead of 
test data under this section, it must be based on previous emission 
tests, development tests, or other appropriate information, and good 
engineering judgment.
    (a) One durability demonstration is required for each durability 
group. The configuration of the DDV is determined according to Sec.  
86.1822. The DDV shall be tested and accumulate service mileage 
according to the provisions of Sec. Sec.  86.1823, 86.1824, 86.1825, 
and 86.1831. Small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups 
may optionally use the alternative durability provisions of Sec.  
86.1838.

[[Page 30079]]

    (b) The manufacturer must test EDVs as follows to demonstrate 
compliance with emission standards:
    (1) Test one EDV in each durability group using the test procedures 
in 40 CFR part 1066 to demonstrate compliance with cold temperature CO 
and NMHC exhaust emission standards.
    (2) Test one EDV in each test group using the FTP and SFTP test 
procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 and the HFET test procedures of 40 CFR 
part 600, subpart B, to demonstrate compliance with other exhaust 
emission standards.
    (3) Test one EDV in each evaporative/refueling family and 
evaporative/refueling emission control system combination using the 
test procedures in subpart B of this part to demonstrate compliance 
with evaporative and refueling emission standards.
    (c) The manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with emission 
standards at low-altitude conditions as described in paragraph (b) of 
this section. For standards that apply at high-altitude conditions, the 
manufacturer may either perform the same tests or provide a statement 
in the application for certification that, based on an engineering 
evaluation of appropriate testing to measure or simulate high-altitude 
emissions, all vehicles comply with applicable emission standards at 
high altitude.
    (d) Manufacturers may omit exhaust testing for certification in 
certain circumstances as follows:
    (1) For vehicles subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards in Sec. Sec.  
86.1811, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for 
certification that vehicles comply with applicable PM standards instead 
of submitting PM test data for a certain number of vehicles as follows:
    (i) Except as noted in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, 
manufacturers must submit PM test data for at least 25 percent of its 
durability data groups that are subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards in 
Sec.  86.1811-17. For example, if a manufacturer has a mix of light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks divided over a total of nine 
durability data groups in a given model year, three of them would need 
PM data for certification in that model year. EPA will work with the 
manufacturer to select durability data groups for testing, with the 
general expectation that testing will rotate to cover all of a 
manufacturer's product line over time. If a durability data group has 
been certified in an earlier model year based on submitted PM data, and 
that durability data group is eligible for certification using 
carryover test data, that carryover data may count toward meeting the 
requirements of this paragraph (d)(1)(i), subject to the selection of 
durability data groups.
    (ii) In every model year that manufacturers have only one or two 
durability data groups subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards, they must 
submit PM test data for certifying all their durability data groups. If 
manufacturers have three durability data groups subject to the Tier 3 
p.m. standards in a given model year, they must submit PM test data for 
at least two of those durability data groups.
    (2) Small-volume manufacturers may provide a statement in the 
application for certification that vehicles comply with the applicable 
PM standard instead of submitting test data.
    (3) Manufacturers may omit PM measurements for fuel economy and GHG 
testing conducted in addition to the testing needed to demonstrate 
compliance with the PM emission standards.
    (4) Manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for 
certification that vehicles comply with the applicable formaldehyde 
standard instead of submitting test data.
    (5) When conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing, a 
manufacturer may petition the Administrator to waive the requirement to 
measure PM emissions and formaldehyde emissions.
    (e) Manufacturers may omit evaporative or refueling testing for 
certification in certain circumstances as follows:
    (1) For diesel-fueled vehicles, a manufacturer may provide a 
statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply 
with the refueling emission standard instead of submitting test data.
    (2) For vehicles fueled by natural gas, a manufacturer may provide 
a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply 
with evaporative emission standards instead of submitting test data. 
Vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas are similarly exempted from 
submitting test data for the evaporative and refueling emission 
standards, except that refueling tests are required for systems that 
allow venting during the refueling operation.
    (3) Manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for 
certification that vehicles comply with the leak standard in Sec.  
86.1813 instead of submitting test data.
    (4) For vehicles certified to the refueling emission standards in 
Sec. Sec.  86.1811 or 86.1813, a manufacturer may provide a statement 
in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the fuel 
dispensing spitback standard instead of submitting test data.
    (5) In lieu of testing vehicles for the supplemental two-diurnal 
test sequence, a manufacturer may optionally provide a statement of 
compliance in its application for certification that, based on the 
manufacturer's good engineering judgment, all vehicles in the 
evaporative/refueling emission family comply with the evaporative 
emission standard for the supplemental two-diurnal test sequence.
    (i) The option to provide a statement of compliance in lieu of 2-
diurnal evaporative certification test data is limited to vehicles with 
conventional evaporative emission control systems (as determined by the 
Administrator). EPA may perform confirmatory 2-diurnal evaporative 
emission testing on test vehicles certified using this option. If data 
shows noncompliance, it will be addressed through Sec.  86.1851. Also, 
if data shows noncompliance, EPA will generally disallow subsequent 
waivers for the applicable evaporative family.
    (ii) Manufacturers shall supply information if requested by EPA in 
support of the statement of compliance described in this paragraph 
(d)(12). This information shall include evaporative calibration 
information for the emission-data vehicle and for other vehicles in the 
evaporative/refueling family, including, but not limited to, canister 
type, canister volume, canister working capacity, fuel tank volume, 
fuel tank geometry, the type of fuel delivery system (return, 
returnless, variable flow fuel pump, etc.), a description of the input 
parameters and software strategy used to control the evaporative 
canister purge, the nominal purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when 
vehicles are driven over the 2-diurnal (FTP) driving cycle, the nominal 
purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 3-
diurnal (FTP + running loss) driving cycle, and other supporting 
information as necessary to demonstrate that the purge flow rate 
calibration on the 2-diurnal test sequence is adequate to comply with 
the evaporative emission standard for the supplemental two-diurnal test 
sequence.
    (6) Where a California evaporative emission standard is at least as 
stringent as a comparable federal evaporative emission standard for a 
vehicle, we may accept test data demonstrating compliance with the 
California standard as demonstrating compliance with the comparable 
standard under this subpart. We may require you to provide test data 
clearly demonstrating that a vehicle tested using the California-
specified test procedures will meet the comparable standard under this 
subpart when tested

[[Page 30080]]

using the test procedures specified in this part.
    (7) Through model year 2019, we may accept test data demonstrating 
compliance with the California refueling emission standard as 
demonstrating compliance with the analogous refueling emission standard 
under this subpart if all the following conditions apply:
    (i) You certified the vehicles in model year 2016 to California's 
refueling emission standards.
    (ii) You are certifying the vehicles to refueling standards for the 
new model year based on carryover data instead of performing new 
testing.
    (iii) You are also certifying the vehicles for evaporative 
emissions based on California test procedures under the provisions of 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section,
    (f) For electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, manufacturers may 
provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles 
comply with all the requirements of this subpart instead of submitting 
test data.
0
173. Section 86.1837-01 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.1837-01  Rounding of emission measurements.

    (a) Unless otherwise specified, the results of all emission tests 
shall be rounded to the number of places to the right of the decimal 
point indicated by expressing the applicable emission standard of this 
subpart to one additional significant figure, in accordance with 40 CFR 
1065.20.
* * * * *
0
174. Section 86.1838-01 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1838-01  Small-volume manufacturer certification procedures.

    (a) The small-volume manufacturer certification procedures 
described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are optional. 
Small-volume manufacturers may use these optional procedures to 
demonstrate compliance with the general standards and specific emission 
requirements contained in this subpart.
    (b) Eligibility requirements--(1) Small-volume manufacturers. (i) 
Optional small-volume manufacturer certification procedures apply for 
vehicles produced by manufacturers with the following number of 
combined sales of vehicles subject to standards under this subpart in 
all states and territories of the United States in the model year for 
which certification is sought, including all vehicles and engines 
imported under the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 and 85.1509:
    (A) 5,000 units for the Tier 3 standards described in Sec. Sec.  
86.1811-17, 86.1813-17, and 86.1816-18. This is based on average 
nationwide sales volumes for model years 2012 through 2014 for 
manufacturers that sell vehicles in model year 2012. The provision 
allowing delayed compliance with the Tier 3 standards applies for 
qualifying companies even if sales after model year 2014 increase 
beyond 5,000 units. Manufacturers with no sales in model year 2012 may 
instead rely on projected sales volumes; however, if nationwide sales 
exceed an average value of 5,000 units in any three consecutive model 
years, the manufacturer is no longer eligible for provisions that apply 
to small-volume manufacturers after two additional model years. For 
example, if actual sales in model years 2015 through 2017 exceed 5,000 
units, the small-volume provisions would no longer apply starting in 
model year 2020.
    (B) 15,000 units for all other requirements.
    (ii) If a manufacturer's aggregated sales in the United States, as 
determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are fewer than the 
number of units specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the 
manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in an 
aggregated relationship) may certify under the provisions of paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (iii) A manufacturers that qualifies as a small business under the 
Small Business Administration regulations in 13 CFR part 121 is 
eligible for all the provisions that apply for small-volume 
manufacturers under this subpart. See Sec.  86.1801-12(j) to determine 
whether companies qualify as small businesses.
    (iv) The sales volumes specified in this section are based on 
actual sales, unless otherwise specified.
    (v) Except for delayed implementation of new emission standards, an 
eligible manufacturer must transition out of the special provisions 
that apply for small-volume manufacturers as described in Sec.  
86.1801-12(k)(2)(i) through (iii) if sales volumes increase above the 
applicable threshold.
    (2) Small-volume test groups. (i) If the aggregated sales in all 
states and territories of the United States, as determined in paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section are equal to or greater than 15,000 units, then 
the manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in 
an aggregated relationship) will be allowed to certify a number of 
units under the small-volume test group certification procedures in 
accordance with the criteria identified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (ii) If there are no additional manufacturers in an aggregated 
relationship meeting the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, then the manufacturer may certify whole test groups whose 
total aggregated sales (including heavy-duty engines) are less than 
15,000 units using the small-volume provisions of paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (iii) If there is an aggregated relationship with another 
manufacturer which satisfies the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, then the following provisions shall apply:
    (A) If none of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another 
manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then each manufacturer may 
certify whole test groups whose total aggregated sales (including 
heavy-duty engines) are less than 15,000 units using the small-volume 
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (B) If any of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another 
manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then the limit of 14,999 
units must be shared among the manufacturers in such a relationship. In 
total for all the manufacturers involved in such a relationship, 
aggregated sales (including heavy-duty engines) of up to 14,999 units 
may be certified using the small-volume provisions of paragraph (c) of 
this section. Only whole test groups shall be eligible for small-volume 
status under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (iv) In the case of a joint venture arrangement (50/50 ownership) 
between two manufacturers, each manufacturer retains its eligibility 
for 14,999 units under the small-volume test group certification 
procedures, but the joint venture must draw its maximum 14,999 units 
from the units allocated to its parent manufacturers. Only whole test 
groups shall be eligible for small-volume status under paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    (3) Sales aggregation for related manufacturers. The projected or 
actual sales from different firms shall be aggregated in the following 
situations:
    (i) Vehicles and/or engines produced by two or more firms, one of 
which is 10 percent or greater part owned by another;
    (ii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by any two or more firms if a 
third party has equity ownership of 10 percent or more in each of the 
firms;
    (iii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by two or more firms having 
a common corporate officer(s) who is (are) responsible for the overall 
direction of the companies;

[[Page 30081]]

    (iv) Vehicles and/or engines imported or distributed by all firms 
where the vehicles and/or engines are manufactured by the same entity 
and the importer or distributor is an authorized agent of the entity.
    (c) Small-volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups shall 
demonstrate compliance with all applicable sections of this subpart, 
except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. Small-
volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups may optionally meet 
the following requirements:
    (1) Durability demonstration. Use the provisions of Sec.  86.1826 
rather than the requirements of Sec. Sec.  86.1823, 86.1824, and 
86.1825.
    (2) In-use verification testing. Requirements for testing in-use 
vehicles apply as described in Sec.  86.1845, subject to the following 
additional provisions for small-volume manufacturers and small-volume 
test groups:
    (i) Small-volume in-use verification test vehicles may be procured 
from customers or may be owned by, or under the control of the 
manufacturer, provided that the vehicle has accumulated mileage in 
typical operation on public streets and has received typical 
maintenance.
    (ii) In lieu of procuring small-volume in-use verification test 
vehicles that have a minimum odometer reading of 50,000 miles, a 
manufacturer may demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Agency that, 
based on owner survey data, the average mileage accumulated after 4 
years for a given test group is less than 50,000 miles. The Agency may 
approve a lower minimum odometer reading based on such data.
    (iii) The provisions of Sec.  86.1845-04(c)(2) that require one 
vehicle of each test group during high mileage in-use verification 
testing to have a minimum odometer mileage do not apply.
    (iv) Manufacturers intending to use the provisions of paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section shall submit to the Agency, prior to 
the certification of the subject vehicles, a plan detailing how these 
provisions will be met.
0
175. Section 86.1843-01 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.1843-01  General information requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Recordkeeping. (1) This subpart includes various requirements 
to record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store 
these records in any format and on any media and keep them readily 
available for eight years after you send an associated application for 
certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do 
not support an application for certification. You must promptly send us 
organized, written records in English upon request. We may review them 
at any time.
    (2) Upon written request by the Administrator, a manufacturer shall 
submit any information as described in Sec.  86.1844-01 within 15 
business days. A manufacturer may request the Administrator to grant an 
extension. The request must clearly indicate the circumstances 
necessitating the extension.
* * * * *
0
176. Section 86.1844-01 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d)(7), 
(d)(8), (d)(9), (d)(11), and (d)(16)(i) introductory text, removing 
paragraph (d)(16)(iv), and adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1844-01  Information requirements: Application for 
certification and submittal of information upon request.

    (a) All the information listed in this section must be submitted to 
the Agency according to the requirements specified in Sec.  86.1843; 
however, we may ask you to include less information than we specify, as 
long as you keep the specified records.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) A comprehensive list of all test results, including official 
certification levels, and the applicable intermediate and full useful 
life emission standards to which the test group is to be certified as 
required in Sec.  86.1829-01. Also include a comparison of drive cycle 
energy and target cycle energy relative to both inertia and road load 
forces as specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle or test 
phase, as appropriate.
    (8) A statement that all applicable vehicles will conform to the 
emission standards for which emission data is not being provided, as 
allowed under Sec.  86.1806 or Sec.  86.1829. The statement shall 
clearly identify the standards for which emission testing was not 
completed.
    (9) Information describing each emission control diagnostic system 
required by Sec.  86.1806, including all of the following:
    (i) A description of the functional operation characteristics of 
the diagnostic system, with additional information demonstrating that 
the system meets the requirements specified in Sec.  86.1806. Include 
all testing and demonstration data submitted to the California Air 
Resources Board for certification.
    (ii) The general method of detecting malfunctions for each 
emission-related powertrain component.
    (iii) Any deficiencies, including resolution plans and schedules.
    (iv) A statement that the diagnostic system is adequate for the 
performance warranty test described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W.
    (v) For vehicles certified to meet the leak standard in Sec.  
86.1813, a description of the anticipated test procedure. The 
description must include, at a minimum, a method for accessing the fuel 
system for measurements, and a method for pressurizing the fuel system 
to perform the procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.840 without involving 
the fuel cap or filler neck.
* * * * *
    (11) A list of all auxiliary emission control devices (AECD) 
installed on any applicable vehicles, including a justification for 
each AECD, the parameters they sense and control, a detailed 
justification of each AECD that results in a reduction in effectiveness 
of the emission control system, and rationale for why it is not a 
defeat device as defined under Sec.  86.1809. The following specific 
provisions apply for AECDs:
    (i) For any AECD uniquely used at high altitudes, EPA may request 
engineering emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity 
of the AECD.
    (ii) For any AECD uniquely used on multi-fuel vehicles when 
operated on fuels other than gasoline, EPA may request engineering 
emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity of the AECD.
    (iii) For Tier 3 vehicles with spark-ignition engines, describe how 
AECDs are designed to comply with the requirements of Sec.  86.1811-
17(d). Identify which components need protection through enrichment 
strategies; describe the temperature limitations for those components; 
and describe how the enrichment strategy corresponds to those 
temperature limitations. We may also require manufacturers to submit 
this information for certification related to Tier 2 vehicles.
* * * * *
    (16) * * *
    (i) A statement indicating that the manufacturer has conducted an 
engineering analysis of the complete exhaust system to ensure that the 
exhaust system has been designed:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 30082]]

    (7) The results of any production vehicle evaluation testing 
required for OBD systems under Sec.  86.1806.
* * * * *
    Sec.  86.1845-01 [Removed]
0
177. Remove Sec.  86.1845-01.
0
178. Section 86.1845-04 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), 
(b)(3) introductory text, (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  86.1845-04  Manufacturer in-use verification testing 
requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The following provisions apply regarding the possibility of 
residual effects from varying fuel sulfur levels:
    (i) Vehicles certified to Tier 3 standards under Sec.  86.1811 must 
always measure emissions over the FTP, then over the HFET (if 
applicable), then over the US06 portion of the SFTP. If a Tier 3 
vehicle meets all the applicable emission standards except the FTP or 
HFET emission standard for NMOG+NOX, and a fuel sample from 
the tested vehicle (representing the as-received condition) has a 
measured fuel sulfur level exceeding 15 ppm when measured as described 
in 40 CFR 1065.710, the manufacturer may repeat the FTP and HFET 
measurements and use the new emission values as the official results 
for that vehicle. For all other cases of testing Tier 3 vehicles, 
measured emission levels from the first test will be considered the 
official results for the test vehicle, regardless of any test results 
from additional test runs. Where repeat testing is allowed, the vehicle 
may operate for up to two US06 cycles (with or without measurement) 
before repeating the FTP and HFET measurements. The repeat measurements 
must include both FTP and HFET, even if the vehicle failed only one of 
those tests, unless the HFET is not required for a particular vehicle. 
Tier 3 vehicles may not undergo any other vehicle preconditioning to 
eliminate fuel sulfur effects on the emission control system, unless we 
approve it in advance.
    (ii) Upon a manufacturer's written request, prior to in-use 
testing, that presents information to EPA regarding pre-conditioning 
procedures designed solely to remove the effects of high sulfur in 
gasoline from vehicles produced through the 2007 model year, EPA will 
consider allowing such procedures on a case-by-case basis. EPA's 
decision will apply to manufacturer in-use testing conducted under this 
section and to any in-use testing conducted by EPA. Such procedures are 
not available for complete HDVs. For model year 2007 and later Tier 2 
vehicles, this provision can be used only in American Samoa, Guam, and 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and then only if low 
sulfur gasoline is determined by the Administrator to be unavailable in 
that specific location.
    (b) * * *
    (3) Number of test vehicles. For each test group, the minimum 
number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04-06 and 
Table S04-07 of this paragraph (b)(3). After testing the minimum number 
of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in Table S04-06 or 
S04-07 of this paragraph (b)(3), a manufacturer may test additional 
vehicles upon request and approval by the Agency prior to the 
initiation of the additional testing. Any additional testing must be 
completed within the testing completion requirements shown in Sec.  
86.1845-04(b)(4). The request and Agency approval (if any) shall apply 
to test groups on a case by case basis and apply only to testing under 
this paragraph. Separate approval will be required to test additional 
vehicles under paragraph (c) of this section. In addition to any 
testing that is required under Table S04-06 and Table S04-07, a 
manufacturer shall test one vehicle from each evaporative/refueling 
family for evaporative/refueling emissions. If a manufacturer believes 
it is unable to procure the test vehicles necessary to test the 
required number of vehicles in a test group, the manufacturer may 
request, subject to Administrator approval, a decreased sample size for 
that test group. The request shall include a description of the methods 
the manufacturer has used to procure the required number of vehicles. 
The approval of any such request, and the substitution of an 
alternative sample size requirement for the test group, will be based 
on a review of the procurement efforts made by the manufacturer to 
determine if all reasonable steps have been taken to procure the 
required test group size. Tables S04-06 and S04-07 follow:
* * * * *
    (4) Completion of testing. Testing of the vehicles in a test group 
and evaporative/refueling family must be completed within 12 months of 
the end of production of that test group (or evaporative/refueling 
family) for that model year.
    (5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle of a test group shall be tested 
in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure and the US06 portion of 
the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure as described in subpart B of 
this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with 
applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles 
subject to applicable exhaust CO2 emission standards under 
this subpart shall also be tested in accordance with the highway fuel 
economy test as described in part 600, subpart B, of this chapter.
    (ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 
driving schedules for at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under 
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must 
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in Sec.  
86.1813, if applicable, as described in this paragraph (b)(5)(iii). 
Manufacturers must evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph 
(b)(5)(i) of this section. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at 
least one vehicle from each leak family for a given model year. 
Manufacturers may rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as follows:
    (A) A vehicle is considered to pass the leak test if the OBD system 
completed a leak check within the previous 750 miles of driving without 
showing a leak fault code.
    (B) Whether or not a vehicle's OBD system has completed a leak 
check within the previous 750 miles of driving, the manufacturer may 
operate the vehicle as needed to force the OBD system to perform a leak 
check. If the OBD leak check does not show a leak fault, the vehicle is 
considered to pass the leak test.
    (C) If the most recent OBD leak check from paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A) 
or (B) of this section shows a fault code, the vehicle is presumed to 
have failed the leak test. Manufacturers may perform the leak 
measurement procedure described in 40 CFR 1066.840 for an official 
result to replace the finding from the OBD leak check.
    (D) Manufacturers may not perform repeat OBD checks or leak 
measurements to over-ride a failure under paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(C) of 
this section.
    (iv) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each 
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the 
supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission and refueling 
emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test 
vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission 
and refueling standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled 
vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall 
be tested in accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 
emission and refueling emission

[[Page 30083]]

procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle 
is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and 
refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to 
fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph 
(b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum 
number of vehicles as specified in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) 
of this section only if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust 
emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this 
section.
    (6) Each test vehicle not rejected based on the criteria specified 
in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in as-received 
condition.
    (7) A manufacturer may conduct subsequent diagnostic maintenance 
and/or testing of any vehicle. Any such maintenance and/or testing 
shall be reported to the Agency as specified in Sec.  86.1847.
    (c) High-mileage testing--(1) Test groups. Testing must be 
conducted for each test group.
    (2) Vehicle mileage. All test vehicles must have a minimum odometer 
mileage of 50,000 miles. At least one vehicle of each test group must 
have a minimum odometer mileage of 105,000 miles or 75 percent of the 
full useful life mileage, whichever is less. See Sec.  86.1838-01(c)(2) 
for small volume manufacturer mileage requirements.
    (3) Number of test vehicles. For each test group, the minimum 
number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04-06 and 
Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. After testing the 
minimum number of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in 
Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a 
manufacturer may test additional vehicles upon request and approval by 
the Agency prior to the initiation of the additional testing. Any 
additional testing must be completed within the testing completion 
requirements shown in Sec.  86.1845-04(c)(4). The request and Agency 
approval (if any) shall apply to test groups on a case by case basis 
and apply only to testing under this paragraph (c). In addition to any 
testing that is required under Table S04-06 and Table S04-07, a 
manufacturer shall test one vehicle from each evaporative/refueling 
family for evaporative/refueling emissions. If a manufacturer believes 
it is unable to procure the test vehicles necessary to test the 
required number of vehicles in a test group as specified in Table S04-
06 or Table S04-07, the manufacturer may request, subject to 
Administrator approval, a decreased sample size for that test group. 
The request shall include a description of the methods the manufacturer 
has used to procure the required number of vehicles. The approval of 
any such request, and the substitution of an alternative sample size 
requirement for the test group, will be based on a review of the 
procurement efforts made by the manufacturer to determine if all 
reasonable steps have been taken to procure the required test group 
size.
    (4) Initiation and completion of testing. Testing of a test group 
(or evaporative refueling family) must commence within 4 years of the 
end of production of the test group (or evaporative/refueling family) 
and be completed within 5 years of the end of production of the test 
group (or evaporative/refueling family).
    (5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle shall be tested in accordance 
with the Federal Test Procedure and the US06 portion of the 
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure as described in subpart B of this 
part when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable 
exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles subject to 
applicable exhaust CO2 emission standards under this subpart 
shall also be tested in accordance with the highway fuel economy test 
as described in part 600, subpart B of this chapter. One test vehicle 
from each test group shall receive a Federal Test Procedure at high 
altitude. The test vehicle tested at high altitude is not required to 
be one of the same test vehicles tested at low altitude. The test 
vehicle tested at high altitude is counted when determining the 
compliance with the requirements shown in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or the expanded sample size as 
provided for in this paragraph (c).
    (ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 
driving schedules for at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under 
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must 
evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section 
to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in 
Sec.  86.1813. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at least one 
vehicle from each leak family for a given model year. Manufacturers may 
rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as described in paragraph 
(c)(5)(iii) of this section.
    (iv) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each 
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the 
supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission procedures 
described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested 
for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling 
standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test 
vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in 
accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission 
procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle 
is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and 
refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to 
fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph 
(b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum 
number of vehicles as specified in Table S04-06 and table S04-07 in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) 
of this section only if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust 
emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this 
section.
    (6) Test condition. Each test vehicle not rejected based on the 
criteria specified in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in 
as-received condition.
    (7) Diagnostic maintenance. A manufacturer may conduct subsequent 
diagnostic maintenance and/or testing on any vehicle. Any such 
maintenance and/or testing shall be reported to the Agency as specified 
in Sec.  86.1847-01.
* * * * *
0
179. Section 86.1846-01 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1846-01  Manufacturer in-use confirmatory testing 
requirements.

    (a) General requirements. (1) Manufacturers must test, or cause 
testing to be conducted, under this section when the emission levels 
shown by a test group sample from testing under Sec.  86.1845 exceeds 
the criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The testing 
required under this section applies separately to each test group and 
at each test point (low and high mileage) that meets the specified 
criteria. The testing requirements apply separately for each model 
year. These provisions apply to heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty 
engines starting with model year 2007. These provisions do not apply to 
emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) [Reserved]
    (4) The provisions of Sec.  86.1845-04(a)(3) regarding fuel sulfur 
effects apply equally to testing under this section.

[[Page 30084]]

    (b) Criteria for additional testing. (1) A manufacturer shall test 
a test group or a subset of a test group as described in paragraph (j) 
of this section when the results from testing conducted under Sec.  
86.1845 show mean exhaust emissions for that test group of any 
pollutant(s) (except CO2,CH4, and N2O) 
to be equal to or greater than 1.30 times the applicable in-use 
standard and a failure rate, among the test group vehicles, for the 
corresponding pollutant(s) of fifty percent or greater.
    (i) This requirement does not apply to Supplemental FTP testing or 
evaporative/refueling testing. Testing conducted at high altitude under 
the requirements of Sec.  86.1845 will be included in determining if a 
test group meets the criteria triggering testing required under this 
section.
    (ii) The vehicle tested under the requirements of Sec.  86.1845-
04(c)(2) with a minimum odometer miles of 75% of useful life will not 
be included in determining if a test group meets the triggering 
criteria.
    (iii) The SFTP composite emission levels shall include the IUVP FTP 
emissions, the IUVP US06 emissions, and the values from the SC03 Air 
Conditioning EDV certification test (without DFs applied). The 
calculations shall be made using the equations prescribed in Sec.  
86.164. If more than one set of certification SC03 data exists (due to 
running change testing or other reasons), the manufacturer shall choose 
the SC03 result to use in the calculation from among those data sets 
using good engineering judgment.
    (2) If fewer than 50 percent of the vehicles from a leak family 
pass the leak test under Sec.  86.1845, EPA may require further leak 
testing under this paragraph (b)(2). Testing under this section must 
include five vehicles from the family. If all five of these vehicles 
fail the test, the manufacturer must test five additional vehicles.
    EPA will determine whether to require further leak testing under 
this section after providing the manufacturer an opportunity to discuss 
the results, including consideration of any of the following 
information, or other items that may be relevant:
    (i) Detailed system design, calibration, and operating information, 
technical explanations as to why the individual vehicles tested failed 
the leak emission standard.
    (ii) Comparison of the subject vehicles to other similar models 
from the same manufacturer.
    (iii) Data or other information on owner complaints, technical 
service bulletins, service campaigns, special policy warranty programs, 
warranty repair data, state I/M data, and data available from other 
manufacturer-specific programs or initiatives.
    (iv) Evaporative emission test data on any individual vehicles that 
did not pass leak testing during IUVP.
    (c) Useful life. Vehicles tested under the provisions of this 
section must be within the useful life specified for the emission 
standards which were exceeded in the testing under Sec.  86.1845. 
Testing should be within the useful life specified, subject to sections 
207(c)(5) and (c)(6) of the Clean Air Act where applicable.
    (d) Number of test vehicles. A manufacturer must test a minimum of 
ten vehicles of the test group or Agency-designated subset. A 
manufacturer may, at the manufacturer's discretion, test more than ten 
vehicles under this paragraph for a specific test group or Agency-
designated subset. If a manufacturer chooses to test more than the 
required ten vehicles, all testing must be completed within the time 
designated in the testing completion requirements of paragraph (g) of 
this section. Any vehicles which are eliminated from the sample either 
prior to or subsequent to testing, or any vehicles for which test 
results are determined to be void, must be replaced in order that the 
final sample of vehicles for which test results acceptable to the 
Agency are available equals a minimum of ten vehicles. A manufacturer 
may cease testing with a sample of five vehicles if the results of the 
first five vehicles tested show mean emissions for each pollutant to be 
less than 75.0 percent of the applicable standard, with no vehicles 
exceeding the applicable standard for any pollutant.
    (e) Emission testing. Each test vehicle of a test group or Agency-
designated subset shall be tested in accordance with the Federal Test 
Procedure and/or the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (whichever of 
these tests performed under Sec.  86.1845 produces emission levels 
requiring testing under this section) as described in subpart B of this 
part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable 
exhaust emission standards under this subpart.
    (f) Geographical limitations. (1) Test groups or Agency-designated 
subsets certified to 50-state standards: For low altitude testing no 
more than 50 percent of the test vehicles may be procured from 
California. The test vehicles procured from the 49 state area must be 
procured from a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual 
average equal to or greater than 4000.
    (2) Test groups or Agency-designated subsets certified to 49 state 
standards: For low-altitude testing all vehicles shall be procured from 
a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual average equal to or 
greater than 4000.
    (3) Vehicles procured for high altitude testing may be procured 
from any area provided that the vehicle's primary area of operation was 
above 4000 feet.
    (g) Testing. Testing required under this section must commence 
within three months of completion of the testing under Sec.  86.1845 
which triggered the confirmatory testing and must be completed within 
seven months of the completion of the testing which triggered the 
confirmatory testing. Any industry review of the results obtained under 
Sec.  86.1845 and any additional vehicle procurement and/or testing 
which takes place under the provisions of Sec.  86.1845 which the 
industry believes may affect the triggering of required confirmatory 
testing must take place within the three month period. The data and the 
manufacturers reasoning for reconsideration of the data must be 
provided to the Agency within the three month period.
    (h) Limit on manufacturer conducted testing. For each manufacturer, 
the maximum number of test group(s) (or Agency-designated subset(s)) of 
each model year for which testing under this section shall be required 
is limited to 50 percent of the total number of test groups of each 
model year required to be tested by each manufacturer as prescribed in 
Sec.  86.1845 rounded to the next highest whole number where 
appropriate. For each manufacturer with only one test group under Sec.  
86.1845, such manufacturer shall have a maximum potential testing 
requirement under this section of one test group (or Agency-designated 
subset) per model year.
    (i) Testing plan. Prior to beginning in-use confirmatory testing 
the manufacturer must, after consultation with the Agency, submit a 
written plan describing the details of the vehicle procurement, 
maintenance, and testing procedures (not otherwise specified by 
regulation) it intends to use. EPA must approve the test plan before 
the manufacturer may start further testing.
    (j) Testing a subset. EPA may designate a subset of the test group 
based on transmission type for testing under this section in lieu of 
testing the entire test group when the results for the entire test 
group from testing conducted under Sec.  86.1845 show mean emissions 
and a failure rate which meet these criteria for additional testing.
0
180. Section 86.1848-10 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(7) to read 
as follows:

[[Page 30085]]

Sec.  86.1848-10  Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of 
certification.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) All certificates of conformity issued are conditional upon 
compliance with all the provisions of Sec. Sec.  86.1811 through 
86.1816 and Sec. Sec.  86.1860 through 86.1862 both during and after 
model year production. The manufacturer bears the burden of 
establishing to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the terms 
and conditions upon which each certificate was issued were satisfied. 
For recall and warranty purposes, vehicles not covered by a certificate 
of conformity will continue to be held to the standards stated or 
referenced in the certificate that otherwise would have applied to the 
vehicles.
    (i) Failure to meet the applicable fleet average standard will be 
considered to be a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon 
which the certificate was issued and the vehicles sold in violation of 
the fleet average standard will not be covered by the certificate.
    (ii) Failure to comply fully with the prohibition against selling 
credits that it has not generated or that are not available, as 
specified in Sec.  86.1861, will be considered a failure to satisfy the 
terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the 
vehicles sold in violation of this prohibition will not be covered by 
the certificate.
    (iii) Failure to comply fully with the phase-in requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  86.1811 through 86.1816 will be considered a failure to 
satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued 
and the vehicles sold that do not comply with the applicable standards, 
up to the number needed to comply, will not be covered by the 
certificate.
* * * * *
0
181. A new Sec.  86.1860-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1860-17  How to comply with the Tier 3 fleet-average 
standards.

    (a) You must show that you meet the applicable fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX standards from Sec. Sec.  86.1811 and 86.1816 and 
the fleet-average evaporative emission standards from Sec.  86.1813 as 
described in this section. Note that separate fleet-average 
calculations are required for the FTP and SFTP exhaust emission 
standards under Sec.  86.1811.
    (b) Calculate your fleet-average value for each model year for all 
vehicle models subject to a separate fleet-average standard using the 
following equation, rounded to the nearest 0.001 g/mile for 
NMOG+NOX emissions and the nearest 0.001 g/test for 
evaporative emissions:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.143

Where:

i = A counter associated with each separate Tier 3 test group.
b = The number of separate Tier 3 test groups to which you certify 
your vehicles.
Ni> = The actual sales for the model year for test group 
i.
FELi = The FEL selected for test group i. Disregard any 
separate standards that apply for in-use testing or for testing 
under high-altitude conditions.
Ntotal = The actual nationwide sales for the model year 
for all your Tier 3 vehicles, except as described in paragraph (c) 
of this section. The pool of vehicle models included in 
Ntotal may vary by model year, and it may be different 
for evaporative standards, FTP exhaust standards, and SFTP exhaust 
standards in a given model year.

    (c) Do not include any of the following vehicles to calculate your 
fleet-average value:
    (1) Vehicles that you do not certify to the standards of this part 
because they are permanently exempted under 40 CFR part 85 or part 
1068.
    (2) Exported vehicles.
    (3) Vehicles excluded under Sec.  86.1801.
    (d) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, your 
calculated fleet-average value may not exceed the corresponding fleet-
average standard for the model year.
    (e) You may generate or use emission credits related to your 
calculated fleet-average value as follows:
    (1) You may generate emission credits as described in Sec.  86.1861 
if your fleet-average value is below the corresponding fleet-average 
standard.
    (2) You may use emission credits as described in Sec.  86.1861 if 
your fleet-average value is above the corresponding fleet-average 
standard. Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, you 
must use enough credits for each model year to show that your adjusted 
fleet average value does not exceed the fleet-average standard.
    (3) If you do not have enough emission credits to demonstrate 
compliance with a fleet-average standard in a given model year, you may 
carry forward a credit deficit for up to three model years. You may not 
bank emission credits with respect to a given emission standard during 
a model year in which you have a credit deficit in the same averaging 
set. If you fail to meet the fleet-average standard for four 
consecutive model years, the vehicles causing you to exceed the fleet-
average standard will be considered not covered by the certificate of 
conformity. You will be subject to penalties on an individual-vehicle 
basis for sale of vehicles not covered by a certificate of conformity.
    (f) If the applicable bin standards and FELs for all your vehicle 
models are at or below a corresponding fleet-average standard for a 
given model year, and you do not want to generate emission credits, you 
may omit the calculations described in this section.
    (g) The deadline for offsetting debits as specified in paragraph 
(e)(3) of this section serves as the starting date for calculating the 
statute of limitations with respect to violating the requirements of 
paragraph (e)(3) of this section, failing to satisfy the conditions 
upon which a certificate was issued, and selling, offering for sale, 
introducing or delivering into U.S. commerce, or importing vehicles not 
covered by a certificate.
0
182. A new Sec.  86.1861-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1861-17  How do the NMOG+NOX and evaporative 
emission credit programs work?

    You may use emission credits for purposes of certification to show 
compliance with the applicable fleet-average NMOG+NOX 
standards from Sec. Sec.  86.1811 and 86.1816 and the fleet-average 
evaporative emission standards from Sec.  86.1813 as described in 40 
CFR part 1037, subpart H, with certain exceptions and clarifications as 
specified in this section. MDPVs are subject to the same provisions of 
this section that apply to LDT4s. (a) Calculate emission credits as 
described in this paragraph (a) instead of using the provisions of 40 
CFR 1037.705. Calculate positive or negative emission

[[Page 30086]]

credits relative to the applicable fleet-average standard. Calculate 
positive emission credits if your fleet-average level is below the 
standard. Calculate negative emission credits if your fleet-average 
value is above the standard. Calculate credits separately for each type 
of standard and for each averaging set. Calculate emission credits 
using the following equation, rounded to the nearest whole number:

Emission credit = Volume [middot] [Fleet average standard - Fleet 
average value]

Where:

Emission credit = The positive or negative credit for each discrete 
fleet-average standard, in units of vehicle-grams per mile for 
NMOG+NOx and vehicle-grams per test for evaporative 
emissions.
Volume = Sales volume in a given model year from the collection of 
test groups covered by the fleet-average value, as described in 
Sec.  86.1860.

    (b) The following restrictions apply instead of those specified in 
40 CFR 1037.740:
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, 
emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set, as 
follows:
    (i) HDVs represent a separate averaging set with respect to all 
emission standards.
    (ii) LDVs and LDTs together represent a single averaging set with 
respect to NMOG+NOX emission standards. Note that FTP and 
SFTP credits are not interchangeable.
    (iii) The following separate averaging sets apply for evaporative 
emission standards:
    (A) LDV and LDT1 together represent a single averaging set.
    (B) LDT2 represents a single averaging set.
    (C) HLDT represents a single averaging set.
    (D) HDV represents a single averaging set.
    (2) You may exchange evaporative emission credits across averaging 
sets as follows if you need additional credits to offset a deficit in 
the final year of maintaining deficit credits as allowed under 
paragraph (c) of this section:
    (i) You may exchange LDV/LDT1 and LDT2 emission credits.
    (ii) You may exchange HLDT and HDV emission credits.
    (3) Credits expire after five years. For example, credits you 
generate in model year 2018 may be used only through model year 2023.
    (c) The credit-deficit provisions 40 CFR 1037.745 apply without 
modification to the NMOG+NOX and evaporative emission 
standards for Tier 3 vehicles.
    (d) The reporting and recordkeeping provisions of Sec.  86.1862 
apply instead of those specified in 40 CFR 1037.730 and 1037.735.
    (e) The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.645 do not apply.
0
183. Section 86.1862-04 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1862-04  Maintenance of records and submittal of information 
relevant to compliance with fleet-average standards.

    (a) Overview. This section describes reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for vehicles subject to the following fleet-average or 
fleet-average standards:
    (1) Tier 2 NOX emission standard for light-duty vehicles 
and light-duty trucks in Sec.  86.1811-04.
    (2) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in Sec.  86.1811-17.
    (3) Tier 3 SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in Sec.  86.1811-17.
    (4) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in Sec.  86.1813-17.
    (5) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for heavy-
duty vehicles in Sec.  86.1816-18.
    (6) Cold-temperature NMHC standards in Sec.  86.1811-10.
    (b) Maintenance of records. (1) The manufacturer producing any 
vehicles subject to a fleet-average standard under this subpart must 
establish and maintain all the following information in organized and 
indexed records for each model year:
    (i) Model year.
    (ii) Applicable fleet-average standard.
    (iii) Calculated fleet-average value.
    (iv) All values used in calculating the fleet-average value 
achieved.
    (2) The manufacturer producing any vehicle subject to the 
provisions in this section must keep all the following information for 
each vehicle:
    (i) Model year.
    (ii) Applicable fleet-average standard.
    (iii) EPA test group.
    (iv) Assembly plant.
    (v) Vehicle identification number.
    (vi) The FEL and the fleet-average standard to which the vehicle is 
certified.
    (vii) Information on the point of first sale, including the 
purchaser, city, and state.
    (3) The manufacturer must retain all records required to be 
maintained under this section for a period of eight years from the due 
date for the annual report. Records may be stored in any format and on 
any media, as long as manufacturers can promptly send EPA organized 
written records in English if we ask for them. Manufacturers must keep 
records readily available as EPA may review them at any time.
    (4) The Administrator may require the manufacturer to retain 
additional records or submit information not specifically required by 
this section.
    (5) EPA may void ab initio a certificate of conformity for a 
vehicle certified to emission standards as set forth or otherwise 
referenced in this subpart for which the manufacturer fails to retain 
the records required in this section, to provide such information to 
the Administrator upon request, or to submit the reports required in 
this section in the specified time period.
    (c) Reporting. (1) Each manufacturer must submit an annual report. 
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the annual 
report must contain, for each applicable fleet average standard, the 
fleet average value achieved, all values required to calculate the 
fleet-average value, the number of credits generated or debits 
incurred, all the values required to calculate the credits or debits, 
and sufficient information to show compliance with all phase-in 
requirements, if applicable. The annual report must also contain the 
resulting balance of credits or debits.
    (2) When a manufacturer calculates compliance with the fleet-
average standard using the provisions in Sec.  86.1860-04(c)(2) or 
Sec.  86.1860-17(f), the annual report must state that the manufacturer 
has elected to use such provision and must contain the fleet-average 
standard as the fleet-average value for that model year.
    (3) For each applicable fleet-average standard, the annual report 
must also include documentation on all credit transactions the 
manufacturer has engaged in since those included in the last report. 
Information for each transaction must include all the following 
information:
    (i) Name of credit provider.
    (ii) Name of credit recipient.
    (iii) Date the transfer occurred.
    (iv) Quantity of credits transferred.
    (v) Model year in which the credits were earned.
    (4) Unless a manufacturer reports the data required by this section 
in the annual production report required under Sec.  86.1844-01(e) and 
subsequent model year provisions, a manufacturer must submit an annual 
report for each model year after production ends for all affected 
vehicles produced by the manufacturer subject to the provisions of this 
subpart and no later than May 1 of the calendar year following the 
given model year. Annual reports must be submitted to: Director, 
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

[[Page 30087]]

Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
    (5) Failure by a manufacturer to submit the annual report in the 
specified time period for all vehicles subject to the provisions in 
this section is a violation of Clean Air Act section 203(a)(1) (42 
U.S.C 7522(a)(1)) for each subject vehicle produced by that 
manufacturer.
    (6) If EPA or the manufacturer determines that a reporting error 
occurred on an annual report previously submitted to EPA, the 
manufacturer's credit or debit calculations will be recalculated. EPA 
may void erroneous credits, unless transferred, and must adjust 
erroneous debits. In the case of transferred erroneous credits, EPA 
must adjust the selling manufacturer's credit or debit balance to 
reflect the sale of such credits and any resulting generation of 
debits.
    (d) Notice of opportunity for hearing. Any voiding of the 
certificate under paragraph (a)(6) of this section will be made only 
after EPA has offered the manufacturer concerned an opportunity for a 
hearing conducted in accordance with Sec.  86.614 for light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks and with 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, 
for heavy-duty vehicles.
0
184. Section 86.1863-07 is amended by adding introductory text to read 
as follows:


Sec.  86.1863-07  Optional chassis certification for diesel vehicles.

    This section does not apply for vehicles certified to the Tier 3 
standards in Sec.  86.1816-18, including those vehicles that certify to 
the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018.
* * * * *
0
185. Section 86.1864-10 is amended by revising paragraph (p) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  86.1864-10  How to comply with the fleet average cold temperature 
NMHC standards.

* * * * *
    (p) Reporting and recordkeeping. Keep records and submit 
information for demonstrating compliance with the fleet average cold 
temperature NMHC standard as described in Sec.  86.1862-04.
0
186. Section 86.1868-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and 
(g)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  86.1868-12  CO2 credits for improving the efficiency 
of air conditioning systems.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The manufacturer shall perform the AC17 test specified in 40 
CFR 1066.840 on each unique air conditioning system design and vehicle 
platform combination for which the manufacturer intends to accrue air 
conditioning efficiency credits. The manufacturer must test at least 
one unique air conditioning system within each vehicle platform in a 
model year, unless all unique air conditioning systems within a vehicle 
platform have been previously tested. A unique air conditioning system 
design is a system with unique or substantially different component 
designs or types and/or system control strategies (e.g., fixed 
displacement vs. variable displacement compressors, orifice tube vs. 
thermostatic expansion valve, single vs. dual evaporator, etc.). In the 
first year of such testing, the tested vehicle configuration shall be 
the highest production vehicle configuration within each platform. In 
subsequent model years the manufacturer must test other unique air 
conditioning systems within the vehicle platform, proceeding from the 
highest production untested system until all unique air conditioning 
systems within the platform have been tested, or until the vehicle 
platform experiences a major redesign. Whenever a new unique air 
conditioning system is tested, the highest production configuration 
using that system shall be the vehicle selected for testing. Air 
conditioning system designs which have similar cooling capacity, 
component types, and control strategies, yet differ in terms of 
compressor pulley ratios or condenser or evaporator surface areas will 
not be considered to be unique system designs. The test results from 
one unique system design may represent all variants of that design. 
Manufacturers must use good engineering judgment to identify the unique 
air conditioning system designs which will require AC17 testing in 
subsequent model years. Results must be reported separately for all 
four phases (two phases with air conditioning off and two phases with 
air conditioning on) of the test to the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and the results of the calculations required in 40 CFR 1066.840 
must also be reported. In each subsequent model year additional air 
conditioning system designs, if such systems exist, within a vehicle 
platform that is generating air conditioning credits must be tested 
using the AC17 procedure.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) For each air conditioning system selected by the manufacturer 
to generate air conditioning efficiency credits, the manufacturer shall 
perform the AC17 Air Conditioning Efficiency Test Procedure specified 
in 40 CFR 1066.840, according to the requirements of this paragraph 
(g).
* * * * *
0
187. Appendix I to Part 86 is amended by revising the appendix heading, 
paragraph (a) before the table, paragraphs (b) and (c), and the 
introductory text of paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Appendix I to Part 86--Dynamometer Schedules

    (a) EPA light-duty urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS). 
This driving schedule is also known as the LA-4 cycle.
    (1) The driving schedule in this paragraph (a) applies for 
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles 
certified under subpart S of this part.
    (2) The driving schedule in this paragraph (a) applies for 
motorcycles with engine displacement at or above 170 cc. Calculate 
the speed-versus-time sequence in kilometers per hour by multiplying 
the listed speed by 1.6 and rounding to the nearest 0.1 kilometers 
per hour.
    (3) The driving schedule follows:
* * * * *
    (b) EPA driving schedule for motorcycles with engine 
displacement below 170 cc. Use the driving schedule specified in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this appendix, except that the schedule 
specified in this paragraph (b) applies for the portion of the 
driving schedule from 164 to 332 seconds.

                       Speed Versus Time Sequence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Time  (sec.)                         Speed  (kph)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
164.....................................................             3.4
165.....................................................             6.8
166.....................................................            10.3
167.....................................................            13.7
168.....................................................            17.1
169.....................................................            20.5
170.....................................................            23.0
171.....................................................            25.2
172.....................................................            26.7
173.....................................................            27.4
174.....................................................            26.6
175.....................................................            26.0
176.....................................................            25.6
177.....................................................            25.9
178.....................................................            26.1
179.....................................................            26.3
180.....................................................            26.7
181.....................................................            28.2
182.....................................................            27.5
183.....................................................            24.9
184.....................................................            23.5
185.....................................................            20.1
186.....................................................            18.3
187.....................................................            17.8
188.....................................................            18.8
189.....................................................            19.3
190.....................................................            20.7
191.....................................................            23.0
192.....................................................            25.4
193.....................................................            28.3
194.....................................................            31.6
195.....................................................            34.7
196.....................................................            37.5

[[Page 30088]]

 
197.....................................................            38.6
198.....................................................            40.7
199.....................................................            42.0
200.....................................................            43.6
201.....................................................            45.1
202.....................................................            46.7
203.....................................................            47.7
204.....................................................            48.5
205.....................................................            49.2
206.....................................................            49.2
207.....................................................            49.0
208.....................................................            48.9
209.....................................................            48.7
210.....................................................            48.7
211.....................................................            48.7
212.....................................................            48.7
213.....................................................            48.7
214.....................................................            48.9
215.....................................................            49.1
216.....................................................            49.6
217.....................................................            50.2
218.....................................................            50.9
219.....................................................            51.3
220.....................................................            51.8
221.....................................................            52.4
222.....................................................            52.8
223.....................................................            53.4
224.....................................................            54.1
225.....................................................            55.1
226.....................................................            56.0
227.....................................................            56.6
228.....................................................            56.9
229.....................................................            57.0
230.....................................................            56.9
231.....................................................            56.6
232.....................................................            56.6
233.....................................................            56.8
234.....................................................            57.1
235.....................................................            57.5
236.....................................................            57.7
237.....................................................            58.1
238.....................................................            58.3
239.....................................................            58.6
240.....................................................            58.7
241.....................................................            58.7
242.....................................................            58.5
243.....................................................            58.5
244.....................................................            58.5
245.....................................................            58.5
246.....................................................            58.5
247.....................................................            58.5
248.....................................................            58.4
249.....................................................            58.1
250.....................................................            57.8
251.....................................................            57.1
252.....................................................            56.6
253.....................................................            56.2
254.....................................................            55.9
255.....................................................            55.6
256.....................................................            55.5
257.....................................................            55.8
258.....................................................            55.9
259.....................................................            56.0
260.....................................................            56.0
261.....................................................            55.7
262.....................................................            55.3
263.....................................................            54.9
264.....................................................            54.5
265.....................................................            54.0
266.....................................................            54.3
267.....................................................            53.9
268.....................................................            53.8
269.....................................................            53.6
270.....................................................            53.4
271.....................................................            53.5
272.....................................................            53.7
273.....................................................            54.0
274.....................................................            54.4
275.....................................................            54.9
276.....................................................            55.4
277.....................................................            55.9
278.....................................................            56.9
279.....................................................            57.4
280.....................................................            57.6
281.....................................................            58.0
282.....................................................            58.0
283.....................................................            57.8
284.....................................................            57.2
285.....................................................            56.5
286.....................................................            55.5
287.....................................................            54.4
288.....................................................            53.4
289.....................................................            53.4
290.....................................................            53.4
291.....................................................            52.9
292.....................................................            51.9
293.....................................................            51.8
294.....................................................            51.9
295.....................................................            51.8
296.....................................................            51.4
297.....................................................            51.3
298.....................................................            51.3
299.....................................................            51.3
300.....................................................            50.9
301.....................................................            50.3
302.....................................................            49.8
303.....................................................            48.9
304.....................................................            47.8
305.....................................................            46.6
306.....................................................            45.4
307.....................................................            44.1
308.....................................................            43.0
309.....................................................            41.8
310.....................................................            39.9
311.....................................................            38.3
312.....................................................            36.5
313.....................................................            35.0
314.....................................................            33.7
315.....................................................            32.6
316.....................................................            31.7
317.....................................................            31.6
318.....................................................            31.1
319.....................................................            30.0
320.....................................................            28.5
321.....................................................            25.7
322.....................................................            22.3
323.....................................................            20.8
324.....................................................            19.8
325.....................................................            19.2
326.....................................................            17.6
327.....................................................            16.1
328.....................................................            12.9
329.....................................................            11.2
330.....................................................             8.3
331.....................................................             4.9
332.....................................................             1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (c) EPA driving schedule for class 3 heavy-duty vehicles. This 
driving schedule is also known as the LA-92 cycle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Time  (sec.)                         Speed  (mph)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................             0.0
2.......................................................             0.0
3.......................................................             0.0
4.......................................................             0.0
5.......................................................             0.0
6.......................................................             0.0
7.......................................................             0.0
8.......................................................             0.0
9.......................................................             0.0
10......................................................             0.0
11......................................................             0.0
12......................................................             0.0
13......................................................             0.0
14......................................................             0.0
15......................................................             0.0
16......................................................             0.0
17......................................................             0.0
18......................................................             0.0
19......................................................             0.0
20......................................................             0.0
21......................................................             1.2
22......................................................             4.2
23......................................................             7.3
24......................................................             8.8
25......................................................            10.8
26......................................................            12.3
27......................................................            13.1
28......................................................            12.3
29......................................................            12.3
30......................................................            11.5
31......................................................            11.5
32......................................................            11.1
33......................................................            11.1
34......................................................            11.1
35......................................................            13.1
36......................................................            15.0
37......................................................            16.9
38......................................................            16.9
39......................................................            16.1
40......................................................            15.7
41......................................................            15.4
42......................................................            15.0
43......................................................            13.8
44......................................................            10.8
45......................................................             8.4
46......................................................             6.1
47......................................................             4.2
48......................................................             3.5
49......................................................             3.5
50......................................................             1.5
51......................................................             0.0
52......................................................             0.0
53......................................................             0.0
54......................................................             0.0
55......................................................             0.0
56......................................................             0.0
57......................................................             0.0
58......................................................             0.0
59......................................................             0.0
60......................................................             0.0
61......................................................             0.0
62......................................................             0.0
63......................................................             1.2
64......................................................             3.5
65......................................................             7.7
66......................................................            11.1
67......................................................            13.8
68......................................................            16.5
69......................................................            18.4
70......................................................            20.4
71......................................................            20.7
72......................................................            19.6
73......................................................            17.3

[[Page 30089]]

 
74......................................................            12.3
75......................................................             8.1
76......................................................             6.1
77......................................................             9.6
78......................................................            12.7
79......................................................            15.7
80......................................................            18.0
81......................................................            20.4
82......................................................            21.9
83......................................................            23.4
84......................................................            23.8
85......................................................            24.6
86......................................................            25.0
87......................................................            26.1
88......................................................            26.1
89......................................................            26.9
90......................................................            26.9
91......................................................            26.9
92......................................................            26.5
93......................................................            25.7
94......................................................            21.9
95......................................................            16.5
96......................................................            10.0
97......................................................             4.6
98......................................................             1.5
99......................................................             0.4
100.....................................................             0.0
101.....................................................             0.0
102.....................................................             0.0
103.....................................................             0.0
104.....................................................             0.0
105.....................................................             0.0
106.....................................................             0.0
107.....................................................             0.0
108.....................................................             0.4
109.....................................................             1.2
110.....................................................             1.9
111.....................................................             3.8
112.....................................................             7.7
113.....................................................            11.5
114.....................................................            14.6
115.....................................................            18.0
116.....................................................            21.5
117.....................................................            25.0
118.....................................................            28.4
119.....................................................            30.7
120.....................................................            31.9
121.....................................................            32.3
122.....................................................            32.3
123.....................................................            31.9
124.....................................................            30.3
125.....................................................            28.0
126.....................................................            24.2
127.....................................................            20.0
128.....................................................            16.1
129.....................................................            11.5
130.....................................................             8.1
131.....................................................             5.0
132.....................................................             3.5
133.....................................................             1.9
134.....................................................             0.0
135.....................................................             0.0
136.....................................................             0.0
137.....................................................             0.0
138.....................................................             0.0
139.....................................................             0.0
140.....................................................             0.0
141.....................................................             0.0
142.....................................................             0.0
143.....................................................             1.5
144.....................................................             6.9
145.....................................................            12.7
146.....................................................            16.5
147.....................................................            20.0
148.....................................................            23.0
149.....................................................            25.7
150.....................................................            28.0
151.....................................................            30.7
152.....................................................            32.6
153.....................................................            34.2
154.....................................................            35.3
155.....................................................            36.9
156.....................................................            36.9
157.....................................................            37.2
158.....................................................            37.6
159.....................................................            37.6
160.....................................................            37.6
161.....................................................            37.2
162.....................................................            37.2
163.....................................................            36.9
164.....................................................            36.5
165.....................................................            36.5
166.....................................................            34.9
167.....................................................            33.4
168.....................................................            31.9
169.....................................................            29.2
170.....................................................            25.0
171.....................................................            25.0
172.....................................................            26.1
173.....................................................            27.6
174.....................................................            29.2
175.....................................................            31.1
176.....................................................            32.3
177.....................................................            34.2
178.....................................................            34.9
179.....................................................            35.7
180.....................................................            36.5
181.....................................................            36.9
182.....................................................            36.9
183.....................................................            37.2
184.....................................................            37.6
185.....................................................            37.2
186.....................................................            37.6
187.....................................................            38.0
188.....................................................            38.4
189.....................................................            39.2
190.....................................................            39.6
191.....................................................            39.9
192.....................................................            40.7
193.....................................................            40.3
194.....................................................            41.1
195.....................................................            41.1
196.....................................................            40.7
197.....................................................            31.9
198.....................................................            23.9
199.....................................................            15.9
200.....................................................             7.9
201.....................................................             2.7
202.....................................................             0.4
203.....................................................             0.4
204.....................................................             2.7
205.....................................................             3.8
206.....................................................             3.8
207.....................................................             1.5
208.....................................................             0.0
209.....................................................             0.0
210.....................................................             0.0
211.....................................................             0.0
212.....................................................             0.0
213.....................................................             0.0
214.....................................................             0.0
215.....................................................             0.0
216.....................................................             0.0
217.....................................................             0.0
218.....................................................             0.0
219.....................................................             0.0
220.....................................................             0.0
221.....................................................             0.0
222.....................................................             0.0
223.....................................................             0.0
224.....................................................             0.0
225.....................................................             0.0
226.....................................................             0.0
227.....................................................             0.0
228.....................................................             0.0
229.....................................................             0.0
230.....................................................             0.0
231.....................................................             0.0
232.....................................................             0.0
233.....................................................             0.0
234.....................................................             0.0
235.....................................................             0.0
236.....................................................             0.0
237.....................................................             0.0
238.....................................................             1.5
239.....................................................             5.0
240.....................................................             8.8
241.....................................................            11.5
242.....................................................            14.2
243.....................................................            15.4
244.....................................................            16.1
245.....................................................            16.1
246.....................................................            16.9
247.....................................................            16.5
248.....................................................            16.9
249.....................................................            18.0
250.....................................................            19.2
251.....................................................            20.4
252.....................................................            20.4
253.....................................................            21.1
254.....................................................            21.1
255.....................................................            22.3
256.....................................................            23.0
257.....................................................            23.8
258.....................................................            24.2
259.....................................................            24.6
260.....................................................            25.0
261.....................................................            25.7
262.....................................................            25.7
263.....................................................            26.5
264.....................................................            27.6
265.....................................................            28.4
266.....................................................            29.2
267.....................................................            30.3
268.....................................................            31.1
269.....................................................            31.1
270.....................................................            30.7
271.....................................................            31.1
272.....................................................            29.6
273.....................................................            29.2
274.....................................................            29.2
275.....................................................            28.8
276.....................................................            28.0
277.....................................................            23.0
278.....................................................            21.1
279.....................................................            21.5
280.....................................................            20.7
281.....................................................            20.7
282.....................................................            19.6
283.....................................................            16.5
284.....................................................            13.1
285.....................................................             9.6
286.....................................................             7.3
287.....................................................             3.8
288.....................................................             0.8
289.....................................................             0.0
290.....................................................             0.0
291.....................................................             0.0
292.....................................................             0.0

[[Page 30090]]

 
293.....................................................             0.0
294.....................................................             0.0
295.....................................................             0.0
296.....................................................             0.0
297.....................................................             0.0
298.....................................................             0.0
299.....................................................             0.0
300.....................................................             0.0
301.....................................................             0.0
302.....................................................             0.0
303.....................................................             0.0
304.....................................................             0.0
305.....................................................             0.0
306.....................................................             0.0
307.....................................................             0.0
308.....................................................             0.0
309.....................................................             0.0
310.....................................................             0.0
311.....................................................             0.0
312.....................................................             0.0
313.....................................................             0.4
314.....................................................             2.7
315.....................................................             7.3
316.....................................................            11.5
317.....................................................            15.4
318.....................................................            18.4
319.....................................................            20.7
320.....................................................            24.2
321.....................................................            26.9
322.....................................................            29.6
323.....................................................            31.1
324.....................................................            32.6
325.....................................................            33.8
326.....................................................            34.9
327.....................................................            36.9
328.....................................................            39.2
329.....................................................            41.1
330.....................................................            43.0
331.....................................................            43.8
332.....................................................            44.5
333.....................................................            45.3
334.....................................................            45.3
335.....................................................            44.9
336.....................................................            44.5
337.....................................................            43.8
338.....................................................            43.4
339.....................................................            42.6
340.....................................................            41.9
341.....................................................            41.5
342.....................................................            40.7
343.....................................................            40.3
344.....................................................            41.1
345.....................................................            41.5
346.....................................................            42.6
347.....................................................            43.4
348.....................................................            44.2
349.....................................................            44.9
350.....................................................            45.7
351.....................................................            46.5
352.....................................................            46.8
353.....................................................            47.2
354.....................................................            48.0
355.....................................................            47.6
356.....................................................            48.4
357.....................................................            48.0
358.....................................................            47.2
359.....................................................            46.1
360.....................................................            45.7
361.....................................................            44.9
362.....................................................            44.2
363.....................................................            43.8
364.....................................................            44.5
365.....................................................            44.9
366.....................................................            45.3
367.....................................................            46.5
368.....................................................            48.0
369.....................................................            48.8
370.....................................................            49.5
371.....................................................            49.9
372.....................................................            49.9
373.....................................................            49.9
374.....................................................            49.5
375.....................................................            49.5
376.....................................................            48.8
377.....................................................            48.8
378.....................................................            48.8
379.....................................................            48.4
380.....................................................            48.8
381.....................................................            49.5
382.....................................................            50.3
383.....................................................            50.7
384.....................................................            51.8
385.....................................................            52.6
386.....................................................            53.4
387.....................................................            54.1
388.....................................................            55.3
389.....................................................            55.3
390.....................................................            56.1
391.....................................................            56.4
392.....................................................            56.4
393.....................................................            56.4
394.....................................................            57.2
395.....................................................            56.8
396.....................................................            57.6
397.....................................................            57.6
398.....................................................            57.6
399.....................................................            58.0
400.....................................................            58.0
401.....................................................            58.4
402.....................................................            58.4
403.....................................................            58.8
404.....................................................            59.1
405.....................................................            58.8
406.....................................................            58.8
407.....................................................            58.0
408.....................................................            58.0
409.....................................................            57.6
410.....................................................            57.6
411.....................................................            57.6
412.....................................................            57.6
413.....................................................            57.6
414.....................................................            59.1
415.....................................................            59.5
416.....................................................            59.9
417.....................................................            60.3
418.....................................................            60.3
419.....................................................            61.1
420.....................................................            60.3
421.....................................................            59.9
422.....................................................            59.5
423.....................................................            59.1
424.....................................................            59.1
425.....................................................            59.5
426.....................................................            59.5
427.....................................................            59.5
428.....................................................            59.9
429.....................................................            60.3
430.....................................................            60.7
431.....................................................            60.7
432.....................................................            61.4
433.....................................................            61.8
434.....................................................            61.8
435.....................................................            61.8
436.....................................................            61.8
437.....................................................            61.1
438.....................................................            60.7
439.....................................................            60.3
440.....................................................            60.3
441.....................................................            60.3
442.....................................................            59.5
443.....................................................            58.8
444.....................................................            59.1
445.....................................................            58.8
446.....................................................            58.8
447.....................................................            58.8
448.....................................................            58.4
449.....................................................            58.0
450.....................................................            58.0
451.....................................................            58.0
452.....................................................            58.4
453.....................................................            59.1
454.....................................................            59.5
455.....................................................            59.9
456.....................................................            59.9
457.....................................................            60.3
458.....................................................            61.1
459.....................................................            61.1
460.....................................................            61.1
461.....................................................            61.4
462.....................................................            61.4
463.....................................................            61.1
464.....................................................            60.7
465.....................................................            59.9
466.....................................................            59.1
467.....................................................            59.1
468.....................................................            59.1
469.....................................................            59.9
470.....................................................            59.5
471.....................................................            59.9
472.....................................................            58.8
473.....................................................            58.0
474.....................................................            57.6
475.....................................................            56.8
476.....................................................            56.1
477.....................................................            55.3
478.....................................................            54.1
479.....................................................            52.6
480.....................................................            49.2
481.....................................................            46.1
482.....................................................            43.0
483.....................................................            37.2
484.....................................................            29.6
485.....................................................            21.5
486.....................................................            16.5
487.....................................................            15.7
488.....................................................            18.4
489.....................................................            21.5
490.....................................................            25.0
491.....................................................            27.3
492.....................................................            29.2
493.....................................................            30.7
494.....................................................            31.5
495.....................................................            31.1
496.....................................................            31.1
497.....................................................            30.3
498.....................................................            30.0
499.....................................................            30.0
500.....................................................            29.6
501.....................................................            30.0
502.....................................................            28.8
503.....................................................            28.8
504.....................................................            28.0
505.....................................................            28.4
506.....................................................            28.0
507.....................................................            28.4
508.....................................................            28.4
509.....................................................            28.8
510.....................................................            28.4
511.....................................................            28.4

[[Page 30091]]

 
512.....................................................            28.0
513.....................................................            26.5
514.....................................................            24.2
515.....................................................            22.7
516.....................................................            20.4
517.....................................................            17.7
518.....................................................            15.7
519.....................................................            13.1
520.....................................................            10.8
521.....................................................             8.4
522.....................................................             7.3
523.....................................................             5.0
524.....................................................             3.8
525.....................................................             3.5
526.....................................................             1.9
527.....................................................             0.8
528.....................................................             0.0
529.....................................................             0.0
530.....................................................             0.0
531.....................................................             0.8
532.....................................................             1.9
533.....................................................             3.8
534.....................................................             6.9
535.....................................................             9.6
536.....................................................            11.1
537.....................................................            11.1
538.....................................................            10.4
539.....................................................             8.8
540.....................................................             9.2
541.....................................................            10.0
542.....................................................            10.4
543.....................................................            10.4
544.....................................................             5.4
545.....................................................             1.9
546.....................................................             0.0
547.....................................................             0.0
548.....................................................             0.0
549.....................................................             0.0
550.....................................................             0.0
551.....................................................             0.0
552.....................................................             0.0
553.....................................................             0.0
554.....................................................             0.0
555.....................................................             0.0
556.....................................................             0.0
557.....................................................             0.0
558.....................................................             0.0
559.....................................................             0.0
560.....................................................             0.0
561.....................................................             0.0
562.....................................................             0.0
563.....................................................             0.0
564.....................................................             0.0
565.....................................................             0.0
566.....................................................             0.0
567.....................................................             0.0
568.....................................................             0.0
569.....................................................             0.0
570.....................................................             0.0
571.....................................................             0.0
572.....................................................             0.4
573.....................................................             1.5
574.....................................................             3.5
575.....................................................             6.1
576.....................................................            10.4
577.....................................................            14.2
578.....................................................            16.9
579.....................................................            19.2
580.....................................................            20.0
581.....................................................            21.5
582.....................................................            23.4
583.....................................................            24.6
584.....................................................            24.2
585.....................................................            20.0
586.....................................................            16.9
587.....................................................            13.4
588.....................................................            13.4
589.....................................................            15.7
590.....................................................            18.4
591.....................................................            21.1
592.....................................................            23.4
593.....................................................            25.3
594.....................................................            27.6
595.....................................................            28.8
596.....................................................            30.3
597.....................................................            30.7
598.....................................................            31.5
599.....................................................            31.1
600.....................................................            31.1
601.....................................................            30.3
602.....................................................            30.3
603.....................................................            30.3
604.....................................................            30.7
605.....................................................            31.1
606.....................................................            32.3
607.....................................................            32.6
608.....................................................            32.6
609.....................................................            32.6
610.....................................................            31.1
611.....................................................            26.9
612.....................................................            22.3
613.....................................................            18.0
614.....................................................            13.8
615.....................................................             9.6
616.....................................................             4.6
617.....................................................             6.1
618.....................................................            10.0
619.....................................................            14.2
620.....................................................            17.3
621.....................................................            20.0
622.....................................................            21.5
623.....................................................            22.3
624.....................................................            22.3
625.....................................................            22.3
626.....................................................            22.3
627.....................................................            23.0
628.....................................................            23.0
629.....................................................            22.7
630.....................................................            22.3
631.....................................................            21.9
632.....................................................            22.7
633.....................................................            23.8
634.....................................................            25.0
635.....................................................            25.3
636.....................................................            25.7
637.....................................................            26.5
638.....................................................            26.9
639.....................................................            27.3
640.....................................................            28.0
641.....................................................            29.2
642.....................................................            30.0
643.....................................................            30.0
644.....................................................            29.6
645.....................................................            29.6
646.....................................................            28.8
647.....................................................            28.4
648.....................................................            28.0
649.....................................................            27.3
650.....................................................            25.7
651.....................................................            24.6
652.....................................................            25.0
653.....................................................            26.5
654.....................................................            28.0
655.....................................................            29.6
656.....................................................            30.7
657.....................................................            32.3
658.....................................................            33.0
659.....................................................            34.2
660.....................................................            34.6
661.....................................................            35.3
662.....................................................            36.1
663.....................................................            36.1
664.....................................................            36.9
665.....................................................            36.9
666.....................................................            37.6
667.....................................................            37.6
668.....................................................            38.4
669.....................................................            38.0
670.....................................................            37.6
671.....................................................            37.6
672.....................................................            37.2
673.....................................................            36.9
674.....................................................            36.1
675.....................................................            35.7
676.....................................................            36.1
677.....................................................            35.7
678.....................................................            35.7
679.....................................................            35.7
680.....................................................            36.1
681.....................................................            36.1
682.....................................................            35.7
683.....................................................            35.7
684.....................................................            34.9
685.....................................................            34.6
686.....................................................            34.2
687.....................................................            33.8
688.....................................................            33.4
689.....................................................            33.0
690.....................................................            30.3
691.....................................................            29.2
692.....................................................            28.4
693.....................................................            25.0
694.....................................................            21.1
695.....................................................            16.9
696.....................................................            13.4
697.....................................................            13.1
698.....................................................            12.3
699.....................................................            12.7
700.....................................................            15.7
701.....................................................            19.2
702.....................................................            22.3
703.....................................................            24.6
704.....................................................            25.7
705.....................................................            26.5
706.....................................................            26.5
707.....................................................            26.9
708.....................................................            27.3
709.....................................................            27.3
710.....................................................            27.6
711.....................................................            28.4
712.....................................................            28.8
713.....................................................            28.8
714.....................................................            29.2
715.....................................................            28.8
716.....................................................            28.8
717.....................................................            28.0
718.....................................................            28.0
719.....................................................            27.6
720.....................................................            26.5
721.....................................................            24.6
722.....................................................            20.7
723.....................................................            16.5
724.....................................................            15.0
725.....................................................            14.2
726.....................................................            14.2
727.....................................................            13.8
728.....................................................            13.8
729.....................................................            11.9
730.....................................................             8.4

[[Page 30092]]

 
731.....................................................             4.2
732.....................................................             1.2
733.....................................................             0.0
734.....................................................             0.0
735.....................................................             0.0
736.....................................................             0.0
737.....................................................             0.0
738.....................................................             0.0
739.....................................................             0.0
740.....................................................             0.0
741.....................................................             0.0
742.....................................................             0.0
743.....................................................             0.0
744.....................................................             0.0
745.....................................................             0.0
746.....................................................             0.0
747.....................................................             0.0
748.....................................................             0.0
749.....................................................             0.0
750.....................................................             0.0
751.....................................................             0.0
752.....................................................             0.0
753.....................................................             0.0
754.....................................................             0.0
755.....................................................             0.0
756.....................................................             0.0
757.....................................................             0.0
758.....................................................             0.0
759.....................................................             0.0
760.....................................................             0.0
761.....................................................             0.0
762.....................................................             0.0
763.....................................................             1.5
764.....................................................             5.4
765.....................................................             9.2
766.....................................................            11.5
767.....................................................            14.6
768.....................................................            17.3
769.....................................................            19.2
770.....................................................            21.1
771.....................................................            20.7
772.....................................................            20.7
773.....................................................            19.6
774.....................................................            18.4
775.....................................................            16.9
776.....................................................            16.9
777.....................................................            16.5
778.....................................................            16.9
779.....................................................            16.9
780.....................................................            16.9
781.....................................................            17.3
782.....................................................            19.2
783.....................................................            20.4
784.....................................................            21.1
785.....................................................            22.3
786.....................................................            22.3
787.....................................................            22.7
788.....................................................            22.3
789.....................................................            22.7
790.....................................................            22.3
791.....................................................            23.8
792.....................................................            25.7
793.....................................................            27.6
794.....................................................            29.6
795.....................................................            30.0
796.....................................................            29.2
797.....................................................            27.6
798.....................................................            25.0
799.....................................................            23.8
800.....................................................            23.4
801.....................................................            24.2
802.....................................................            23.4
803.....................................................            23.0
804.....................................................            20.4
805.....................................................            18.8
806.....................................................            17.3
807.....................................................            15.0
808.....................................................            13.1
809.....................................................             9.2
810.....................................................             6.9
811.....................................................             4.6
812.....................................................             4.6
813.....................................................             4.6
814.....................................................             4.2
815.....................................................             5.4
816.....................................................             4.6
817.....................................................             3.5
818.....................................................             2.3
819.....................................................             2.3
820.....................................................             1.9
821.....................................................             3.1
822.....................................................             6.1
823.....................................................             4.6
824.....................................................             2.7
825.....................................................             2.3
826.....................................................             2.3
827.....................................................             3.1
828.....................................................             4.2
829.....................................................             3.5
830.....................................................             3.8
831.....................................................             4.2
832.....................................................             3.5
833.....................................................             3.5
834.....................................................             3.5
835.....................................................             4.6
836.....................................................             5.8
837.....................................................             3.5
838.....................................................             0.8
839.....................................................             3.5
840.....................................................             3.8
841.....................................................             2.3
842.....................................................             0.0
843.....................................................             1.2
844.....................................................             6.9
845.....................................................            13.8
846.....................................................            18.8
847.....................................................            23.8
848.....................................................            27.3
849.....................................................            30.7
850.....................................................            33.8
851.....................................................            37.6
852.....................................................            40.7
853.....................................................            43.8
854.....................................................            46.1
855.....................................................            48.0
856.....................................................            49.5
857.....................................................            51.5
858.....................................................            53.0
859.....................................................            54.5
860.....................................................            55.7
861.....................................................            56.8
862.....................................................            58.0
863.....................................................            59.1
864.....................................................            60.3
865.....................................................            61.1
866.....................................................            61.8
867.....................................................            61.8
868.....................................................            61.8
869.....................................................            61.8
870.....................................................            62.6
871.....................................................            63.4
872.....................................................            63.0
873.....................................................            63.0
874.....................................................            62.6
875.....................................................            61.8
876.....................................................            61.8
877.....................................................            62.2
878.....................................................            62.2
879.....................................................            62.6
880.....................................................            63.7
881.....................................................            64.5
882.....................................................            64.9
883.....................................................            66.0
884.....................................................            66.0
885.....................................................            66.8
886.....................................................            66.4
887.....................................................            66.8
888.....................................................            67.2
889.....................................................            66.4
890.....................................................            66.4
891.....................................................            66.0
892.....................................................            65.7
893.....................................................            65.7
894.....................................................            66.4
895.....................................................            66.0
896.....................................................            65.7
897.....................................................            65.3
898.....................................................            65.3
899.....................................................            64.5
900.....................................................            64.5
901.....................................................            64.1
902.....................................................            63.7
903.....................................................            63.7
904.....................................................            63.7
905.....................................................            64.5
906.....................................................            64.5
907.....................................................            64.9
908.....................................................            64.5
909.....................................................            64.1
910.....................................................            64.9
911.....................................................            65.3
912.....................................................            65.3
913.....................................................            65.3
914.....................................................            64.1
915.....................................................            63.4
916.....................................................            63.0
917.....................................................            63.4
918.....................................................            64.1
919.....................................................            64.9
920.....................................................            65.3
921.....................................................            64.5
922.....................................................            64.1
923.....................................................            63.4
924.....................................................            63.7
925.....................................................            63.4
926.....................................................            63.4
927.....................................................            63.4
928.....................................................            63.4
929.....................................................            63.7
930.....................................................            64.5
931.....................................................            65.3
932.....................................................            64.9
933.....................................................            63.7
934.....................................................            63.0
935.....................................................            59.9
936.....................................................            55.3
937.....................................................            50.7
938.....................................................            49.2
939.....................................................            48.0
940.....................................................            46.1
941.....................................................            44.2
942.....................................................            41.1
943.....................................................            39.9
944.....................................................            36.1
945.....................................................            32.6
946.....................................................            29.2
947.....................................................            24.6
948.....................................................            20.7
949.....................................................            19.2

[[Page 30093]]

 
950.....................................................            16.5
951.....................................................            15.0
952.....................................................            11.9
953.....................................................             9.6
954.....................................................             8.4
955.....................................................             5.8
956.....................................................             1.2
957.....................................................             0.0
958.....................................................             0.0
959.....................................................             0.0
960.....................................................             1.2
961.....................................................             3.1
962.....................................................             5.0
963.....................................................             8.4
964.....................................................            11.5
965.....................................................            14.6
966.....................................................            16.9
967.....................................................            18.8
968.....................................................            21.1
969.....................................................            23.8
970.....................................................            26.5
971.....................................................            28.0
972.....................................................            29.6
973.....................................................            30.7
974.....................................................            32.6
975.....................................................            34.2
976.....................................................            35.3
977.....................................................            36.1
978.....................................................            36.9
979.....................................................            38.0
980.....................................................            38.0
981.....................................................            38.0
982.....................................................            38.0
983.....................................................            38.0
984.....................................................            37.2
985.....................................................            36.9
986.....................................................            36.1
987.....................................................            35.7
988.....................................................            34.9
989.....................................................            34.9
990.....................................................            33.8
991.....................................................            31.5
992.....................................................            28.8
993.....................................................            25.7
994.....................................................            24.6
995.....................................................            23.4
996.....................................................            22.3
997.....................................................            21.5
998.....................................................            20.0
999.....................................................            20.0
1000....................................................            19.2
1001....................................................            19.2
1002....................................................            18.0
1003....................................................            11.9
1004....................................................             6.9
1005....................................................             2.7
1006....................................................             0.8
1007....................................................             0.4
1008....................................................             0.0
1009....................................................             0.0
1010....................................................             0.0
1011....................................................             0.0
1012....................................................             0.0
1013....................................................             0.0
1014....................................................             0.0
1015....................................................             0.0
1016....................................................             0.0
1017....................................................             0.0
1018....................................................             0.0
1019....................................................             0.0
1020....................................................             0.0
1021....................................................             0.0
1022....................................................             0.0
1023....................................................             0.4
1024....................................................             2.7
1025....................................................             6.1
1026....................................................             9.2
1027....................................................            11.5
1028....................................................            14.2
1029....................................................            16.1
1030....................................................            18.0
1031....................................................            20.0
1032....................................................            21.5
1033....................................................            23.0
1034....................................................            24.2
1035....................................................            25.0
1036....................................................            25.7
1037....................................................            26.9
1038....................................................            27.6
1039....................................................            27.6
1040....................................................            28.4
1041....................................................            29.2
1042....................................................            29.2
1043....................................................            30.0
1044....................................................            29.6
1045....................................................            29.6
1046....................................................            28.8
1047....................................................            28.0
1048....................................................            23.8
1049....................................................            18.8
1050....................................................            11.9
1051....................................................             6.1
1052....................................................             1.5
1053....................................................             1.5
1054....................................................             4.2
1055....................................................             8.1
1056....................................................            10.4
1057....................................................            13.1
1058....................................................            15.4
1059....................................................            18.0
1060....................................................            20.4
1061....................................................            23.0
1062....................................................            25.3
1063....................................................            27.3
1064....................................................            28.8
1065....................................................            30.3
1066....................................................            31.1
1067....................................................            32.3
1068....................................................            31.9
1069....................................................            32.3
1070....................................................            31.9
1071....................................................            31.1
1072....................................................            28.8
1073....................................................            25.0
1074....................................................            22.7
1075....................................................            18.8
1076....................................................            15.4
1077....................................................            13.4
1078....................................................            11.9
1079....................................................             8.8
1080....................................................             5.0
1081....................................................             1.9
1082....................................................             2.3
1083....................................................             2.7
1084....................................................             3.5
1085....................................................             6.5
1086....................................................            10.8
1087....................................................            13.8
1088....................................................            16.1
1089....................................................            18.4
1090....................................................            20.4
1091....................................................            21.9
1092....................................................            21.9
1093....................................................            20.7
1094....................................................            17.3
1095....................................................            13.1
1096....................................................             9.6
1097....................................................             8.8
1098....................................................            10.8
1099....................................................            12.7
1100....................................................            14.2
1101....................................................            14.6
1102....................................................            13.1
1103....................................................            11.1
1104....................................................            11.1
1105....................................................            11.1
1106....................................................            13.1
1107....................................................            15.7
1108....................................................            18.4
1109....................................................            20.7
1110....................................................            23.8
1111....................................................            25.7
1112....................................................            28.0
1113....................................................            30.0
1114....................................................            31.1
1115....................................................            32.3
1116....................................................            34.2
1117....................................................            35.7
1118....................................................            36.9
1119....................................................            38.8
1120....................................................            40.3
1121....................................................            41.5
1122....................................................            42.2
1123....................................................            43.0
1124....................................................            43.8
1125....................................................            43.8
1126....................................................            43.4
1127....................................................            43.0
1128....................................................            42.2
1129....................................................            41.9
1130....................................................            41.5
1131....................................................            41.9
1132....................................................            41.9
1133....................................................            41.9
1134....................................................            42.2
1135....................................................            42.6
1136....................................................            42.6
1137....................................................            42.6
1138....................................................            42.6
1139....................................................            42.6
1140....................................................            42.6
1141....................................................            42.6
1142....................................................            42.2
1143....................................................            43.0
1144....................................................            43.4
1145....................................................            43.0
1146....................................................            42.6
1147....................................................            41.9
1148....................................................            40.7
1149....................................................            36.9
1150....................................................            32.6
1151....................................................            28.0
1152....................................................            23.4
1153....................................................            18.4
1154....................................................            14.6
1155....................................................            12.3
1156....................................................             9.2
1157....................................................             5.8
1158....................................................             1.9
1159....................................................             0.4
1160....................................................             0.0
1161....................................................             0.0
1162....................................................             0.0
1163....................................................             0.0
1164....................................................             0.0
1165....................................................             0.4
1166....................................................             4.2
1167....................................................             9.2
1168....................................................            11.9

[[Page 30094]]

 
1169....................................................            14.2
1170....................................................            15.7
1171....................................................            15.0
1172....................................................            14.2
1173....................................................            13.4
1174....................................................            13.8
1175....................................................            14.6
1176....................................................            14.6
1177....................................................            14.2
1178....................................................            16.1
1179....................................................            15.7
1180....................................................            15.7
1181....................................................            14.6
1182....................................................            13.1
1183....................................................            10.0
1184....................................................             7.3
1185....................................................             3.5
1186....................................................             0.8
1187....................................................             0.0
1188....................................................             0.0
1189....................................................             0.0
1190....................................................             0.0
1191....................................................             0.4
1192....................................................             2.7
1193....................................................             7.3
1194....................................................            11.5
1195....................................................            15.4
1196....................................................            19.2
1197....................................................            21.9
1198....................................................            23.8
1199....................................................            25.0
1200....................................................            26.1
1201....................................................            27.3
1202....................................................            28.8
1203....................................................            30.0
1204....................................................            29.6
1205....................................................            29.6
1206....................................................            28.8
1207....................................................            26.1
1208....................................................            22.3
1209....................................................            19.2
1210....................................................            16.5
1211....................................................            12.7
1212....................................................             9.6
1213....................................................             6.9
1214....................................................             4.2
1215....................................................             2.3
1216....................................................             0.8
1217....................................................             0.0
1218....................................................             0.0
1219....................................................             0.0
1220....................................................             0.0
1221....................................................             0.0
1222....................................................             0.0
1223....................................................             0.0
1224....................................................             0.0
1225....................................................             0.0
1226....................................................             0.0
1227....................................................             0.0
1228....................................................             0.0
1229....................................................             0.0
1230....................................................             0.0
1231....................................................             0.0
1232....................................................             0.0
1233....................................................             0.0
1234....................................................             0.0
1235....................................................             0.0
1236....................................................             0.0
1237....................................................             0.0
1238....................................................             0.0
1239....................................................             0.0
1240....................................................             3.5
1241....................................................            10.4
1242....................................................            15.4
1243....................................................            17.3
1244....................................................            17.3
1245....................................................            18.4
1246....................................................            21.5
1247....................................................            24.6
1248....................................................            27.3
1249....................................................            30.0
1250....................................................            31.5
1251....................................................            31.9
1252....................................................            32.6
1253....................................................            33.4
1254....................................................            34.9
1255....................................................            36.5
1256....................................................            37.6
1257....................................................            39.2
1258....................................................            40.3
1259....................................................            40.7
1260....................................................            41.1
1261....................................................            40.7
1262....................................................            40.7
1263....................................................            40.7
1264....................................................            41.5
1265....................................................            42.6
1266....................................................            43.0
1267....................................................            44.5
1268....................................................            45.3
1269....................................................            45.3
1270....................................................            44.9
1271....................................................            43.4
1272....................................................            40.3
1273....................................................            38.0
1274....................................................            36.1
1275....................................................            36.5
1276....................................................            38.0
1277....................................................            39.2
1278....................................................            40.7
1279....................................................            42.2
1280....................................................            43.4
1281....................................................            44.9
1282....................................................            45.7
1283....................................................            46.1
1284....................................................            46.8
1285....................................................            46.5
1286....................................................            46.5
1287....................................................            46.5
1288....................................................            46.1
1289....................................................            46.1
1290....................................................            46.1
1291....................................................            46.8
1292....................................................            47.6
1293....................................................            48.0
1294....................................................            48.4
1295....................................................            48.0
1296....................................................            48.0
1297....................................................            47.2
1298....................................................            46.5
1299....................................................            46.8
1300....................................................            47.2
1301....................................................            48.4
1302....................................................            48.4
1303....................................................            48.8
1304....................................................            48.4
1305....................................................            47.6
1306....................................................            46.5
1307....................................................            44.2
1308....................................................            42.2
1309....................................................            41.5
1310....................................................            41.1
1311....................................................            40.7
1312....................................................            40.3
1313....................................................            39.6
1314....................................................            39.2
1315....................................................            38.8
1316....................................................            38.0
1317....................................................            37.6
1318....................................................            37.2
1319....................................................            36.5
1320....................................................            34.6
1321....................................................            31.5
1322....................................................            29.6
1323....................................................            29.2
1324....................................................            28.8
1325....................................................            28.8
1326....................................................            28.0
1327....................................................            28.0
1328....................................................            28.4
1329....................................................            29.6
1330....................................................            30.0
1331....................................................            30.3
1332....................................................            29.2
1333....................................................            26.5
1334....................................................            25.3
1335....................................................            25.0
1336....................................................            24.6
1337....................................................            24.6
1338....................................................            25.3
1339....................................................            26.1
1340....................................................            27.3
1341....................................................            28.4
1342....................................................            29.2
1343....................................................            29.2
1344....................................................            29.6
1345....................................................            30.0
1346....................................................            31.1
1347....................................................            32.6
1348....................................................            33.8
1349....................................................            34.6
1350....................................................            34.9
1351....................................................            34.6
1352....................................................            34.9
1353....................................................            34.6
1354....................................................            34.9
1355....................................................            34.9
1356....................................................            34.9
1357....................................................            34.2
1358....................................................            33.8
1359....................................................            32.6
1360....................................................            31.5
1361....................................................            30.0
1362....................................................            28.8
1363....................................................            27.3
1364....................................................            23.8
1365....................................................            23.0
1366....................................................            23.0
1367....................................................            22.3
1368....................................................            20.4
1369....................................................            18.8
1370....................................................            17.7
1371....................................................            16.1
1372....................................................            14.6
1373....................................................            12.7
1374....................................................            11.1
1375....................................................             9.2
1376....................................................             8.8
1377....................................................             7.3
1378....................................................             6.1
1379....................................................             5.0
1380....................................................             4.2
1381....................................................             3.5
1382....................................................             2.7
1383....................................................             2.3
1384....................................................             1.5
1385....................................................             1.2
1386....................................................             0.0
1387....................................................             1.2

[[Page 30095]]

 
1388....................................................             4.2
1389....................................................             7.3
1390....................................................             8.8
1391....................................................            10.8
1392....................................................            12.3
1393....................................................            13.1
1394....................................................            12.3
1395....................................................            12.3
1396....................................................            11.5
1397....................................................            11.5
1398....................................................            11.1
1399....................................................            11.1
1400....................................................            11.1
1401....................................................            13.1
1402....................................................            15.0
1403....................................................            16.9
1404....................................................            16.9
1405....................................................            16.1
1406....................................................            15.7
1407....................................................            15.4
1408....................................................            15.0
1409....................................................            13.8
1410....................................................            10.8
1411....................................................             8.4
1412....................................................             6.1
1413....................................................             4.2
1414....................................................             3.5
1415....................................................             3.5
1416....................................................             1.5
1417....................................................             0.0
1418....................................................             0.0
1419....................................................             0.0
1420....................................................             0.0
1421....................................................             0.0
1422....................................................             0.0
1423....................................................             0.0
1424....................................................             0.0
1425....................................................             0.0
1426....................................................             0.0
1427....................................................             0.0
1428....................................................             0.0
1429....................................................             0.0
1430....................................................             0.0
1431....................................................             0.0
1432....................................................             0.0
1433....................................................             0.0
1434....................................................             0.0
1435....................................................             0.0
1436....................................................             0.0
1437....................................................             0.0
1438....................................................             0.0
1439....................................................             0.0
1440....................................................             0.0
1441....................................................             0.0
1442....................................................             0.0
1443....................................................             0.0
1444....................................................             0.0
1445....................................................             0.0
1446....................................................             0.0
1447....................................................             0.0
1448....................................................             0.0
1449....................................................             0.0
1450....................................................             0.0
1451....................................................             0.0
1452....................................................             0.0
1453....................................................             0.0
1454....................................................             0.0
1455....................................................             0.0
1456....................................................             1.2
1457....................................................             4.2
1458....................................................             7.3
1459....................................................             8.8
1460....................................................            10.8
1461....................................................            12.3
1462....................................................            13.1
1463....................................................            12.3
1464....................................................            12.3
1465....................................................            11.5
1466....................................................            11.5
1467....................................................            11.1
1468....................................................            11.1
1469....................................................            11.1
1470....................................................            13.1
1471....................................................            15.0
1472....................................................            16.9
1473....................................................            16.9
1474....................................................            16.1
1475....................................................            15.7
1476....................................................            15.4
1477....................................................            15.0
1478....................................................            13.8
1479....................................................            10.8
1480....................................................             8.4
1481....................................................             6.1
1482....................................................             4.2
1483....................................................             3.5
1484....................................................             3.5
1485....................................................             1.5
1486....................................................             0.0
1487....................................................             0.0
1488....................................................             0.0
1489....................................................             0.0
1490....................................................             0.0
1491....................................................             0.0
1492....................................................             0.0
1493....................................................             0.0
1494....................................................             0.0
1495....................................................             0.0
1496....................................................             0.0
1497....................................................             0.0
1498....................................................             1.2
1499....................................................             3.5
1500....................................................             7.7
1501....................................................            11.1
1502....................................................            13.8
1503....................................................            16.5
1504....................................................            18.4
1505....................................................            20.4
1506....................................................            20.7
1507....................................................            19.6
1508....................................................            17.3
1509....................................................            12.3
1510....................................................             8.1
1511....................................................             6.1
1512....................................................             9.6
1513....................................................            12.7
1514....................................................            15.7
1515....................................................            18.0
1516....................................................            20.4
1517....................................................            21.9
1518....................................................            23.4
1519....................................................            23.8
1520....................................................            24.6
1521....................................................            25.0
1522....................................................            26.1
1523....................................................            26.1
1524....................................................            26.9
1525....................................................            26.9
1526....................................................            26.9
1527....................................................            26.5
1528....................................................            25.7
1529....................................................            21.9
1530....................................................            16.5
1531....................................................            10.0
1532....................................................             4.6
1533....................................................             1.5
1534....................................................             0.4
1535....................................................             0.0
1536....................................................             0.0
1537....................................................             0.0
1538....................................................             0.0
1539....................................................             0.0
1540....................................................             0.0
1541....................................................             0.0
1542....................................................             0.0
1543....................................................             0.4
1544....................................................             1.2
1545....................................................             1.9
1546....................................................             3.8
1547....................................................             7.7
1548....................................................            11.5
1549....................................................            14.6
1550....................................................            18.0
1551....................................................            21.5
1552....................................................            25.0
1553....................................................            28.4
1554....................................................            30.7
1555....................................................            31.9
1556....................................................            32.3
1557....................................................            32.3
1558....................................................            31.9
1559....................................................            30.3
1560....................................................            28.0
1561....................................................            24.2
1562....................................................            20.0
1563....................................................            16.1
1564....................................................            11.5
1565....................................................             8.1
1566....................................................             5.0
1567....................................................             3.5
1568....................................................             1.9
1569....................................................             0.0
1570....................................................             0.0
1571....................................................             0.0
1572....................................................             0.0
1573....................................................             0.0
1574....................................................             0.0
1575....................................................             0.0
1576....................................................             0.0
1577....................................................             0.0
1578....................................................             1.5
1579....................................................             6.9
1580....................................................            12.7
1581....................................................            16.5
1582....................................................            20.0
1583....................................................            23.0
1584....................................................            25.7
1585....................................................            28.0
1586....................................................            30.7
1587....................................................            32.6
1588....................................................            34.2
1589....................................................            35.3
1590....................................................            36.9
1591....................................................            36.9
1592....................................................            37.2
1593....................................................            37.6
1594....................................................            37.6
1595....................................................            37.6
1596....................................................            37.2
1597....................................................            37.2
1598....................................................            36.9
1599....................................................            36.5
1600....................................................            36.5
1601....................................................            34.9
1602....................................................            33.4
1603....................................................            31.9
1604....................................................            29.2
1605....................................................            25.0
1606....................................................            25.0

[[Page 30096]]

 
1607....................................................            26.1
1608....................................................            27.6
1609....................................................            29.2
1610....................................................            31.1
1611....................................................            32.3
1612....................................................            34.2
1613....................................................            34.9
1614....................................................            35.7
1615....................................................            36.5
1616....................................................            36.9
1617....................................................            36.9
1618....................................................            37.2
1619....................................................            37.6
1620....................................................            37.2
1621....................................................            37.6
1622....................................................            38.0
1623....................................................            38.4
1624....................................................            39.2
1625....................................................            39.6
1626....................................................            39.9
1627....................................................            40.7
1628....................................................            40.3
1629....................................................            41.1
1630....................................................            41.1
1631....................................................            40.7
1632....................................................            31.9
1633....................................................            23.9
1634....................................................            15.9
1635....................................................             7.9
1636....................................................             2.7
1637....................................................             0.4
1638....................................................             0.4
1639....................................................             2.7
1640....................................................             3.8
1641....................................................             3.8
1642....................................................             1.5
1643....................................................             0.0
1644....................................................             0.0
1645....................................................             0.0
1646....................................................             0.0
1647....................................................             0.0
1648....................................................             0.0
1649....................................................             0.0
1650....................................................             0.0
1651....................................................             0.0
1652....................................................             0.0
1653....................................................             0.0
1654....................................................             0.0
1655....................................................             0.0
1656....................................................             0.0
1657....................................................             0.0
1658....................................................             0.0
1659....................................................             0.0
1660....................................................             0.0
1661....................................................             0.0
1662....................................................             0.0
1663....................................................             0.0
1664....................................................             0.0
1665....................................................             0.0
1666....................................................             0.0
1667....................................................             0.0
1668....................................................             0.0
1669....................................................             0.0
1670....................................................             0.0
1671....................................................             0.0
1672....................................................             0.0
1673....................................................             1.5
1674....................................................             5.0
1675....................................................             8.8
1676....................................................            11.5
1677....................................................            14.2
1678....................................................            15.4
1679....................................................            16.1
1680....................................................            16.1
1681....................................................            16.9
1682....................................................            16.5
1683....................................................            16.9
1684....................................................            18.0
1685....................................................            19.2
1686....................................................            20.4
1687....................................................            20.4
1688....................................................            21.1
1689....................................................            21.1
1690....................................................            22.3
1691....................................................            23.0
1692....................................................            23.8
1693....................................................            24.2
1694....................................................            24.6
1695....................................................            25.0
1696....................................................            25.7
1697....................................................            25.7
1698....................................................            26.5
1699....................................................            27.6
1700....................................................            28.4
1701....................................................            29.2
1702....................................................            30.3
1703....................................................            31.1
1704....................................................            31.1
1705....................................................            30.7
1706....................................................            31.1
1707....................................................            29.6
1708....................................................            29.2
1709....................................................            29.2
1710....................................................            28.8
1711....................................................            28.0
1712....................................................            23.0
1713....................................................            21.1
1714....................................................            21.5
1715....................................................            20.7
1716....................................................            20.7
1717....................................................            19.6
1718....................................................            16.5
1719....................................................            13.1
1720....................................................             9.6
1721....................................................             7.3
1722....................................................             3.8
1723....................................................             0.8
1724....................................................             0.0
1725....................................................             0.0
1726....................................................             0.0
1727....................................................             0.0
1728....................................................             0.0
1729....................................................             0.0
1730....................................................             0.0
1731....................................................             0.0
1732....................................................             0.0
1733....................................................             0.0
1734....................................................             0.0
1735....................................................             0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (d) EPA driving schedule for testing heavy-duty vehicles above 
14,000 pounds GVWR. This driving schedule applies for testing 
vehicles subject to evaporative emission standards under subpart A 
of this part.
* * * * *

Appendix XIII Through Appendix XVIII to Part 86--[Removed]

0
188. Appendix XIII through Appendix XVIII to part 86 are removed.

PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF 
MOTOR VEHICLES

0
189. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 32901-32919q, Pub. L. 109-58.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
190. Section 600.011 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and 
(c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  600.011  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor 
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (610) 832-9585, 
https://www.astm.org/.
    (1) ASTM D975-11 Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, 
approved March 1, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  600.107-08(b).
    (2) ASTM D 1298-99 (Reapproved 2005) Standard Practice for Density, 
Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum 
and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method, approved November 
1, 2005, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  600.113-12(f) and (g) and 600.510-
12(g).
    (3) ASTM D 1945-03 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for 
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography, approved January 1, 
2010, IBR approved for Sec.  600.113-12(f).
    (4) ASTM D 3338/D 3338M-09 Standard Test Method for Estimation of 
Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation Fuels, approved April 15, 2009, IBR 
approved for Sec.  600.113-12(f).
    (5) ASTM D 3343-05 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for 
Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels, approved October 1, 
2010, IBR approved for Sec.  600.113-12(f).
    (c) * * *
    (2) SAE J1634, Revised October 2012, Battery Electric Vehicle 
Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  600.116-12(a) and 600.311-12(j) and (k).
    (3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust 
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-
In Hybrid Vehicles, June 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  600.114-
12(c) and (f), 600.116-12(b) and (c), and 600.311-12(d), (j), and (k).
* * * * *

[[Page 30097]]

Subpart B--[Amended]


Sec. Sec.  600.113-08 and 600.114-08  [Removed]

0
191. Remove Sec. Sec.  600.113-08 and 600.114-08.
0
192. Section 600.116-12 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading.
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(5).
0
c. By redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d), 
respectively.
0
d. By adding a new paragraph (b).
0
e. By revising the redesignated paragraphs (c) introductory text, 
(c)(1) introductory text, and (c)(2) introductory text.


Sec.  600.116-12  Special procedures related to electric vehicles and 
hybrid electric vehicles.

    (a) * * *
    (5) We may approve alternate measurement procedures with respect to 
electric vehicles if they are necessary or appropriate for meeting the 
objectives of this part. For example, we may approve the use of an 
earlier version of SAE J1634 for carryover vehicles, or if you show 
that it is equivalent for your vehicle.
* * * * *
    (b) Determine performance values for hybrid electric vehicles that 
have no plug-in capability as specified in Sec. Sec.  600.210 and 
600.311 using the procedures for charge-sustaining operation from SAE 
J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011). We may approve 
alternate measurement procedures with respect to these vehicles if that 
is necessary or appropriate for meeting the objectives of this part.
    (c) Determine performance values for hybrid electric vehicles that 
have plug-in capability as specified in Sec. Sec.  600.210 and 600.311 
using the procedures of SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
600.011), with the following clarifications and modifications:
    (1) To determine fuel economy and CREE values to demonstrate 
compliance with CAFE and GHG standards, calculate composite values 
representing combined operation during charge-depleting and charge-
sustaining operation using the following utility factors except as 
specified in this paragraph (b):
* * * * *
    (2) To determine fuel economy and CO2 emission values 
for labeling purposes, calculate composite values representing combined 
operation during charge-depleting and charge-sustaining operation using 
the following utility factors except as specified in this paragraph 
(b):
* * * * *

Subpart C--[Amended]


Sec. Sec.  600.206-08, 600.207-08, 600.208-08, 600.209-08, and 600.210-
08  [Removed]

0
193. Remove Sec. Sec.  600.206-08, 600.207-08, 600.208-08, 600.209-08, 
and 600.210-08.

Subpart D--[Amended]


Sec. Sec.  600.302-08 and 600.311-08  [Removed]

0
194. Remove 600.302-08 and 600.311-08.
0
195. Section 600.311-12 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  600.311-12  Determination of values for fuel economy labels.

* * * * *
    (g) Smog rating. Establish a rating for exhaust emissions other 
than CO2 based on the applicable emission standards for the 
appropriate model year as shown in Tables 1 through 3 of this section. 
For Independent Commercial Importers that import vehicles not subject 
to Tier 2 or Tier 3 emission standards, the vehicle's smog rating is 1. 
Similarly, if a manufacturer certifies vehicles to emission standards 
that are less stringent than all the identified standards for any 
reason, the vehicle's smog rating is 1. If EPA or California emission 
standards change in the future, we may revise the emission levels 
corresponding to each rating for future model years as appropriate to 
reflect the changed standards. If this occurs, we would publish the 
revised ratings as described in Sec.  600.302-12(k), allowing 
sufficient lead time to make the changes; we would also expect to 
initiate a rulemaking to update the smog rating in the regulation.

 Table 1 of Sec.   600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for
                        Model Year 2025 and Later
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              California Air Resources
      Rating           U.S. EPA Tier 3         Board LEV III emission
                      emission standard               standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  Bin 160................  LEV 160
2................  Bin 125................  ULEV125
4................  Bin 70.................  ULEV70
5................  Bin 50.................  ULEV50
6................  Bin 30.................  SULEV30
7................  Bin 20.................  SULEV20
8................  .......................  TZEV
10...............  Bin 0..................  ZEV
------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table 2 of Sec.   600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for Model Years 2018-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       California Air Resources
               Rating                    U.S. EPA Tier 3         U.S EPA Tier 2         Board LEV III emission
                                        emission standard       emission standard              standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................  Bin 160...............  Bin 5 through Bin 8...  LEV 160
3..................................  Bin 125...............  Bin 4.................  ULEV125
5..................................  Bin 70................  Bin 3.................  ULEV70
6..................................  Bin 50................  ......................  ULEV50
7..................................  Bin 30................  Bin 2.................  SULEV30
8..................................  Bin 20................  ......................  SULEV20
9..................................  ......................  ......................  TZEV
10.................................  Bin 0.................  Bin 1.................  ZEV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 3 of Sec.   600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating Through Model Year 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           U.S. EPA Tier 2       California Air Resources Board LEV II emission
                Rating                    emission standard                         standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................  .......................  ULEV & LEV II large trucks.
2....................................  Bin 8..................  SULEV II large trucks.
3....................................  Bin 7..................  ................................................

[[Page 30098]]

 
4....................................  Bin 6..................  LEV II, option 1.
5....................................  Bin 5..................  LEV II.
6....................................  Bin 4..................  ULEV II.
7....................................  Bin 3..................  ................................................
8....................................  Bin 2..................  SULEV II.
9....................................  .......................  PZEV.
10...................................  Bin 1..................  ZEV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]


Sec. Sec.  600.507-08, 600.509-08, 600.510-08, and 600.512-
08  [Removed]

0
196. Remove Sec. Sec.  600.507-08, 600.509-08, 600.510-08, and 600.512-
08.

Appendix IV and Appendix V to Part 600--[Removed and Reserved]

0
197. Remove and reserve Appendix IV and Appendix V to Part 600.

PART 1036--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY 
HIGHWAY ENGINES

0
198. The authority citation for part 1036 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
199. Section 1036.115 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1036.115  Other requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) You must design and produce your engines to comply with 
evaporative emission standards as follows:
    (1) For complete heavy-duty vehicles you produce, you must certify 
the vehicles to emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103.
    (2) For incomplete heavy-duty vehicles, and for engines used in 
vehicles you do not produce, you do not need to certify your engines to 
evaporative emission standards or otherwise meet those standards. 
However, vehicle manufacturers certifying their vehicles with your 
engines may depend on you to produce your engines according to their 
specifications. Also, your engines must meet applicable exhaust 
emission standards in the installed configuration.

PART 1037--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES

0
200. The authority citation for part 1037 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
201. Section 1037.101 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) and 
adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  1037.101  Overview of emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Fuel evaporative emissions. These requirements are described in 
40 CFR part 86 and Sec.  1037.103.
    (c) * * *
    (3) For evaporative and refueling emissions, vehicles are regulated 
based on the type of fuel they use. Vehicles fueled with volatile 
liquid fuels or gaseous fuels are subject to evaporative emission 
standards. Vehicles up to a certain size that are fueled with gasoline, 
diesel fuel, ethanol, methanol, or LPG are subject to refueling 
emission standards.
0
202. A new Sec.  1037.103 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  1037.103  Evaporative emission standards.

    (a) Applicability. Evaporative emission standards apply to heavy-
duty vehicles as follows:
    (1) Complete and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 
pounds GVWR must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as 
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, instead of the requirements 
specified in this section, except that incomplete heavy-duty vehicles 
at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet evaporative emission standards 
as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A through model year 2017.
    (2) Heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR that run on 
volatile liquid fuel (such as gasoline or ethanol) or gaseous fuel 
(such as natural gas or LPG) must meet evaporative emission standards 
as specified in this section starting in model year 2018.
    (b) Emission standards. The evaporative emission standards 
specified in 40 CFR 86.1813 apply for vehicles subject to standards 
under this section based on emission measurements using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  1037.530. These standards phase in over model years 
2018 through 2022. Count vehicles subject to standards under this 
section the same as heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR 
to comply with the phase-in requirements specified in 40 CFR 86.1813. 
These vehicles may generate and use emission credits as described in 40 
CFR part 86, subpart S, but only for vehicles that are tested for 
certification (instead of relying on the provisions of paragraph (c) of 
this section).
    (c) Compliance demonstration. You may provide a statement in the 
application for certification that vehicles comply with evaporative and 
refueling emission standards instead of submitting test data if you 
include an engineering analysis describing how vehicles include design 
parameters, equipment, operating controls, or other elements of design 
that adequately demonstrate that vehicles comply with the standards. We 
would expect emission control components and systems to exhibit a 
comparable degree of control relative to vehicles that comply based on 
testing. For example, vehicles that comply under this paragraph (c) 
should rely on comparable material specifications to limit fuel 
permeation, and components should be sized and calibrated to correspond 
with the appropriate fuel capacities, fuel flow rates, purge 
strategies, and other vehicle operating characteristics. You may 
alternatively show that design parameters are comparable to those for 
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR certified under 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart S.
    (d) Incomplete vehicles. If you sell incomplete vehicles, you must 
identify the maximum fuel tank capacity for which you designed the 
vehicle's evaporative emission control system.
    (e) Useful life. Your vehicles must meet the evaporative emission 
standards of this section throughout their useful life, expressed in 
service miles or calendar years, whichever comes first. The useful life 
values for the standards

[[Page 30099]]

of this section are those that apply for criteria pollutants under 40 
CFR part 86.
    (f) Auxiliary engines and separate fuel systems. The provisions of 
this paragraph (g) apply for vehicles with auxiliary engines. This 
includes any engines installed in the final vehicle configuration that 
contribute no motive power through the vehicle's transmission.
    (1) Auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components must be 
installed when testing complete vehicles. If the auxiliary engine draws 
fuel from a separate fuel tank, you must fill the extra fuel tank 
before the start of diurnal testing as described for the vehicle's main 
fuel tank. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that any nonmetal 
portions of the fuel system related to the auxiliary engine have 
reached stabilized levels of permeation emissions. The auxiliary engine 
must not operate during the running loss test or any other portion of 
testing under this section.
    (2) For testing with incomplete vehicles, you may omit installation 
of auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components as long as 
those components installed in the final configuration are certified to 
meet the applicable emission standards for Small SI equipment described 
in 40 CFR 1054.112 or for Large SI engines in 40 CFR 1048.105. For any 
fuel-system components that you do not install, your installation 
instructions must describe this certification requirement.
0
203. Section 1037.104 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1037.104  Exhaust emission standards for CO2, 
CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty vehicles at or below 
14,000 pounds GVWR.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) The evaporative and refueling emission standards in Sec.  
1037.103.
* * * * *

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
204. Section 1037.230 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1037.230  Vehicle families, sub-families, and configurations.

* * * * *
    (e) Divide your vehicles that are subject to evaporative emission 
standards into groups of vehicles with similar physical features 
expected to affect evaporative emissions. Group vehicles in the same 
evaporative emission family if they are the same in all the following 
aspects, unless we approve a better way of grouping vehicles into 
families that have similar emission control characteristics:
    (1) Method of vapor storage, including the number of vapor storage 
devices, the working material, and the total working capacity of vapor 
storage (as determined under 40 CFR 86.132-96(h)(1)(iv)). You may 
consider the working capacity to be the same if the values differ by 20 
grams or less.
    (2) Method of purging stored vapors.
    (3) Material for liquid and vapor fuel lines.
* * * * *
0
205. A new Sec.  1037.243 is added to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  1037.243  Demonstrating compliance with evaporative emission 
standards.

    (a) For purposes of certification, your vehicle family is 
considered in compliance with the evaporative emission standards in 
subpart B of this part if you prepare an engineering analysis showing 
that your vehicles in the family will comply with applicable standards 
throughout the useful life, and there are no test results from an 
emission-data vehicle representing the family that exceed an emission 
standard.
    (b) Your evaporative emission family is deemed not to comply if 
your engineering analysis is not adequate to show that all the vehicles 
in the family will comply with applicable emission standards throughout 
the useful life, or if a test result from an emission-data vehicle 
representing the family exceeds an emission standard.
    (c) To compare emission levels with emission standards, apply 
deterioration factors to the measured emission levels. Establish an 
additive deterioration factor based on an engineering analysis that 
takes into account the expected aging from in-use vehicles.
    (d) Apply the deterioration factor to the official emission result, 
as described in paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted 
figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. 
Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each 
emission-data vehicle.
    (e) Your analysis to demonstrate compliance with emission standards 
must take into account your design strategy for vehicles that require 
testing. Specifically, vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR are presumed 
to need the same technologies that are required for heavy-duty vehicles 
at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Similarly, your analysis to establish a 
deterioration factor must take into account your testing to establish 
deterioration factors for smaller vehicles.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
206. Section 1037.501 is amended by adding paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1037.501  General testing and modeling provisions.

* * * * *
    (a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in Sec.  1037.530 to 
determine whether vehicles meet the diurnal, running loss, and hot soak 
emission standards specified in Sec.  1037.103.
* * * * *
0
207. A new Sec.  1037.530 is added to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  1037.530  Evaporative emission test procedures.

    Apply the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, to demonstrate 
compliance with the diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emission 
standards as specified in Sec.  1037.103, with the following 
exceptions:
    (a) Use drive cycles for heavy-duty vehicles as follows:
    (1) The Heavy-Duty Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (HD-UDDS) is 
specified in 40 CFR part 86, Appendix I, paragraph (d). It represents 
about 5.6 miles of driving for a heavy-duty vehicle in an urban area.
    (2) For the preconditioning drive, operate the vehicle over one HD-
UDDS instead of the drive specified in 40 CFR 86.132.
    (3) For the dynamometer run preceding the diurnal emission test, 
operate the vehicle over one HD-UDDS instead of the FTP driving 
schedule.
    (4) For performing the running loss test and developing fuel tank 
temperature profiles, operate the vehicle over three consecutive HD-
UDDS cycles, each separated by two minutes if idle operation, instead 
of the driving specified in 40 CFR 86.134.
    (b) The vehicle may be driven onto the dynamometer, as long as the 
vehicle is driven at minimum throttle and the total time of engine 
operation in the soak period before the diurnal emission test does not 
exceed 3 minutes.
    (c) Testing under this subpart does not require measurement of 
exhaust emissions. Disregard references in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, 
to procedures, equipment specifications, and recordkeeping related to 
measuring exhaust emissions. All references to the exhaust test under 
40 CFR part 86, subpart B, are considered the ``dynamometer run'' as 
part of the evaporative testing sequence under this subpart.

[[Page 30100]]

PART 1065--ENGINE-TESTING PROCEDURES

0
208. The authority citation for part 1065 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
209. Section 1065.1 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (h) This part describes procedures and specifications for measuring 
an engine's exhaust emissions. While the measurements are geared toward 
engine-based measurements (in units of g/kW[middot]hr), many of these 
provisions apply equally to vehicle-based measurements (in units of g/
mile or g/kilometer). 40 CFR part 1066 describes the analogous 
procedures for vehicle-based emission measurements, and in many cases 
states that specific provisions of this part 1065 also apply for those 
vehicle-based measurements. Where material from this part 1065 applies 
for vehicle-based measurements under 40 CFR part 1066, it is sometimes 
necessary to include parenthetical statements in this part 1065 to 
properly cite secondary references that are different for vehicle-based 
testing. See 40 CFR part 1066 and the standard-setting part for 
additional information.
0
210. Section 1065.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1065.15  Overview of procedures for laboratory and field testing.

* * * * *
    (a) In the standard-setting part, we set brake-specific emission 
standards in g/(kW[middot]hr) (or g/(hp[middot]hr)), for the following 
constituents:
    (1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX.
    (2) Hydrocarbons (HC), which may be expressed in the following 
ways:
    (i) Total hydrocarbons, THC.
    (ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting 
methane (CH4) from THC.
    (iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, THCE, which results from 
adjusting THC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
    (iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbon-equivalent, NMHCE, which results from 
adjusting NMHC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
    (3) Particulate mass, PM.
    (4) Carbon monoxide, CO.
    (5) Carbon dioxide, CO2.
    (6) Methane, CH4.
    (7) Nitrous oxide, N2O.
    (b) Note that some engines are not subject to standards for all the 
emission constituents identified in paragraph (a) of this section. Note 
also that the standard-setting part may include standards for 
pollutants not listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
0
211. Section 1065.20 is amended by italicizing the heading for 
paragraph (g) and revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.20  Units of measure and overview of calculations.

    (a) System of units. The procedures in this part generally follow 
the International System of Units (SI), as detailed in NIST Special 
Publication 811, which we incorporate by reference in Sec.  1065.1010. 
The following exceptions apply:
    (1) We designate angular speed, fn, of an engine's 
crankshaft in revolutions per minute (r/min), rather than the SI unit 
of radians per second (rad/s). This is based on the commonplace use of 
r/min in many engine dynamometer laboratories.
    (2) We designate brake-specific emissions in grams per kilowatt-
hour (g/(kW[sdot]hr)), rather than the SI unit of grams per megajoule 
(g/MJ). In addition, we use the symbol hr to identify hour, rather than 
the SI convention of using h. This is based on the fact that engines 
are generally subject to emission standards expressed in g/kW[sdot]hr. 
If we specify engine standards in grams per horsepower[sdot]hour (g/
(hp[middot]hr)) in the standard-setting part, convert units as 
specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (3) We designate temperatures in units of degrees Celsius ([deg]C) 
unless a calculation requires an absolute temperature. In that case, we 
designate temperatures in units of Kelvin (K). For conversion purposes 
throughout this part, 0 [deg]C equals 273.15 K. Always use absolute 
temperature values for multiplying or dividing by temperature.
    (b) Concentrations. This part does not rely on amounts expressed in 
parts per million. Rather, we express such amounts in the following SI 
units:
    (1) For ideal gases, [mu]mol/mol, formerly ppm (volume).
    (2) For all substances, cm\3\/m\3\, formerly ppm (volume).
    (3) For all substances, mg/kg, formerly ppm (mass).
    (c) Absolute pressure. Measure absolute pressure directly or 
calculate it as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus a differential 
pressure that is referenced to atmospheric pressure. Always use 
absolute pressure values for multiplying or dividing by pressure.
* * * * *
0
212. Section 1065.25 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.25  Recordkeeping.

    The procedures in this part include various requirements to record 
data or other information. Refer to the standard-setting part and Sec.  
1065.695 regarding recordkeeping requirements. You must promptly send 
us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may 
review them at any time.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
213. Section 1065.130 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.130  Engine exhaust.

    (a) General. Use the exhaust system installed with the engine or 
one that represents a typical in-use configuration. This includes any 
applicable aftertreatment devices. We refer to exhaust piping as an 
exhaust stack; this is equivalent to a tailpipe for vehicle 
configurations.
* * * * *
0
214. Section 1065.140 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.140  Dilution for gaseous and PM constituents.

    (a) General. You may dilute exhaust with ambient air, purified air, 
or nitrogen. References in this part to ``dilution air'' may include 
any of these. For gaseous emission measurement, the dilution air must 
be at least 15 [deg]C. Note that the composition of the dilution air 
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. 
Dilution may occur in a single stage or in multiple stages. For 
dilution in multiple stages, the first stage is considered primary 
dilution and later stages are considered secondary dilution.
    (b) Dilution-air conditions and background concentrations. Before 
dilution air 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 dilution air 
and compensate for background effects on test results. See Sec.  
1065.650 for calculations that compensate for background concentrations 
(40 CFR 1066.620 for vehicle testing).
    (2) Measure these background concentrations the same way you

[[Page 30101]]

measure diluted exhaust constituents, or measure them in a way that 
does not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable standards. For example, you may use the following 
simplifications for background sampling:
    (i) You may disregard any proportional sampling requirements.
    (ii) You may use unheated gaseous sampling systems.
    (iii) You may use unheated PM sampling systems.
    (iv) You may use continuous sampling if you use batch sampling for 
diluted emissions.
    (v) You may use batch sampling if you use continuous sampling for 
diluted emissions.
    (3) For removing background PM, we recommend that you filter all 
dilution air, including primary full-flow dilution air, with high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters that have an initial minimum 
collection efficiency specification of 99.97% (see Sec.  1065.1001 for 
procedures related to HEPA-filtration efficiencies). Ensure that HEPA 
filters are installed properly so that background PM does not leak past 
the HEPA filters. If you choose to correct for background PM without 
using HEPA filtration, demonstrate that the background PM in the 
dilution air contributes less than 50% to the net PM collected on the 
sample filter. You may correct net PM without restriction if you use 
HEPA filtration.
    (c) Full-flow dilution; constant-volume sampling (CVS). You may 
dilute the full flow of raw exhaust in a dilution tunnel that maintains 
a nominally constant volume flow rate, molar flow rate or mass flow 
rate of diluted exhaust, as follows:
    (1) Construction. Use a tunnel with inside surfaces of 300 series 
stainless steel. Electrically ground the entire dilution tunnel. We 
recommend a thin-walled and insulated dilution tunnel to minimize 
temperature differences between the wall and the exhaust gases. You may 
not use any flexible tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of the PM 
sample probe. You may use nonconductive flexible tubing downstream of 
the PM sample probe and upstream of the CVS flow meter; use good 
engineering judgment to select a tubing material that is not prone to 
leaks, and configure the tubing to ensure smooth flow at the CVS flow 
meter.
    (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 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.
    (3) Mixing. Introduce raw exhaust into the tunnel by directing it 
downstream along the centerline of the tunnel. If you dilute directly 
from the exhaust stack, the end of the exhaust stack is considered to 
be the start of the dilution 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 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 Sec.  
1065.640.
    (4) Flow measurement preconditioning. You may condition the diluted 
exhaust before measuring its flow rate, as long as this conditioning 
takes place downstream of any heated HC or PM 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, but you must take steps to prevent aqueous 
condensation as described in paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
    (5) Flow measurement. Section 1065.240 describes measurement 
instruments for diluted exhaust flow.
    (6) Aqueous condensation. This paragraph (c)(6) describes how you 
must address aqueous condensation in the CVS. As described below, you 
may meet these requirements by preventing or limiting aqueous 
condensation in the CVS from the exhaust inlet to the last emission 
sample probe. See that paragraph for provisions related to the CVS 
between the last emission sample probe and the CVS flow meter. You may 
heat and/or insulate the dilution tunnel walls, as well as the bulk 
stream tubing downstream of the tunnel to prevent or limit aqueous 
condensation. Where we allow aqueous condensation to occur, use good 
engineering judgment to ensure that the condensation does not affect 
your ability to demonstrate that your engines comply with the 
applicable standards (see Sec.  1065.10(a)).
    (i) Preventing aqueous condensation. To prevent condensation, you 
must keep the temperature of internal surfaces, excluding any sample 
probes, above the dew point of the dilute exhaust passing through the 
CVS tunnel. Use good engineering judgment to monitor temperatures in 
the CVS. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(6), assume that aqueous 
condensation is pure water condensate only, even though the definition 
of ``aqueous condensation'' in Sec.  1065.1001 includes condensation of 
any constituents that contain water. No specific verification check is 
required under this paragraph (c)(6)(i), but we may ask you to show how 
you comply with this requirement. You may use engineering analysis, CVS 
tunnel design, alarm systems, measurements of wall temperatures, and 
calculation of water dew point to demonstrate compliance with this 
requirement. For optional CVS heat exchangers, you may use the lowest 
water temperature at the inlet(s) and outlet(s) to determine the 
minimum internal surface temperature.
    (ii) Limiting aqueous condensation. This paragraph (c)(6)(ii) 
specifies limits of allowable condensation and requires you to verify 
that the amount of condensation that occurs during each test interval 
does not exceed the specified limits.
    (A) Use chemical balance equations in Sec.  1065.655 to calculate 
the mole fraction of water in the dilute exhaust continuously during 
testing. Alternatively, you may continuously measure the mole fraction 
of water in the dilute exhaust prior to any condensation during 
testing. Use good engineering judgment to select, calibrate and verify 
water analyzers/detectors. The linearity verification requirements of 
Sec.  1065.307 do not apply to water analyzers/detectors used to 
correct for the water content in exhaust samples.
    (B) Use good engineering judgment to select and monitor locations 
on the CVS tunnel walls prior to the last emission sample probe. If you 
are also verifying limited condensation from the last emission sample 
probe to the CVS flow meter, use good engineering judgment to select 
and monitor locations on the CVS tunnel walls, optional CVS heat 
exchanger, and CVS flow meter. For optional CVS heat exchangers, you 
may use the lowest water temperature at the inlet(s) and outlet(s) to 
determine the minimum internal surface temperature. Identify the 
minimum surface temperature on a continuous basis.
    (C) Identify the maximum potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust 
lost on a continuous basis during the entire test interval. This value 
must be less than or equal to 0.02. Calculate on a continuous basis the 
mole fraction of water that would be in equilibrium with liquid water 
at the measured minimum surface temperature. Subtract this mole 
fraction from the mole fraction of water that

[[Page 30102]]

would be in the exhaust without condensation (either measured or from 
the chemical balance), and set any negative values to zero. This 
difference is the potential mole fraction of the dilute exhaust that 
would be lost due to water condensation on a continuous basis.
    (D) Integrate the product of the molar flow rate of the dilute 
exhaust and the potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust lost, and 
divide by the totalized dilute exhaust molar flow over the test 
interval. This is the potential mole fraction of the dilute exhaust 
that would be lost due to water condensation over the entire test 
interval. Note that this assumes no re-evaporation. This value must be 
less than or equal to 0.005.
    (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, verify proportional 
sampling as described in Sec.  1065.545.
    (d) Partial-flow dilution (PFD). You may dilute a partial flow of 
raw or previously diluted exhaust before measuring emissions. Section 
1065.240 describes PFD-related flow measurement instruments. PFD may 
consist of constant or varying dilution ratios as described in 
paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section. An example of a constant 
dilution ratio PFD is a ``secondary dilution PM'' measurement system.
    (1) Applicability. (i) You may use PFD to extract a proportional 
raw exhaust sample for any batch or continuous PM emission sampling 
over any transient duty cycle, any steady-state duty cycle, or any 
ramped-modal cycle.
    (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.
    (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 overall dilution ratio 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 PM sampling. You must change the 
overall PM sampling system dilution ratio between modes so that the 
dilution ratio on the mode with the highest exhaust flow rate meets 
Sec.  1065.140(e)(2) and the dilution ratios on all other modes is 
higher than this (minimum) dilution ratio by the ratio of the maximum 
exhaust flow rate to the exhaust flow rate of the corresponding other 
mode. This is the same dilution ratio requirement for RMC or field 
transient testing. You must account for this change in dilution ratio 
in your emission calculations.
    (3) Varying dilution-ratio PFD. All the following provisions apply 
for varying dilution-ratio PFD:
    (i) Use a control system with sensors and actuators that can 
maintain proportional sampling over intervals as short as 200 ms (i.e., 
5 Hz control).
    (ii) For control input, you may use any sensor output from one or 
more measurements; for example, intake-air flow, fuel flow, exhaust 
flow, engine speed, and intake manifold temperature and pressure.
    (iii) Account for any emission transit time in the PFD system, as 
necessary.
    (iv) You may use preprogrammed data if they have been determined 
for the specific test site, duty cycle, and test engine from which you 
dilute emissions.
    (v) We recommend that you run practice cycles to meet the 
verification criteria in Sec.  1065.545. Note that you must verify 
every emission test by meeting the verification criteria with the data 
from that specific test. Data from previously verified practice cycles 
or other tests may not be used to verify 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 of PM samples. Dilute PM samples at least once 
upstream of transfer lines. You may dilute PM samples upstream of a 
transfer line using full-flow dilution, or partial-flow dilution 
immediately downstream of a PM probe. In the case of partial-flow 
dilution, you may have up to 26 cm of insulated length between the end 
of the probe and the dilution stage, but we recommend that the length 
be as short as practical. The intent of these specifications is to 
minimize heat transfer to or from the emission sample before the final 
stage of dilution, other than the heat you may need to add to prevent 
aqueous condensation. This is accomplished by initially cooling the 
sample through dilution. Configure dilution systems as follows:
    (1) Set the dilution air temperature to (25 5) [deg]C. 
Use good engineering judgment to select a location to measure this 
temperature that is as close as practical upstream of the point where 
dilution air mixes with raw exhaust.
    (2) For any PM dilution system (i.e., CVS or PFD), add dilution air 
to the raw exhaust such that the minimum overall ratio of diluted 
exhaust to raw exhaust is within the range of (5:1 to 7:1) and is at 
least 2:1 for any primary dilution stage. Base this minimum value on 
the maximum engine exhaust flow rate for a given test interval. Either 
measure the maximum exhaust flow during a practice run of the test 
interval or estimate it based on good engineering judgment (for 
example, you might rely on manufacturer-published literature).
    (3) Configure any PM dilution system to have an overall residence 
time of (1.0 to 5.5) s, as measured from the location of initial 
dilution air introduction to the location where PM is collected on the 
sample media. Also configure the system to have a residence time of at 
least 0.50 s, as measured from the location of final dilution air 
introduction to the location where PM is collected on the sample media. 
When determining residence times within sampling system volumes, use an

[[Page 30103]]

assumed flow temperature of 25 [deg]C and pressure of 101.325 kPa.
    (4) Control sample temperature to a (47 5) [deg]C 
tolerance, as measured anywhere within 20 cm upstream or downstream of 
the PM storage media (such as a filter). Measure this temperature with 
a bare-wire junction thermocouple with wires that are (0.500 0.025) mm diameter, or with another suitable instrument that has 
equivalent performance.
0
215. Section 1065.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d), 
and (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.145  Gaseous and PM probes, transfer lines, and sampling 
system components.

    (a) Continuous and batch sampling. Determine the total mass of each 
constituent with continuous or batch sampling. Both types of sampling 
systems have probes, transfer lines, and other sampling system 
components that are described in this section.
* * * * *
    (c) Gaseous and PM sample probes. A probe is the first fitting in a 
sampling system. It protrudes into a raw or diluted exhaust stream to 
extract a sample, such that its inside and outside surfaces are in 
contact with the exhaust. A sample is transported out of a probe into a 
transfer line, as described in paragraph (d) of this section. The 
following provisions apply to sample probes:
    (1) Probe design and construction. Use sample probes with inside 
surfaces of 300 series stainless steel or, for raw exhaust sampling, 
use any nonreactive material capable of withstanding raw exhaust 
temperatures. Locate sample probes where constituents are mixed to 
their mean sample concentration. Take into account the mixing of any 
crankcase emissions that may be routed into the raw exhaust. Locate 
each probe to minimize interference with the flow to other probes. We 
recommend that all probes remain free from influences of boundary 
layers, wakes, and eddies--especially near the outlet of a raw-exhaust 
stack where unintended dilution might occur. Make sure that purging or 
back-flushing of a probe does not influence another probe during 
testing. You may use a single probe to extract a sample of more than 
one constituent as long as the probe meets all the specifications for 
each constituent.
    (2) Gaseous sample probes. Use either single-port or multi-port 
probes for sampling gaseous emissions. You may orient these probes in 
any direction relative to the raw or diluted exhaust flow. For some 
probes, you must control sample temperatures, as follows:
    (i) For probes that extract NOX from diluted exhaust, 
control the probe's wall temperature to prevent aqueous condensation.
    (ii) For probes that extract hydrocarbons for THC or NMHC analysis 
from the diluted exhaust of compression-ignition engines, two-stroke 
spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or 
below 19 kW, we recommend heating the probe to minimize hydrocarbon 
contamination consistent with good engineering judgment. If you 
routinely fail the contamination check in the 1065.520 pretest check, 
we recommend heating the probe section to approximately 190 [deg]C to 
minimize contamination.
    (3) PM sample probes. Use PM probes with a single opening at the 
end. Orient PM probes to face directly upstream. If you shield a PM 
probe's opening with a PM pre-classifier such as a hat, you may not use 
the preclassifier we specify in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. We 
recommend sizing the inside diameter of PM probes to approximate 
isokinetic sampling at the expected mean flow rate.
    (d) Transfer lines. You may use transfer lines to transport an 
extracted sample from a probe to an analyzer, storage medium, or 
dilution system, noting certain restrictions for PM sampling in Sec.  
1065.140(e). Minimize the length of all transfer lines by locating 
analyzers, storage media, and dilution systems as close to probes as 
practical. We recommend that you minimize the number of bends in 
transfer lines and that you maximize the radius of any unavoidable 
bend. Avoid using 90[deg] elbows, tees, and cross-fittings in transfer 
lines. Where such connections and fittings are necessary, take steps, 
using good engineering judgment, to ensure that you meet the 
temperature tolerances in this paragraph (d). This may involve 
measuring temperature at various locations within transfer lines and 
fittings. You may use a single transfer line to transport a sample of 
more than one constituent, as long as the transfer line meets all the 
specifications for each constituent. The following construction and 
temperature tolerances apply to transfer lines:
    (1) Gaseous samples. Use transfer lines with inside surfaces of 300 
series stainless steel, PTFE, Viton\TM\, or any other material that you 
demonstrate has better properties for emission sampling. For raw 
exhaust sampling, use a non-reactive material capable of withstanding 
raw exhaust temperatures. You may use in-line filters if they do not 
react with exhaust constituents and if the filter and its housing meet 
the same temperature requirements as the transfer lines, as follows:
    (i) For NOX transfer lines upstream of either an 
NO2-to-NO converter that meets the specifications of Sec.  
1065.378 or a chiller that meets the specifications of Sec.  1065.376, 
maintain a sample temperature that prevents aqueous condensation.
    (ii) For THC transfer lines for testing compression-ignition 
engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-
ignition engines at or below 19 kW, maintain a wall temperature 
tolerance throughout the entire line of (191 11) [deg]C. If 
you sample from raw exhaust, you may connect an unheated, insulated 
transfer line directly to a probe. Design the length and insulation of 
the transfer line to cool the highest expected raw exhaust temperature 
to no lower than 191 [deg]C, as measured at the transfer line's outlet. 
For dilute sampling, you may use a transition zone between the probe 
and transfer line of up to 92 cm to allow your wall temperature to 
transition to (191 11) [deg]C.
    (2) PM samples. We recommend heated transfer lines or a heated 
enclosure to minimize temperature differences between transfer lines 
and exhaust constituents. Use transfer lines that are inert with 
respect to PM and are electrically conductive on the inside surfaces. 
We recommend using PM transfer lines made of 300 series stainless 
steel. Electrically ground the inside surface of PM transfer lines.
    (e) Optional sample-conditioning components for gaseous sampling. 
You may use the following sample-conditioning components to prepare 
gaseous samples for analysis, as long as you do not install or use them 
in a way that adversely affects your ability to show that your engines 
comply with all applicable gaseous emission standards.
    (1) NO 2-to-NO converter. You may use an NO2-
to-NO converter that meets the converter conversion verification 
specified in Sec.  1065.378 at any point upstream of a NOX 
analyzer, sample bag, or other storage medium.
    (2) Sample dryer. You may use either type of sample dryer described 
in this paragraph (e)(2) to decrease the effects of water on gaseous 
emission measurements. You may not use a chemical dryer, or use dryers 
upstream of PM sample filters.
    (i) Osmotic-membrane. You may use an osmotic-membrane dryer 
upstream of any gaseous analyzer or storage medium, as long as it meets 
the temperature specifications in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 
Because osmotic-

[[Page 30104]]

membrane dryers may deteriorate after prolonged exposure to certain 
exhaust constituents, consult with the membrane manufacturer regarding 
your application before incorporating an osmotic-membrane dryer. 
Monitor the dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, 
ptotal, downstream of an osmotic-membrane dryer. You may use 
continuously recorded values of Tdew and ptotal 
in the amount of water calculations specified in Sec.  1065.645. For 
our testing we may use average temperature and pressure values over the 
test interval or a nominal pressure value that we estimate as the 
dryer's average pressure expected during testing as constant values in 
the amount of water calculations specified in Sec.  1065.645. For your 
testing, you may use the maximum temperature or minimum pressure values 
observed during a test interval or duty cycle or the high alarm 
temperature setpoint or low alarm pressure setpoint as constant values 
in the calculations specified in Sec.  1065.645. For your testing, 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, 
two-stroke spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition 
engines at or 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 loss-performance check specified in Sec.  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 amount of water calculations specified in Sec.  1065.645. If it 
is valid to assume the degree of saturation in the thermal chiller, you 
may calculate Tdew based on the known chiller performance 
and continuous monitoring of chiller temperature, Tchiller. 
If it is valid to assume a constant temperature offset between 
Tchiller and Tdew, due to a known and fixed 
amount of sample reheat between the chiller outlet and the temperature 
measurement location, you may factor in this assumed temperature offset 
value into emission calculations. If we ask for it, you must show by 
engineering analysis or by data the validity of any assumptions allowed 
by this paragraph (e)(2)(ii). For our testing we may use average 
temperature and pressure values over the test interval or a nominal 
pressure value that we estimate as the dryer's average pressure 
expected during testing as constant values in the calculations 
specified in Sec.  1065.645. For your testing you may use the maximum 
temperature and minimum pressure values observed during a test interval 
or duty cycle or the high alarm temperature setpoint and the low alarm 
pressure setpoint as constant values in the amount of water 
calculations specified in Sec.  1065.645. For your testing you may also 
use a nominal ptotal, which you may estimate as the dryer's 
lowest absolute pressure expected during testing.
    (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 Sec.  1065.378 or a chiller 
that meets Sec.  1065.376, it must be heated to prevent aqueous 
condensation.
    (ii) For testing compression-ignition engines, 2-stroke spark-
ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or 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) [deg]C.
    (4) Ammonia Scrubber. You may use ammonia scrubbers for any or all 
gaseous sampling systems to prevent interference with NH3, 
poisoning of the NO2-to-NO converter, and deposits in the 
sampling system or analyzers. Follow the ammonia scrubber 
manufacturer's recommendations or use good engineering judgment in 
applying ammonia scrubbers.
* * * * *
0
216. Section 1065.170 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), 
and (c)(1)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.170  Batch sampling for gaseous and PM constituents.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Verify proportional sampling after an emission test as 
described in Sec.  1065.545. Use good engineering judgment to select 
storage media that will 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 off gas 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.
* * * * *
    (b) Gaseous sample storage media. Store gas volumes in sufficiently 
clean containers that minimally off-gas or allow permeation of gases. 
Use good engineering judgment to determine acceptable thresholds of 
storage media cleanliness and permeation. To clean a container, you may 
repeatedly purge and evacuate a container and you may heat it. Use a 
flexible container (such as a bag) within a temperature-controlled 
environment, or use a temperature controlled rigid container that is 
initially evacuated or has a volume that can be displaced, such as a 
piston and cylinder arrangement. Use containers meeting the 
specifications in the Table1 of this section, noting that you may 
request to use other container materials under Sec.  1065.10. Sample 
temperatures must stay within the following ranges for each container 
material:
    (1) Up to 40 [deg]C for TedlarTM and KynarTM.
    (2) (191 11) [deg]C for TeflonTM and 300 
series stainless steel used with measuring THC or NMHC from 
compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, and 
four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW. For all other 
engines and pollutants, these materials are good for sample 
temperatures up to 202 [deg]C.

[[Page 30105]]



    Table 1 of Sec.   1065.170-Container Materials for Gaseous Batch
                                Sampling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Engine type
                             -------------------------------------------
                              Compression-ignition
          Emissions             Two-stroke spark-
                              ignition Four-stroke    All other engines
                              spark-ignition at or
                                   below 19 kW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO, CO2, O2, CH4, C2H6,       TedlarTM, KynarTM,    TedlarTM, KynarTM,
 C3H8, NO, NO2, N2O.           TeflonTM, or 300      TeflonTM, or 300
                               series stainless      series stainless
                               steel.                steel.
THC, NMHC...................  TeflonTM or 300       TedlarTM, KynarTM,
                               series stainless      TeflonTM, or 300
                               steel.                series stainless
                                                     steel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) If you expect that a filter's total surface concentration of PM 
will exceed 400 [micro]g, assuming a 38 mm diameter filter stain area, 
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 D2986 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1065.1010), though you may rely on the sample-media 
manufacturer's measurements reflected in their product ratings to show 
that you meet this requirement.
* * * * *

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
217. Section 1065.201 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), (e), 
and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.201  Overview and general provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) Instrument types. You may use any of the specified instruments 
as described in this subpart to perform emission tests. If you want to 
use one of these instruments in a way that is not specified in this 
subpart, or if you want to use a different instrument, you must first 
get us to approve your alternate procedure under Sec.  1065.10. Where 
we specify more than one instrument for a particular measurement, we 
may identify which instrument serves as the reference for comparing 
with an alternate procedure. You may generally use instruments with 
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% (that is, no bias 
high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's bias.
* * * * *
    (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. This requirement applies whether or not 
you actually use the measurements in your calculations.
    (e) Range. You may use an instrument's response above 100% of its 
operating range if this does not affect your ability to show that your 
engines comply with the applicable emission standards. Note that we 
require additional testing and reporting if an analyzer responds above 
100% of its range. Auto-ranging analyzers do not require additional 
testing or reporting.
* * * * *
    (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 repeatable measurements. 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. Similarly, we are not required to follow all recommended 
practices, as long as we meet the required calibrations and 
verifications. Our decision to follow or not follow a given 
recommendation when we perform a test does not depend on whether you 
followed it during your testing.
0
218. Section 1065.202 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.202  Data updating, recording, and control.

    Your test system must be able to update data, record data and 
control systems related to operator demand, the dynamometer, sampling 
equipment, and measurement instruments. Use data acquisition and 
control systems that can record at the specified minimum frequencies, 
as follows:

                   Table 1 of Sec.   1065.202--Data Recording and Control Minimum Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum  command
    Applicable test protocol         Measured values         and control         Minimum recording  frequency
            section                                           frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1065.510................  Speed and torque        1 Hz..............  1 mean value per step.
                                  during an engine step-
                                  map.
Sec.   1065.510................  Speed and torque        5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
                                  during an engine
                                  sweep-map.
Sec.   1065.514................  Transient duty cycle    5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1065.530................   reference and
                                  feedback speeds and
                                  torques.
Sec.   1065.514................  Steady-state and        1 Hz..............  1 Hz.
Sec.   1065.530................   ramped-modal duty
                                  cycle reference and
                                  feedback speeds and
                                  torques.
Sec.   1065.520................  Continuous              N/A...............  1 Hz.
Sec.   1065.530................   concentrations of raw
Sec.   1065.550................   or dilute analyzers.
Sec.   1065.520................  Batch concentrations    N/A...............  1 mean value per test interval.
Sec.   1065.530................   of raw or dilute
Sec.   1065.550................   analyzers.

[[Page 30106]]

 
Sec.   1065.530................  Diluted exhaust flow    N/A...............  1 Hz.
Sec.   1065.545................   rate from a CVS with
                                  a heat exchanger
                                  upstream of the flow
                                  measurement.
Sec.   1065.530................  Diluted exhaust flow    N/A...............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1065.545................   rate from a CVS
                                  without a heat
                                  exchanger upstream of
                                  the flow measurement.
Sec.   1065.530................  Intake-air or raw-      N/A...............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1065.545................   exhaust flow rate.
Sec.   1065.530................  Dilution air if         5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1065.545................   actively controlled.
Sec.   1065.530................  Sample flow from a CVS  1 Hz..............  1 Hz.
Sec.   1065.545................   that has a heat
                                  exchanger.
Sec.   1065.530................  Sample flow from a CVS  5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1065.545................   does not have a heat
                                  exchanger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
219. Section 1065.205 is amended by revising the introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1065.205  Performance specifications for measurement instruments.

    Your test system as a whole must meet all the calibrations, 
verifications, and test-validation criteria specified outside of this 
section for laboratory testing or field testing, as applicable. We 
recommend that your instruments meet the specifications in Table 1 of 
this section for all ranges you use for testing. We also recommend that 
you keep any documentation you receive from instrument manufacturers 
showing that your instruments meet the specifications in Table 1 of 
this section.
* * * * *
0
220. Section 1065.225 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.225  Intake-air flow meter.

    (a) Application. You may use an intake-air flow meter in 
combination with a chemical balance of fuel, inlet air, and exhaust to 
calculate raw exhaust flow as described in Sec.  1065.655(e) and (f), 
as follows:
    (1) Use the actual value of calculated raw exhaust in the following 
cases:
    (i) For multiplying raw exhaust flow rate with continuously sampled 
concentrations.
    (ii) For multiplying total raw exhaust flow with batch-sampled 
concentrations.
    (iii) For verifying minimum dilution ratio for PM batch sampling as 
described in Sec.  1065.546.
    (iv) For calculating the dilution air flow for background 
correction as described in Sec.  1065.667.
    (2) In the following cases, you may use an intake-air flow meter 
signal that does not give the actual value of raw exhaust, as long as 
it is linearly proportional to the exhaust flow rate's actual 
calculated value:
    (i) For feedback control of a proportional sampling system, such as 
a partial-flow dilution system.
    (ii) For multiplying with continuously sampled gas concentrations, 
if the same signal is used in a chemical-balance calculation to 
determine work from brake-specific fuel consumption and fuel consumed.
* * * * *
0
221. Section 1065.230 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.230  Raw exhaust flow meter.

* * * * *
    (d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool raw exhaust upstream of a raw-
exhaust flow meter, as long as you observe all the following 
provisions:
    (1) Do not sample PM downstream of the cooling.
    (2) If cooling causes exhaust temperatures above 202 [deg]C to 
decrease to below 180 [deg]C, do not sample NMHC downstream of the 
cooling for compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition 
engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW.
    (3) The cooling must not cause aqueous condensation.
0
222. Section 1065.240 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.240  Dilution air and diluted exhaust flow meters.

* * * * *
    (d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool diluted exhaust upstream of a 
dilute-exhaust flow meter, as long as you observe all the following 
provisions:
    (1) Do not sample PM downstream of the cooling.
    (2) If cooling causes exhaust temperatures above 202 [deg]C to 
decrease to below 180 [deg]C, do not sample NMHC downstream of the 
cooling for compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition 
engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW.
    (3) The cooling must not cause aqueous condensationas described in 
Sec.  1065.140(c)(6).
0
223. Section 1065.250 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.250  Nondispersive infrared analyzer.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an NDIR 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that your NDIR-based system must meet the calibration and 
verifications in Sec. Sec.  1065.350 and 1065.355 and it must also meet 
the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307.
0
224. Section 1065.260 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e) 
and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.260  Flame-ionization detector.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a FID 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that your FID-based system for measuring THC, THCE, or 
CH4 must meet all the verifications for hydrocarbon 
measurement in subpart D of this part, and it must also meet the 
linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307.
    (c) Heated FID analyzers. For measuring THC or THCE from 
compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, and 
four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW, you must use 
heated FID analyzers that maintain all surfaces that are exposed to 
emissions at a temperature of (191 11) [deg]C.
* * * * *
    (e) NMHC and NMOG. For demonstrating compliance with NMHC 
standards, you may either measure THC and CH4 and determine 
NMHC as

[[Page 30107]]

described in Sec.  1065.660(b)(2) or (3), or you may measure THC and 
determine NMHC mass as described in Sec.  1065.660(b)(1). See 40 CFR 
1066.665 for methods to demonstrate compliance with NMOG standards for 
vehicle testing.
    (f) CH 4. For reporting CH4 or for 
demonstrating compliance with CH4 standards, you may use a 
FID analyzer with a nonmethane cutter as described in Sec.  1065.265 or 
you may use a GC-FID as described in Sec.  1065.267. Determine 
CH4 as described in Sec.  1065.660(c).
0
225. Section 1065.267 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.267  Gas chromatograph with a flame ionization detector.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a GC-FID that 
meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205 and that the 
measurement be done according to SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference 
in Sec.  1065.1010). The GC-FID must meet the linearity verification in 
Sec.  1065.307.
0
226. A new Sec.  1065.269 is added to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.269  Photoacoustic analyzer for methanol and ethanol.

    (a) Application. You may use a photoacoustic analyzer to measure 
ethanol and/or methanol concentrations in diluted exhaust for batch 
sampling.
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a 
photoacoustic analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of 
Sec.  1065.205. Note that your photoacoustic system must meet the 
calibration and verifications in Sec.  1065.369 and it must also meet 
the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307. Use an optical wheel 
configuration that gives analytical priority to measurement of the 
least stable components in the sample. Select a sample integration time 
of at least 5 seconds. Take into account sample chamber and sample line 
volumes when determining flush times for your instrument.
0
227. Section 1065.270 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.270  Chemiluminescent detector.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a CLD that 
meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. Note that your 
CLD-based system must meet the quench verification in Sec.  1065.370 
and it must also meet the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307. You 
may use a heated or unheated CLD, and you may use a CLD that operates 
at atmospheric pressure or under a vacuum.
* * * * *
0
228. Section 1065.272 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.272  Nondispersive ultraviolet analyzer.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an NDUV 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that your NDUV-based system must meet the verifications in Sec.  
1065.372 and it must also meet the linearity verification in Sec.  
1065.307.
* * * * *
0
229. Section 1065.275 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.275  N2O measurement devices.

* * * * *
    (b) Instrument types. You may use any of the following analyzers to 
measure N2O:
    (1) Nondispersive infrared (NDIR) analyzer.
    (2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) analyzer. Use appropriate 
analytical procedures for interpretation of infrared spectra. For 
example, EPA Test Method 320 is considered a valid method for spectral 
interpretation (see https://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method320.html).
    (3) Laser infrared analyzer. Examples of laser infrared analyzers 
are pulsed-mode high-resolution narrow band mid-infrared analyzers, and 
modulated continuous wave high-resolution narrow band mid-infrared 
analyzers.
    (4) Photoacoustic analyzer. Use an optical wheel configuration that 
gives analytical priority to measurement of the least stable components 
in the sample. Select a sample integration time of at least 5 seconds. 
Take into account sample chamber and sample line volumes when 
determining flush times for your instrument.
    (5) Gas chromatograph analyzer. You may use a gas chromatograph 
with an electron-capture detector (GC-ECD) to measure N2O 
concentrations of diluted exhaust for batch sampling.
    (i) You may use a packed or porous layer open tubular (PLOT) column 
phase of suitable polarity and length to achieve adequate resolution of 
the N2O peak for analysis. Examples of acceptable columns 
are a PLOT column consisting of bonded polystyrene-divinylbenzene or a 
Porapack Q packed column. Take the column temperature profile and 
carrier gas selection into consideration when setting up your method to 
achieve adequate N2O peak resolution.
    (ii) Use good engineering judgment to zero your instrument and 
correct for drift. You do not need to follow the specific procedures in 
Sec. Sec.  1065.530 and 1065.550(b) that would otherwise apply. For 
example, you may perform a span gas measurement before and after sample 
analysis without zeroing and use the average area counts of the pre-
span and post-span measurements to generate a response factor (area 
counts/span gas concentration), which you then multiply by the area 
counts from your sample to generate the sample concentration.
* * * * *
0
230. Section 1065.280 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.280  Paramagnetic and magnetopneumatic O2 
detection analyzers.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a PMD or MPD 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that it must meet the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307.
0
231. Section 1065.284 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.284  Zirconia (ZrO2) analyzer.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a 
ZrO2 analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of 
Sec.  1065.205. Note that your ZrO2-based system must meet 
the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307.
0
232. Section 1065.295 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.295  PM inertial balance for field-testing analysis.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a balance 
that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. Note that 
your balance-based system must meet the linearity verification in Sec.  
1065.307. If the balance uses an internal calibration process for 
routine spanning and linearity verifications, the process must be NIST-
traceable.
* * * * *

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
233. Section 1065.303 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.303  Summary of required calibration and verifications.

    The following table summarizes the required and recommended 
calibrations and verifications described in this subpart and indicates 
when these have to be performed:

[[Page 30108]]



     Table 1 of Sec.   1065.303--Summary of Required Calibration and
                              Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Type of calibration or
           verification                     Minimum frequency \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1065.305: Accuracy,          Accuracy: Not required, but
 repeatability and noise.            recommended for initial
                                     installation.
                                    Repeatability: Not required, but
                                     recommended for initial
                                     installation.
                                    Noise: Not required, but recommended
                                     for initial installation.
Sec.   1065.307: Linearity          Speed: Upon initial installation,
 verification.                       within 370 days before testing and
                                     after major maintenance.
                                    Torque: Upon initial installation,
                                     within 370 days before testing and
                                     after major maintenance.
                                    Electrical power, current, and
                                     voltage: Upon initial installation,
                                     within 370 days before testing and
                                     after major maintenance.\2\
                                    Fuel flow rate: Upon initial
                                     installation, within 370 days
                                     before testing, and after major
                                     maintenance.
                                    Intake-air, dilution air, diluted
                                     exhaust, and batch sampler flow
                                     rates: 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 rate: Upon initial
                                     installation, within 185 days
                                     before testing and after major
                                     maintenance, unless flow is
                                     verified by propane check or by
                                     carbon or oxygen balance.
                                    Gas dividers: Upon initial
                                     installation, within 370 days
                                     before testing, and after major
                                     maintenance.
                                    Gas analyzers (unless otherwise
                                     noted): Upon initial installation,
                                     within 35 days before testing and
                                     after major maintenance.
                                    FTIR and photoacoustic analyzers:
                                     Upon initial installation, within
                                     370 days before testing and after
                                     major maintenance.
                                    GC-ECD: Upon initial installation
                                     and after major maintenance.
                                    PM balance: Upon initial
                                     installation, within 370 days
                                     before testing and after major
                                     maintenance.
                                    Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint:
                                     Upon initial installation, within
                                     370 days before testing and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.308: Continuous gas     Upon initial installation or after
 analyzer system response and        system modification that would
 updating-recording verification--   affect response.
 for gas analyzers not
 continuously compensated for
 other gas species.
Sec.   1065.309: Continuous gas     Upon initial installation or after
 analyzer system-response and        system modification that would
 updating-recording verification--   affect response.
 for gas analyzers continuously
 compensated for other gas species.
Sec.   1065.310: Torque...........  Upon initial installation and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.315: Pressure,          Upon initial installation and after
 temperature, dewpoint.              major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.320: Fuel flow........  Upon initial installation and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.325: Intake flow......  Upon initial installation and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.330: Exhaust flow.....  Upon initial installation and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.340: Diluted exhaust    Upon initial installation and after
 flow (CVS).                         major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.341: CVS and batch      Upon initial installation, within 35
 sampler verification \3\.           days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.342 Sample dryer        For thermal chillers: upon
 verification.                       installation and after major
                                     maintenance.
                                    For osmotic membranes; upon
                                     installation, within 35 days of
                                     testing, and after major
                                     maintenance.
Sec.   1065.345: Vacuum leak......  For laboratory testing: upon initial
                                     installation of the sampling
                                     system, within 8 hours before the
                                     start of the first test interval of
                                     each duty-cycle sequence, and after
                                     maintenance such as pre-filter
                                     changes.
                                    For field testing: after each
                                     installation of the sampling system
                                     on the vehicle, prior to the start
                                     of the field test, and after
                                     maintenance such as pre-filter
                                     changes.
Sec.   1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O       Upon initial installation and after
 interference.                       major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and    Upon initial installation and after
 H2O interference.                   major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.360: FID calibration,   Calibrate all FID analyzers: upon
 THC FID optimization, and THC FID   initial installation and after
 verification.                       major maintenance.
                                    Optimize and determine CH4 response
                                     for THC FID analyzers: upon initial
                                     installation and after major
                                     maintenance.
                                    Verify CH4 response for THC FID
                                     analyzers: upon initial
                                     installation, within 185 days
                                     before testing, and after major
                                     maintenance.
Sec.   1065.362: Raw exhaust FID    For all FID analyzers: upon initial
 O2 interference.                    installation, and after major
                                     maintenance.
                                    For THC FID analyzers: upon initial
                                     installation, after major
                                     maintenance, and after FID
                                     optimization according to Sec.
                                     1065.360.
Sec.   1065.365: Nonmethane cutter  Upon initial installation, within
 penetration.                        185 days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.369: H2O, CO, and CO2   Upon initial installation and after
 interference verification for       major maintenance.
 ethanol photoacoustic analyzers.
Sec.   1065.370: CLD CO2 and H2O    Upon initial installation and after
 quench.                             major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.372: NDUV HC and H2O    Upon initial installation and after
 interference.                       major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.375: N2O analyzer       Upon initial installation and after
 interference.                       major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.376: Chiller NO2        Upon initial installation and after
 penetration.                        major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.378: NO2-to-NO          Upon initial installation, within 35
 converter conversion.               days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.390: PM balance and     Independent verification: upon
 weighing.                           initial installation, within 370
                                     days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.

[[Page 30109]]

 
                                    Zero, span, and reference sample
                                     verifications: within 12 hours of
                                     weighing, and after major
                                     maintenance.
Sec.   1065.395: Inertial PM        Independent verification: upon
 balance and weighing.               initial installation, within 370
                                     days before testing, and after
                                     major maintenance.
                                    Other verifications: upon initial
                                     installation and after major
                                     maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently than we
  specify, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and
  good engineering judgment.
\2\ Perform linearity verification either for electrical power or for
  current and voltage.
\3\ The CVS verification described in Sec.   1065.341 is not required
  for systems that agree within 2% based on a chemical
  balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and diluted
  exhaust.

0
234. Section 1065.305 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(10)(i) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (i) Your measurement systems meet all the other required 
calibration, verification, and validation specifications that apply as 
specified in the regulations.
* * * * *
0
235. Section 1065.307 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.307  Linearity verification.

    (a) Scope and frequency. Perform linearity verification on each 
measurement system listed in Table 1 of this section at least as 
frequently as indicated in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.303, consistent with 
measurement system manufacturer's recommendations and good engineering 
judgment. The intent of linearity verification is to determine that a 
measurement system responds accurately and proportionally over the 
measurement range of interest. Linearity verification generally 
consists of introducing a series of at least 10 reference values to a 
measurement system. The measurement system quantifies each reference 
value. The measured values are then collectively compared to the 
reference values by using a least-squares linear regression and the 
linearity criteria specified in Table 1 of this section.
    (b) Performance requirements. If a measurement system does not meet 
the applicable linearity criteria referenced in Table 1 of this 
section, correct the deficiency by re-calibrating, servicing, or 
replacing components as needed. Repeat the linearity verification after 
correcting the deficiency to ensure that the measurement system meets 
the linearity criteria. Before you may use a measurement system that 
does not meet linearity criteria, you must demonstrate to us that the 
deficiency does not adversely affect your ability to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable standards.
    (c) Procedure. Use the following linearity verification protocol, 
or use good engineering judgment to develop a different protocol that 
satisfies the intent of this section, as described in paragraph (a) of 
this section:
    (1) In this paragraph (c), the letter ``y'' denotes a generic 
measured quantity, the superscript over-bar denotes an arithmetic mean 
(such as), and the subscript ``ref'' denotes the known or 
reference quantity being measured.
    (2) Use good engineering judgment to operate a measurement system 
at normal operating conditions. This may include any specified 
adjustment or periodic calibration of the measurement system.
    (3) If applicable, zero the instrument as you would before an 
emission test by introducing a zero signal. Depending on the 
instrument, this may be a zero-concentration gas, a reference signal, a 
set of reference thermodynamic conditions, or some combination of 
these. For gas analyzers, use a zero gas that meets the specifications 
of Sec.  1065.750 and introduce it directly at the analyzer port.
    (4) If applicable, span the instrument as you would before an 
emission test by introducing a span signal. Depending on the 
instrument, this may be a span-concentration gas, a reference signal, a 
set of reference thermodynamic conditions, or some combination of 
these. For gas analyzers, use a span gas that meets the specifications 
of Sec.  1065.750 and introduce it directly at the analyzer port.
    (5) If applicable, after spanning the instrument, check zero with 
the same signal you used in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Based on 
the zero reading, use good engineering judgment to determine whether or 
not to rezero and or re-span the instrument before continuing.
    (6) For all measured quantities, use the instrument manufacturer's 
recommendations and good engineering judgment to select reference 
values, yrefi, that cover a range of values that you expect 
would prevent extrapolation beyond these values during emission 
testing. We recommend selecting a zero reference signal as one of the 
reference values for the linearity verification. For pressure, 
temperature, dewpoint, power, current, voltage, photoacoustic 
analyzers, and GC-ECD linearity verifications, we recommend at least 
three reference values. For all other linearity verifications select at 
least ten reference values.
    (7) Use the instrument manufacturer's recommendations and good 
engineering judgment to select the order in which you will introduce 
the series of reference values. For example, you may select the 
reference values randomly to avoid correlation with previous 
measurements and to avoid hysteresis; you may select reference values 
in ascending or descending order to avoid long settling times of 
reference signals; or you may select values to ascend and then descend 
to incorporate the effects of any instrument hysteresis into the 
linearity verification.
    (8) Generate reference quantities as described in paragraph (d) of 
this section. For gas analyzers, use gas concentrations known to be 
within the specifications of Sec.  1065.750 and introduce them directly 
at the analyzer port.
    (9) Introduce a reference signal to the measurement instrument.
    (10) Allow time for the instrument to stabilize while it measures 
the value at the reference condition. Stabilization time may include 
time to purge an instrument and time to account for its response.
    (11) At a recording frequency of at least f Hz, specified in Table 
1 of Sec.  1065.205, measure the value at the reference condition for 
30 seconds (you may select a longer sampling period if the recording 
update frequency is less than 0.5 Hz) and record the arithmetic mean of 
the recorded values, yi,. Refer to Sec.  1065.602 for an 
example of calculating an arithmetic mean.

[[Page 30110]]

    (12) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(9) though (11) of this 
section until measurements are complete at each of the reference 
conditions.
    (13) Use the arithmetic means, yi,, and reference 
values, yrefi, to calculate least-squares linear regression 
parameters and statistical values to compare to the minimum performance 
criteria specified in Table 1 of this section. Use the calculations 
described in Sec.  1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may 
weight the results of individual data pairs (i.e. (yrefi, 
yi,)), in the linear regression calculations.
    (d) Reference signals. This paragraph (d) describes recommended 
methods for generating reference values for the linearity-verification 
protocol in paragraph (c) of this section. Use reference values that 
simulate actual values, or introduce an actual value and measure it 
with a reference-measurement system. In the latter case, the reference 
value is the value reported by the reference-measurement system. 
Reference values and reference-measurement systems must be NIST-
traceable. We recommend using calibration reference quantities that are 
NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty, if not specified elsewhere in 
this part 1065. Use the following recommended methods to generate 
reference values or use good engineering judgment to select a different 
reference:
    (1) Speed. Run the engine or dynamometer at a series of steady-
state speeds and use a strobe, photo tachometer, or laser tachometer to 
record reference speeds.
    (2) Torque. Use a series of calibration weights and a calibration 
lever arm to simulate engine torque. You may instead use the engine or 
dynamometer itself to generate a nominal torque that is measured by a 
reference load cell or proving ring in series with the torque-
measurement system. In this case, use the reference load cell 
measurement as the reference value. Refer to Sec.  1065.310 for a 
torque-calibration procedure similar to the linearity verification in 
this section.
    (3) Electrical power, current, and voltage. You must perform 
linearity verification for either electrical power, or for current and 
voltage. Perform linearity verifications using a reference meter and 
controlled sources of current and voltage. We recommend using a 
complete calibration system that is suitable for the electrical power 
distribution industry.
    (4) Fuel rate. Operate the engine at a series of constant fuel-flow 
rates or re-circulate fuel back to a tank through the fuel flow meter 
at different flow rates. Use a gravimetric reference measurement (such 
as a scale, balance, or mass comparator) at the inlet to the fuel-
measurement system. Use a stopwatch or timer to measure the time 
intervals over which reference masses of fuel are introduced to the 
fuel measurement system. The reference fuel mass divided by the time 
interval is the reference fuel flow rate.
    (5) Flow rates--inlet air, dilution air, diluted exhaust, raw 
exhaust, or sample flow. Use a reference flow meter with a blower or 
pump to simulate flow rates. Use a restrictor, diverter valve, a 
variable-speed blower or a variable-speed pump to control the range of 
flow rates. Use the reference meter's response as the reference values.
    (i) Reference flow meters. Because the flow range requirements for 
these various flows are large, we allow a variety of reference meters. 
For example, for diluted exhaust flow for a full-flow dilution system, 
we recommend a reference subsonic venturi flow meter with a restrictor 
valve and a blower to simulate flow rates. For inlet air, dilution air, 
diluted exhaust for partial-flow dilution, raw exhaust, or sample flow, 
we allow reference meters such as critical flow orifices, critical flow 
venturis, laminar flow elements, master mass flow standards, or Roots 
meters. Make sure the reference meter is calibrated by the flow-meter 
manufacturer and its calibration is NIST-traceable. If you use the 
difference of two flow measurements to determine a net flow rate, you 
may use one of the measurements as a reference for the other.
    (ii) Reference flow values. Because the reference flow is not 
absolutely constant, sample and record values of nrefi, for 
30 seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, nref, 
as the reference value. Refer to Sec.  1065.602 for an example of 
calculating arithmetic mean.
    (6) Gas division. Use one of the two reference signals:
    (i) At the outlet of the gas-division system, connect a gas 
analyzer that meets the linearity verification described in this 
section and has not been linearized with the gas divider being 
verified. For example, verify the linearity of an analyzer using a 
series of reference analytical gases directly from compressed gas 
cylinders that meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. We recommend 
using a FID analyzer or a PMD or MPD O2 analyzer because of 
their inherent linearity. Operate this analyzer consistent with how you 
would operate it during an emission test. Connect a span gas to the 
gas-divider inlet. Use the gas-division system to divide the span gas 
with purified air or nitrogen. Select gas divisions that you typically 
use. Use a selected gas division as the measured value. Use the 
analyzer response divided by the span gas concentration as the 
reference gas-division value. Because the instrument response is not 
absolutely constant, sample and record values of xrefi for 
30 seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, xrefi, 
as the reference value. Refer to Sec.  1065.602 for an example of 
calculating arithmetic mean.
    (ii) Using good engineering judgment and the gas divider 
manufacturer's recommendations, use one or more reference flow meters 
to measure the flow rates of the gas divider and verify the gas-
division value.
    (7) Continuous constituent concentration. For reference values, use 
a series of gas cylinders of known gas concentration or use a gas-
division system that is known to be linear with a span gas. Gas 
cylinders, gas-division systems, and span gases that you use for 
reference values must meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750.
    (8) Temperature. You may perform the linearity verification for 
temperature measurement systems with thermocouples, RTDs, and 
thermistors by removing the sensor from the system and using a 
simulator in its place. Use a NIST-traceable simulator that is 
independently calibrated and, as appropriate, cold-junction-
compensated. The simulator uncertainty scaled to absolute temperature 
must be less than 0.5% of Tmax. If you use this option, you 
must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to better than 
0.5% of Tmax compared with their standard calibration curve.
    (9) Mass. For linearity verification for gravimetric PM balances, 
use external calibration weights that that meet the requirements in 
Sec.  1065.790.
    (e) Measurement systems that require linearity verification. Table 
1 of this section indicates measurement systems that require linearity 
verification, subject to the following provisions:
    (1) Perform linearity verification more frequently based on the 
instrument manufacturer's recommendation or good engineering judgment.
    (2) The expression ``xmin'' refers to the reference 
value used during linearity verification that is closest to zero. This 
is the value used to calculate the first tolerance in Table 1 of this 
section using the intercept, a0. Note that this value may be 
zero, positive, or negative depending on the reference values. For 
example, if the reference values chosen to validate a pressure 
transducer vary from -10 to -1 kPa, xmin is -1 kPa. If the 
reference values used to validate a

[[Page 30111]]

temperature device vary from 290 to 390 K, xmin is 290 K.
    (3) The expression ``max'' generally refers to the absolute value 
of the reference value used during linearity verification that is 
furthest from zero. This is the value used to scale the first and third 
tolerances in Table 1 of this section using a0 and SEE. For 
example, if the reference values chosen to validate a pressure 
transducer vary from -10 to -1 kPa, then pmax is +10 kPa. If 
the reference values used to validate a temperature device vary from 
290 to 390 K, then Tmax is 390 K. For gas dividers where 
``max'' is expressed as, xmax/xspan;; 
xmax is the maximum gas concentration used during the 
verification, xspan is the undivided, undiluted, span gas 
concentration, and the resulting ratio is the maximum divider point 
reference value used during the verification (typically 1). The 
following are special cases where ``max'' refers to a different value:
    (i) For linearity verification with a PM balance, mmax 
refers to the typical mass of a PM filter.
    (ii) For linearity verification of torque on the engine's primary 
output shaft, Tmax refers to the manufacturer's specified 
engine torque peak value of the lowest torque engine to be tested.
    (4) The specified ranges are inclusive. For example, a specified 
range of 0.98-1.02 for a1 means 0.98<=a1<=1.02.
    (5) Linearity verification is optional for systems that pass the 
flow-rate verification for diluted exhaust as described in Sec.  
1065.341 (the propane check) or for systems that agree within 2% based on a chemical balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake 
air, fuel, and exhaust.
    (6) You must meet the a1 criteria for these quantities 
only if the absolute value of the quantity is required, as opposed to a 
signal that is only linearly proportional to the actual value.
    (7) Linearity verification is required for the following 
temperature measurements:
    (i) The following temperature measurements always require linearity 
verification:
    (A) Air intake.
    (B) Aftertreatment bed(s), for engines tested with aftertreatment 
devices subject to cold-start testing.
    (C) Dilution air for PM sampling, including CVS, double-dilution, 
and partial-flow systems.
    (D) PM sample.
    (E) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling systems that use thermal 
chillers to dry samples and use chiller temperature to calculate the 
dewpoint at the outlet of the chiller. For your testing, if you choose 
to use a high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as 
a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the 
emission sample, you may use good engineering judgment to verify the 
accuracy of the high alarm temperature setpoint instead of linearity 
verification on the chiller temperature. To verify that the alarm trip 
point value is no less than 2.0 [deg]C below the reference value at the 
trip point, we recommend that you input a reference simulated 
temperature signal below the alarm trip point and increase this signal 
until the high alarm trips.
    (ii) Linearity verification is required for the following 
temperature measurements if these temperature measurements are 
specified by the engine manufacturer:
    (A) Fuel inlet.
    (B) Air outlet to the test cell's charge air cooler air outlet, for 
engines tested with a laboratory heat exchanger that simulates an 
installed charge air cooler.
    (C) Coolant inlet to the test cell's charge air cooler, for engines 
tested with a laboratory heat exchanger that simulates an installed 
charge air cooler.
    (D) Oil in the sump/pan.
    (E) Coolant before the thermostat, for liquid-cooled engines.
    (8) Linearity verification is required for the following pressure 
measurements:
    (i) The following pressure measurements always require linearity 
verification:
    (A) Air intake restriction.
    (B) Exhaust back pressure.
    (C) Barometer.
    (D) CVS inlet gage pressure.
    (E) Sample dryer, for gaseous sampling systems that use either 
osmotic-membrane or thermal chillers to dry samples. For your testing, 
if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the sample dryer 
pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed 
from the emission sample, you may use good engineering judgment to 
verify the accuracy of the low alarm pressure setpoint instead of 
linearity verification on the sample dryer pressure. To verify that the 
trip point value is no more than 4.0 kPa above the reference value at 
the trip point, we recommend that you input a reference pressure signal 
above the alarm trip point and decrease this signal until the low alarm 
trips.
    (ii) Linearity verification is required for the following pressure 
measurements if these pressure measurements are specified by the engine 
manufacturer:
    (A) The test cell's charge air cooler and interconnecting pipe 
pressure drop, for turbo-charged engines tested with a laboratory heat 
exchanger that simulates an installed charge air cooler.
    (B) Fuel outlet.

               Table 1 of Sec.   1065.307--Measurement Systems That Require Linearity Verification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Measurement system          Quantity                             Linearity criteria
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               [khgr]min(a1-                 a1  SEE............           r \2\
                                                1)+a0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed........................  [fnof]n         <=0.05% [middot]       0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                [fnof]nmax.                       [fnof]nmax.
Torque.......................  T               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                Tmax.                             Tmax.
Electrical power.............  P               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                Pmax.                             Pmax.
Current......................  I               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                Imax.                             Imax.
Voltage......................  U               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                Umax.                             Umax.
Fuel flow rate...............  m               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                mmax.                             mmax.
Intake-air flow rate\1\......  n               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                nmax.                             nmax.
Dilution air flow rate\1\....  n               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                nmax.                             nmax.
Diluted exhaust flow rate\1\.  n               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                nmax.                             nmax.
Raw exhaust flow rate\1\.....  n               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                nmax.                             nmax.
Batch sampler flow rates\1\..  n               <=1% [middot]          0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                                nmax.                             nmax.
Gas dividers.................  [khgr]/         <=0.5% [middot]        0.98-1.02  <=2% [middot]           >=0.990
                                [khgr]span      [khgr]max/xspan.                  [khgr]max/
                                                                                  xspan.
Gas analyzers for laboratory   [khgr]          <=0.5% [middot]        0.99-1.01  <=1% [middot]           >=0.998
 testing.                                       [khgr]max.                        [khgr]max.
Gas analyzers for field        [khgr]          <=1% [middot]          0.99-1.01  <=1% [middot]           >=0.998
 testing.                                       [khgr]max.                        [khgr]max.
PM balance...................  m               <=1% [middot]          0.99-1.01  <=1% [middot]           >=0.998
                                                mmax.                             mmax.

[[Page 30112]]

 
Pressures....................  p               <=1% [middot]          0.99-1.01  <=1% [middot]           >=0.998
                                                pmax.                             pmax.
Dewpoint for intake air, PM-   Tdew            <=0.5% [middot]        0.99-1.01  <=0.5% [middot]         >=0.998
 stabilization and balance                      Tdewmax.                          Tdewmax -.
 environments.
Other dewpoint measurements..  Tdew            <=1% [middot]          0.99-1.01  <=1% [middot]           >=0.998
                                                Tdewmax.                          Tdewmax -.
Analog-to-digital conversion   T               <=1% [middot]          0.99-1.01  <=1% [middot]           >=0.998
 of temperature signals.                        Tmax.                             Tmax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For flow meters that determine volumetric flow rate, Vstd, you may substitute Vstd for n as the quantity and
  substitute Vstdmax for nmax.

0
236. Section 1065.308 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.308  Continuous gas analyzer system-response and updating-
recording verification--for gas analyzers not continuously compensated 
for other gas species.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedure. Use the following procedure to verify the response 
of each continuous gas analyzer:
    (1) Instrument setup. Follow the analyzer manufacturer's start-up 
and operating instructions. Adjust the measurement system as needed to 
optimize performance. Run this verification with the analyzer operating 
in the same manner you will use for emission testing. If the analyzer 
shares its sampling system with other analyzers, and if gas flow to the 
other analyzers will affect the system response time, then start up and 
operate the other analyzers while running this verification test. You 
may run this verification test on multiple analyzers sharing the same 
sampling system at the same time. If you use any analog or real-time 
digital filters during emission testing, you must operate those filters 
in the same manner during this verification.
    (2) Equipment setup. We recommend using minimal lengths of gas 
transfer lines between all connections and fast-acting three-way valves 
(2 inlets, 1 outlet) to control the flow of zero and blended span gases 
to the sample system's probe inlet or a tee near the outlet of the 
probe. If you inject the gas at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you 
may correct the transformation time, t50, for an estimate of 
the transport time from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally the gas 
flow rate is higher than the sample flow rate and the excess is 
overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If the gas flow rate is lower 
than the sample flow rate, the gas concentrations must be adjusted to 
account for the dilution from ambient air drawn into the probe. We 
recommend you use the final, stabilized analyzer reading as the final 
gas concentration. Select span gases for the species being measured. 
You may use binary or multi-gas span gases. You may use a gas blending 
or mixing device to blend span gases. A gas blending or mixing device 
is recommended when blending span gases diluted in N2 with 
span gases diluted in air. You may use a multi-gas span gas, such as 
NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-CH4, to 
verify multiple analyzers at the same time. If you use standard binary 
span gases, you must run separate response tests for each analyzer. In 
designing your experimental setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to 
stopping the flow through the gas-blending device. The change in gas 
concentration must be at least 20% of the analyzer's range.
    (3) Data collection. (i) Start the flow of zero gas.
    (ii) Allow for stabilization, accounting for transport delays and 
the slowest analyzer's full response.
    (iii) Start recording data. For this verification you must record 
data at a frequency greater than or equal to that of the updating-
recording frequency used during emission testing. You may not use 
interpolation or filtering to alter the recorded values.
    (iv) Switch the flow to allow the blended span gases to flow to the 
analyzer. If you intend to use the data from this test to determine 
t50 for time alignment, record this time as t0.
    (v) Allow for transport delays and the slowest analyzer's full 
response.
    (vi) Switch the flow to allow zero gas to flow to the analyzer. If 
you intend to use the data from this test to determine t50 
for time alignment, record this time as t100.
    (vii) Allow for transport delays and the slowest analyzer's full 
response.
    (viii) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(3)(iv) through (vii) of 
this section to record seven full cycles, ending with zero gas flowing 
to the analyzers.
    (ix) Stop recording.
* * * * *
    (g) Optional procedure. Instead of using a three-way valve to 
switch between zero and span gases, you may use a fast-acting two-way 
valve to switch sampling between ambient air and span gas at the probe 
inlet. For this alternate procedure, the following provisions apply:
    (1) If your probe is sampling from a continuously flowing gas 
stream (such as a CVS tunnel), you may adjust the span gas flow rate to 
be different than the sample flow rate.
    (2) If your probe is sampling from a gas stream that is not 
continuously flowing (such as a raw exhaust stack), you must adjust the 
span gas flow rate to be less than the sample flow rate so ambient air 
is always drawn into the probe inlet. This avoids errors associated 
with overflowing span gas out of the probe inlet and drawing the span 
gas back in when sampling ambient air.
    (3) When sampling ambient air with or without span gas, all the 
analyzer readings must be stable within 0.5% of the target 
gas concentration step size. If any analyzer reading is outside the 
specified range, you must resolve the problem and verify that all the 
analyzer readings meet this specification.
    (4) For oxygen analyzers, you may use purified N2 as the 
zero gas and ambient air (plus purified N2 if needed) as the 
reference gas. Perform the verification with seven repeat measurements 
that each consist of stabilizing with purified N2, switching 
to ambient air and observing the analyzer's response rise and 
stabilized reading, followed by switching back to purified 
N2 and observing the analyzer's response fall and stabilized 
reading.
0
237. Section 1065.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) 
and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.309  Continuous gas analyzer system-response and updating-
recording verification--for gas analyzers continuously compensated for 
other gas species.

    (a) Scope and frequency. This section describes a verification 
procedure for system response and updating-recording frequency for 
continuous gas analyzers that output a single gas species mole fraction 
(i.e., concentration) based on a continuous combination of multiple gas 
species measured with multiple

[[Page 30113]]

detectors (i.e., gas analyzers continuously compensated for other gas 
species). See Sec.  1065.308 for verification procedures that apply to 
continuous gas analyzers that are not continuously compensated for 
other gas species or that use only one detector for gaseous species. 
Perform this verification to determine the system response of the 
continuous gas analyzer and its sampling system. This verification is 
required for continuous gas analyzers used for transient or ramped-
modal testing. You need not perform this verification for batch gas 
analyzers or for continuous gas analyzers that are used only for 
discrete-mode testing. For this check we consider water vapor a gaseous 
constituent. This verification does not apply to any processing of 
individual analyzer signals that are time-aligned to their 
t50 times and were verified according to Sec.  1065.308. For 
example, this verification does not apply to correction for water 
removed from the sample done in post-processing according to Sec.  
1065.659 (40 CFR 1066.640 for vehicle testing) and it does not apply to 
NMHC determination from THC and CH4 according to Sec.  
1065.660. Perform this verification after initial installation (i.e., 
test cell commissioning) and after any modifications to the system that 
would change the system response.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Equipment setup. We recommend using minimal lengths of gas 
transfer lines between all connections and fast-acting three-way valves 
(2 inlets, 1 outlet) to control the flow of zero and blended span gases 
to the sample system's probe inlet or a tee near the outlet of the 
probe. If you inject the gas at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you 
may correct the transformation time, t50, for an estimate of 
the transport time from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally the gas 
flow rate is higher than the sample flow rate and the excess is 
overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If the gas flow rate is lower 
than the sample flow rate, the gas concentrations must be adjusted to 
account for the dilution from ambient air drawn into the probe. We 
recommend you use the final, stabilized analyzer reading as the final 
gas concentration. Select span gases for the species being continuously 
combined, other than H2O. Select concentrations of 
compensating species that will yield concentrations of these species at 
the analyzer inlet that covers the range of concentrations expected 
during testing. You may use binary or multi-gas span gases. You may use 
a gas blending or mixing device to blend span gases. A gas blending or 
mixing device is recommended when blending span gases diluted in 
N2 with span gases diluted in air. You may use a multi-gas 
span gas, such as NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-
CH4, to verify multiple analyzers at the same time. In 
designing your experimental setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to 
stopping the flow through the gas blending device. The change in gas 
concentration must be at least 20% of the analyzer's range. If 
H2O correction is applicable, then span gases must be 
humidified before entering the analyzer; however, you may not humidify 
NO2 span gas by passing it through a sealed humidification 
vessel that contains water. You must humidify NO2 span gas 
with another moist gas stream. We recommend humidifying your NO-CO-
CO2-C3H8-CH4, balance 
N2 blended gas by flowing the gas mixture through a sealed 
vessel that humidifies the gas by bubbling it through distilled water 
and then mixing the gas with dry NO2 gas, balance purified 
air. If your system does not use a sample dryer to remove water from 
the sample gas, you must humidify your span gas to the highest sample 
H2O content that you estimate during emission sampling. If 
your system uses a sample dryer during testing, it must pass the sample 
dryer verification check in Sec.  1065.342, and you must humidify your 
span gas to an H2O content greater than or equal to the 
level determined in Sec.  1065.145(e)(2). If you are humidifying span 
gases without NO2, use good engineering judgment to ensure 
that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves 
from the humidifying system to the probe are above the dewpoint 
required for the target H2O content. If you are humidifying 
span gases with NO2, use good engineering judgment to ensure 
that there is no condensation in the transfer lines, fittings, or 
valves from the point where humidified gas is mixed with NO2 
span gas to the probe. We recommend that you design your setup so that 
the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from 
the humidifying system to the probe are at least 5 [deg]C above the 
local sample gas dewpoint. Operate the measurement and sample handling 
system as you do for emission testing. Make no modifications to the 
sample handling system to reduce the risk of condensation. Flow 
humidified gas through the sampling system before this check to allow 
stabilization of the measurement system's sampling handling system to 
occur, as it would for an emission test.
* * * * *
    (g) Optional procedure. Follow the optional procedures in Sec.  
1065.308(g), noting that you may use compensating gases mixed with 
ambient air for oxygen analyzers.
    (h) Analyzers with H2O compensation sampling downstream 
of a sample dryer. You may omit humidifying the span gas as described 
in this paragraph (h). If an analyzer compensates only for 
H2O, you may apply the requirements of Sec.  1065.308 
instead of the requirements of this section. You may omit humidifying 
the span gas if you meet the following conditions:
    (1) The analyzer is located downstream of a sample dryer.
    (2) The maximum value for H2O mole fraction downstream 
of the dryer must be less than or equal to 0.010. Verify this during 
each sample dryer verification according to Sec.  1065.342.
0
238. Section 1065.310 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.310  Torque calibration.

* * * * *
    (d) Strain gage, load transducer, 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, load transducer, or proving 
ring) by its effective lever-arm length, which you measure from the 
point where the force measurement is made to the dynamometer's 
rotational axis. Make sure you measure this length perpendicular to the 
reference meter's measurement axis and perpendicular to the 
dynamometer's rotational axis.
0
239. Section 1065.315 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1065.315  Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint calibration.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Temperature. We recommend digital dry-block or stirred-liquid 
temperature calibrators, with data logging capabilities to minimize 
transcription errors. We recommend using calibration reference 
quantities that are NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty. You may 
perform linearity

[[Page 30114]]

verification for temperature measurement systems with thermocouples, 
RTDs, and thermistors by removing the sensor from the system and using 
a simulator in its place. Use a NIST-traceable simulator that is 
independently calibrated and, as appropriate, cold-junction 
compensated. The simulator uncertainty scaled to absolute temperature 
must be less than 0.5% of Tmax. If you use this option, you 
must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to better than 
0.5% of Tmax compared with their standard calibration curve.
* * * * *
0
240. Section 1065.341 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (d) introductory text, and (f)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1065.341  CVS, PFD, and batch sampler verification (propane 
check).

    (a) A propane check serves as a CVS verification to determine if 
there is a discrepancy in measured values of diluted exhaust flow. You 
may use the same procedure to verify PFDs and batch samplers. For 
purposes of PFD and batch sampler verification, read the term CVS to 
mean PFD or batch sampler as appropriate. A propane check also serves 
as a batch-sampler verification to determine if there is a discrepancy 
in a batch sampling system that extracts a sample from a CVS, as 
described in paragraph (g) of this section. Using good engineering 
judgment and safe practices, this check may be performed using a gas 
other than propane, such as CO2 or CO. A failed propane 
check might indicate one or more problems that may require corrective 
action, as follows:
* * * * *
    (d) If you performed the vacuum-side leak verification of the HC 
sampling system as described in paragraph (c)(8) of this section, you 
may use the HC contamination procedure in Sec.  1065.520(f) to verify 
HC contamination. Otherwise, zero, span, and verify contamination of 
the HC sampling system, as follows:
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Calculate total C3H8 mass based on your 
CVS and HC data as described in Sec.  1065.650 (40 CFR 1066.610 for 
vehicle testing) and Sec.  1065.660, using the molar mass of 
C3H8, MC3H8, instead the effective 
molar mass of HC, MHC.
* * * * *
0
241. Section 1065.350 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.350  H2O interference verification for 
CO2 NDIR analyzers.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
    (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the CO2 NDIR analyzer 
as you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a 
dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with 
the dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec.  1065.342. Operate the 
dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may 
also run this verification test without the sample dryer.
    (2) Create a humidified test gas by bubbling zero gas that meets 
the specifications in Sec.  1065.750 through distilled H2O 
in a sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dryer during 
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an 
H2O level at least as high as the maximum expected during 
emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dryer during 
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an 
H2O level at least as high as the level determined in Sec.  
1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer.
    (3) Introduce the humidified test gas into the sample system. You 
may introduce it downstream of any sample dryer, if one is used during 
testing.
    (4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this 
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction, 
xH2O, of the humidified test gas, as close as possible to 
the inlet of the analyzer. For example, measure dewpoint, 
Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate 
xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets the 
requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is 
passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify 
that the H2O content of the humidified test gas downstream 
of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section 
based on either direct measurement of the H2O content (e.g., 
dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and 
temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the 
H2O content. For example, you may use previous direct 
measurements of H2O content to verify the vessel's level of 
saturation.
    (5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use 
good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer 
lines, fittings, or valves from the point where xH2O is 
measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your system so 
the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from 
the point where xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 
least 5 [deg]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
    (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 
30 seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data. 
The analyzer meets the interference verification if this value is 
within (0.0 0.4) mmol/mol.
    (e) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply:
    (1) You may omit this verification if you can show by engineering 
analysis that for your CO2 sampling system and your 
emission-calculation procedures, the H2O interference for 
your CO2 NDIR analyzer always affects your brake-specific 
emission results within 0.5% of each of the applicable 
standards. This specification also applies for vehicle testing, except 
that it relates to emission results in g/mile or g/kilometer.
    (2) You may use a CO2 NDIR analyzer 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.
0
242. Section 1065.355 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.355  H2O and CO2 interference 
verification for CO NDIR analyzers.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
    (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the CO NDIR analyzer as you 
would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a dryer 
during emission testing, you may run this verification test with the 
dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec.  1065.342. Operate the dryer 
at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may also 
run this verification test without the sample dryer.
    (2) Create a humidified CO2 test gas by bubbling a 
CO2 span gas that meets the specifications in Sec.  1065.750 
through distilled H2O in a sealed vessel. If the sample is 
not passed through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel 
temperature to generate an H2O level at least as high as the 
maximum expected during emission testing. If the sample is passed 
through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel temperature 
to generate an H2O level at least as high as the level 
determined in Sec.  1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use a

[[Page 30115]]

CO2 span gas concentration at least as high as the maximum 
expected during testing.
    (3) Introduce the humidified CO2 test gas into the 
sample system. You may introduce it downstream of any sample dryer, if 
one is used during testing.
    (4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this 
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction, 
[chi]H2O, of the humidified CO2 test gas as close 
as possible to the inlet of the analyzer. For example, measure 
dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to 
calculate xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets 
the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is 
passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify 
that the H2O content of the humidified test gas downstream 
of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section 
based on either direct measurement of the H2O content (e.g., 
dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and 
temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the 
H2O content. For example, you may use previous direct 
measurements of H2O content to verify the vessel's level of 
saturation.
    (5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use 
good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer 
lines, fittings, or valves from the point where xH2O is 
measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your system so 
that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves 
from the point where xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 
least 5 [ordm]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
    (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) The analyzer meets the interference verification if the result 
of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (9) You may also run interference procedures for CO2 and 
H2O separately. If the CO2 and H2O 
levels used are higher than the maximum levels expected during testing, 
you may scale down each observed interference value by multiplying the 
observed interference by the ratio of the maximum expected 
concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. You 
may run separate interference concentrations of H2O (down to 
0.025 mol/mol H2O content) that are lower than the maximum 
levels expected during testing, but you must scale up the observed 
H2O interference by multiplying the observed interference by 
the ratio of the maximum expected H2O concentration value to 
the actual value used during this procedure. The sum of the two scaled 
interference values must meet the tolerance in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
* * * * *
0
243. Section 1065.360 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b), 
(d), and (e) introductory text, and adding paragraph (e)(4), to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.360  FID optimization and verification.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Verify the 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 Sec.  1065.750. For a FID that measures 
CH4, calibrate using CH4 calibration gases that 
meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer 
zero and span gases that contain approximately the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of O2 expected during testing. If you use a 
FID to measure 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 [mu]mol/mol, 
span the FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol. As another 
example, if you use a CH4 span gas with a concentration of 
200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 200 [mu]mol/
mol.
* * * * *
    (d) THC FID CH4 response factor determination. This 
procedure is only for FID analyzers that measure THC. Since FID 
analyzers generally have a different response to CH4 versus 
C3H8, determine each THC-FID analyzer's 
CH4 response factor, RFCH4[THC-FID], after FID 
optimization. Use the most recent RFCH4[THC-FID] measured 
according to this section in the calculations for HC determination 
described in Sec.  1065.660 to compensate for CH4 response. 
Determine RFCH4[THC-FID] as follows, noting that you do not 
determine RFCH4[THC-FID] 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with 
a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol.
    (5) Zero the FID with a zero gas that you use for emission testing.
    (6) Span the FID with the 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) For analyzers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the 
procedure in this paragraph (d) only on a single range.
    (11) 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[THC-FID].
    (e) THC FID CH4 response verification. This procedure is 
only for FID analyzers that measure THC. If the value of 
RFCH4[THC-FID] from paragraph (d) of this section is within 
5% of its most recent previously determined value, the THC 
FID passes the CH4 response verification. For example, if 
the most recent previous value for RFCH4[THC-FID] was 1.05 
and it changed by 0.05 to become 1.10 or it changed by -
0.05 to become 1.00, either case would be acceptable because 4.8% is less than 5%. Verify 
RFCH4[THC-FID] as follows:
* * * * *

[[Page 30116]]

    (4) For analyzers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the 
procedure in this paragraph (e) only on a single range.
0
244. Section 1065.362 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(15) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (15) For analyzers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the 
procedure in this paragraph (d) only on a single range.
0
245. Section 1065.365 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), 
(d)(1), (e)(1), (f) introductory text, and (f)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.365  Nonmethane cutter penetration fractions.

    (a) Scope and frequency. If you use a FID analyzer and a nonmethane 
cutter (NMC) to measure methane (CH4), determine the 
nonmethane cutter's penetration fractions of CH4, 
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 CH4 
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 Sec.  
1065.660 use the measured values from this verification to account for 
less than ideal NMC performance.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical 
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of 
Sec.  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 the 
THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers with multiple 
ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission 
testing.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical 
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of 
Sec.  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 and the 
C2H6 concentration typical of the peak total 
hydrocarbon (THC) concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or 
equal to the THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers 
with multiple ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used 
for emission testing.
* * * * *
    (f) Procedure for a FID calibrated with CH4, bypassing 
the NMC. If you use a FID with an NMC that is calibrated with 
CH4, by bypassing the NMC, determine its combined ethane 
(C2H6) response factor and penetration fraction, 
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID], as well as its CH4 penetration 
fraction, PFCH4[NMC-FID], as follows:
    (1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical 
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of 
Sec.  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 the 
THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers with multiple 
ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission 
testing.
* * * * *
0
246. A new Sec.  1065.369 is added to subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.369  H2O, CO, and CO2 interference 
verification for photoacoustic alcohol analyzers.

    (a) Scope and frequency. If you measure ethanol or methanol using a 
photoacoustic analyzer, verify the amount of H2O, CO, and 
CO2 interference after initial analyzer installation and 
after major maintenance.
    (b) Measurement principles. H2O, CO, and CO2 
can positively interfere with a photoacoustic analyzer by causing a 
response similar to ethanol or methanol. If the photoacoustic analyzer 
uses compensation algorithms that utilize measurements of other gases 
to meet this interference verification, simultaneously conduct these 
other measurements to test the compensation algorithms during the 
analyzer interference verification.
    (c) System requirements. Photoacoustic analyzers must have combined 
interference that is within (0.0  0.5) [micro]mol/mol. We 
strongly recommend a lower interference that is within (0.0  0.25) [micro]mol/mol.
    (d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification by following 
the procedure in Sec.  1065.375(d), comparing the results to paragraph 
(c) of this section.
0
247. Section 1065.370 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(9) and 
(e)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.370  CLD CO2 and H2O quench 
verification.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) While flowing NO and CO2 through the gas divider, 
stabilize the output of the gas divider. Determine the CO2 
concentration from the gas divider output, applying gas property 
correction as necessary to ensure accurate gas division, or measure it 
using an NDIR. Record this concentration, xCO2act, and use 
it in the quench verification calculations in Sec.  1065.675. 
Alternatively, you may use a simple gas blending device and use an NDIR 
to determine this CO2 concentration. If you use an NDIR, it 
must meet the requirements of this part for laboratory testing and you 
must span it with the CO2 span gas from paragraph (d)(4) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Humidify the NO span gas by bubbling it through distilled 
H2O in a sealed vessel. If the humidified NO span gas sample 
does not pass through a sample dryer for this verification test, 
control the vessel temperature to generate an H2O level 
approximately equal to the maximum mole fraction of H2O 
expected during emission testing. If the humidified NO span gas sample 
does not pass through a sample dryer, the quench verification 
calculations in Sec.  1065.675 scale the measured H2O quench 
to the highest mole fraction of H2O expected during emission 
testing. If the humidified NO span gas sample passes through a dryer 
for this verification test, control the vessel temperature to generate 
an H2O level at least as high as the level determined in 
Sec.  1065.145(e)(2). For this case, the quench verification 
calculations in

[[Page 30117]]

Sec.  1065.675 do not scale the measured H2O quench.
* * * * *
0
248. Section 1065.375 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.375  Interference verification for N2O analyzers.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
    (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the N2O analyzer as 
you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a 
dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with 
the dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec.  1065.342. Operate the 
dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may 
also run this verification test without the sample dryer.
    (2) Create a humidified test gas by bubbling a multi component span 
gas that incorporates the target interference species and meets the 
specifications in Sec.  1065.750 through distilled H2O in a 
sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dryer during 
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an 
H2O level at least as high as the maximum expected during 
emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dryer during 
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an 
H2O level at least as high as the level determined in Sec.  
1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use interference span gas concentrations 
that are at least as high as the maximum expected during testing.
    (3) Introduce the humidified interference test gas into the sample 
system. You may introduce it downstream of any sample dryer, if one is 
used during testing.
    (4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this 
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction, 
xH2O, of the humidified interference test gas as close as 
possible to the inlet of the analyzer. For example, measure dewpoint, 
Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate 
xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets the 
requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is 
passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify 
that the H2O content of the humidified test gas downstream 
of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section 
based on either direct measurement of the H2O content (e.g., 
dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and 
temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the 
H2O content. For example, you may use previous direct 
measurements of H2O content to verify the vessel's level of 
saturation.
    (5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use 
good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer 
lines, fittings, or valves from the point where xH2O is 
measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your system so 
that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves 
from the point where xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 
least 5 [deg]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
    (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. 
When performed with all the gases simultaneously, this is the combined 
interference.
    (8) The analyzer meets the interference verification if the result 
of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (9) You may also run interference procedures separately for 
individual interference gases. If the interference gas levels used are 
higher than the maximum levels expected during testing, you may scale 
down each observed interference value (the arithmetic mean of 30 second 
data described in paragraph (d)(7) of this section) by multiplying the 
observed interference by the ratio of the maximum expected 
concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. You 
may run separate interference concentrations of H2O (down to 
0.025 mol/mol H2O content) that are lower than the maximum 
levels expected during testing, but you must scale up the observed 
H2O interference by multiplying the observed interference by 
the ratio of the maximum expected H2O concentration value to 
the actual value used during this procedure. The sum of the scaled 
interference values must meet the tolerance for combined interference 
as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
0
249. Section 1065.376 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.376  Chiller NO2 penetration.

* * * * *
    (b) Measurement principles. A chiller removes H2O, which 
can otherwise interfere with a NOX measurement. However, 
liquid H2O 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.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (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 [deg]C, to the gas sampling 
system's probe or overflow fitting. Sample the dewpoint generator's 
output through the sampling system and chiller for at least 10 minutes 
until the chiller is expected to be removing a constant rate of 
H2O.
    (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 H2O vapor that passed through the chiller at 
the chiller's outlet temperature and pressure.
* * * * *

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
250. Section 1065.405 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.405  Test engine preparation and maintenance.

* * * * *
    (a) If you are testing an emission-data engine for certification, 
make sure it is built to represent production engines, consistent with 
paragraph (f) of this section. This includes governors that you 
normally install on production engines. Production engines should also 
be tested with their installed governors. If you do not install 
governors on

[[Page 30118]]

production engines, simulate a governor that is representative of a 
governor that others will install on your production engines. In 
certain circumstances, you may incorporate test cell components to 
simulate an in-use configuration, consistent with good engineering 
judgment. For example, Sec. Sec.  1065.122 and 1065.125 allow the use 
of test cell components to represent engine cooling and intake air 
systems.
* * * * *
    (f) This paragraph (f) defines the components that are considered 
to be part of the engine for laboratory testing. See Sec.  1065.110 for 
provisions related to system boundaries with respect to work inputs and 
outputs.
    (1) This paragraph (f)(1) describes certain criteria for 
considering a component to be part of the test engine. The criteria are 
intended to apply broadly, such that a component would generally be 
considered part of the engine in cases of uncertainty. An engine-
related component meeting all the following criteria is considered to 
be part of the test engine for purposes of testing and for stabilizing 
emission levels, preconditioning, and measuring emission levels:
    (i) The component directly affects the functioning of the engine, 
is related to the control of emissions, or transmits engine power. This 
would include engine cooling systems, engine controls, and 
transmissions.
    (ii) The component is covered by the applicable certificate of 
conformity. For example, this criterion would typically exclude 
radiators not described in an application for certification.
    (iii) The component is not part of the laboratory setup, or it is 
used for other engines.
    (2) Although components meeting the criteria specified in 
paragraphs (f)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, but not the criterion 
specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, are not considered 
to be part of the test engine, you must precondition these components 
along with the test engine.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
251. Section 1065.501 is amended as follows:
0
a. By redesignating paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c) 
through (e), respectively.
0
b. By adding a new paragraph (b).
0
c. By revising the redesignated paragraph (c)(2) introductory text.


Sec.  1065.501  Overview.

* * * * *
    (b) Unless we specify otherwise, you may control the regeneration 
timing of infrequently regenerated aftertreatment devices such as 
diesel particulate filters using good engineering judgment. You may 
control the regeneration timing using a sequence of engine operating 
conditions or you may initiate regeneration with an external 
regeneration switch or other command. This provision would also allow 
you to ensure that a regeneration event does not occur during an 
emission test.
    (c) * * *
    (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 has one value of 
a normalized speed command and one value of a normalized torque (or 
power) command. Ramped-modal cycles for steady-state testing also list 
test times for each mode and transition times between modes where speed 
and torque are linearly ramped between modes, even for cycles with % 
power. 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. Run a steady-state duty cycle as a discrete-mode cycle or a 
ramped-modal cycle, as follows:
* * * * *
0
252. A new Sec.  1065.516 is added to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.516  Sample system decontamination and preconditioning.

    This section describes how to manage the impact of sampling system 
contamination on emission measurements. Use good engineering judgement 
to determine if you should decontaminate and precondition your sampling 
system. Contamination occurs when a regulated pollutant accumulates in 
the sample system in a high enough concentration to cause release 
during emission tests. Hydrocarbons and PM are generally the only 
regulated pollutants that contaminate sample systems. A sampling system 
is considered decontaminated if the contaminants are in equilibrium 
with measured exhaust emissions. Note that although this section 
focuses on avoiding excessive contamination of sample systems, you must 
also use good engineering judgment to avoid loss of sample to a sample 
system that is too clean. The goal of decontamination is not to 
perfectly clean the sample system, but rather to achieve equilibrium 
between the sample system and the exhaust so emission components are 
neither lost to nor entrained from the sample system.
    (a) You may perform contamination checks as follows to determine if 
decontamination is needed:
    (1) For dilute exhaust sampling systems, measure hydrocarbon and PM 
emissions by sampling with the CVS dilution air turned on, without an 
engine connected to it.
    (2) For raw analyzers and systems that collect PM samples from raw 
exhaust, measure hydrocarbon and PM emissions by sampling purified air 
or nitrogen.
    (3) When calculating zero emission levels, apply all applicable 
corrections, including initial THC contamination and diluted (CVS) 
exhaust background corrections.
    (4) Sampling systems are considered contaminated if either of the 
following conditions applies:
    (i) The hydrocarbon emission level exceeds 2% of the flow-weighted 
mean wet, net concentration expected at the HC standard.
    (ii) The PM emission level exceeds 5% of the level expected at the 
standard and exceeds 20 [mu]g on a 47 mm PTFE membrane filter.
    (b) To precondition/decontaminate sampling systems, use the 
following recommended procedure or use good engineering judgment to 
select a different procedure:
    (1) Start the engine and use good engineering judgment to operate 
it at a condition that generates high exhaust temperatures at the 
sample probe inlet.
    (2) Operate any dilution systems at their expected flow rates. 
Prevent aqueous condensation in the dilution systems.
    (3) Operate any PM sampling systems at their expected flow rates.
    (4) Sample PM for at least 10 min using any sample media. You may 
change sample media at any time during this process and you may discard 
them without weighing them.
    (5) You may purge any gaseous sampling systems that do not require 
decontamination during this procedure.
    (6) You may conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle 
equipment or analyzers during this procedure.
    (c) If your sampling system is still contaminated following the 
procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section, you may use more 
aggressive procedures to decontaminate the sampling system, as long as 
the decontamination does not cause the sampling system to be cleaner 
than an equilibrium condition such that artificially low emission 
measurements may result.
0
253. A new Sec.  1065.518 is added to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.518  Engine preconditioning.

    (a) This section applies for engines where measured emissions are 
affected by prior operation, such as with a diesel

[[Page 30119]]

engine that relies on urea-based selective catalytic reduction. Note 
that Sec.  1065.520(e) allows you to run practice duty cycles before 
the emission test; this section recommends how to do this for the 
purpose of preconditioning the engine. We may test your engine after 
completing only the minimum amount of preconditioning recommended in 
this section. For subsequent testing, such as steady-state testing 
following transient testing, we may consider the previous test cycle as 
preconditioning. Follow the standard-setting part if it specifies a 
different engine preconditioning procedure.
    (b) The intent of engine preconditioning is to manage the 
representativeness of emissions over the duty cycle, as described in 
Sec.  1065.10(c)(1), by conditioning the engine to a state where its 
emissions are representative of in-use operation.
    (c) This paragraph (c) specifies the engine preconditioning 
procedures for different types of duty cycles. You may measure 
emissions during preconditioning cycles, as long as you perform a 
predefined number of preconditioning cycles. You must identify before 
each duty cycle whether it is a preconditioning cycle or an emission 
test. You may not abort an emission test based on emissions measured 
during preconditioning.
    (1) Cold-start transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running 
at least one cold-start or hot-start transient cycle. Immediately after 
completing the last preconditioning cycle, shut down the engine and 
begin the cold soak as described in Sec.  1065.530(a)(1).
    (2) Hot-start transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running 
at least one hot-start transient cycle. Shut down the engine after 
completing the last preconditioning cycle and start the hot-start 
transient test as soon as practical.
    (3) Hot-running transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running 
at least one hot-running transient cycle. Start the official hot-
running transient cycle as soon as practical after completing the last 
preconditioning cycle.
    (4) Discrete-mode cycle for steady-state testing. Precondition the 
engine at the same operating condition as the next test mode, unless 
the standard-setting part specifies sampling time limits.
    (5) Ramped-modal cycle for steady-state testing. If you run the 
ramped-modal cycle after a transient test, additional preconditioning 
is allowed, but not required. If you perform additional 
preconditioning, we recommend running the first non-idle mode of the 
ramped-modal cycle or a mode approximating 50% power.
    (d) You may conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle 
equipment or analyzers during engine preconditioning.
0
254. Section 1065.520 is amended by removing paragraph (g) and revising 
paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.520  Pre-test verification procedures and pre-test data 
collection.

    (a) For tests in which you measure PM emissions, follow the 
procedures for PM sample preconditioning and tare weighing according to 
Sec.  1065.590.
* * * * *
    (e) You may perform a final calibration of the speed, torque, and 
proportional-flow control systems, which may include performing 
practice duty cycles (or portions of duty cycles). This may be done in 
conjunction with the preconditioning in Sec.  1065.518.
    (f) Verify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination in 
the exhaust and background HC sampling systems within 8 hours before 
the start of the first test interval of each duty-cycle sequence for 
laboratory tests. You may verify the contamination of a background HC 
sampling system by reading the last bag fill and purge using zero gas. 
For any NMHC measurement system that involves separately measuring 
CH4 and subtracting it from a THC measurement or for any 
CH4 measurement system that uses an NMC, verify the amount 
of THC contamination using only the THC analyzer response. There is no 
need to operate any separate CH4 analyzer for this 
verification; however, you may measure and correct for THC 
contamination in the CH4 sample train for the cases where 
NMHC is determined by subtracting CH4 from THC or, where 
CH4 is determined, using an NMC as configured in Sec.  
1065.365(d), (e), and (f); and using the calculations in Sec.  
1065.660(b)(2). Perform this verification as follows:
    (1) Select the HC analyzer range for measuring the flow-weighted 
mean concentration expected at the HC standard.
    (2) Zero the HC analyzer at the analyzer zero or sample port. Note 
that FID zero and span balance gases may be any combination of purified 
air or purified nitrogen that meets the specifications of Sec.  
1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer zero and span gases that contain 
approximately the flow-weighted mean concentration of O2 
expected during testing.
    (3) Span the HC analyzer using span gas introduced at the analyzer 
span or sample port. Span on a carbon number basis of one 
(C1). For example, if you use a C3H8 
span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with 
a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol.
    (4) Overflow zero gas at the HC probe inlet or into a tee near the 
probe outlet.
    (5) Measure the THC concentration in the sampling and background 
systems as follows:
    (i) For continuous sampling, record the mean THC concentration as 
overflow zero gas flows.
    (ii) For batch sampling, fill the sample medium (e.g., bag) and 
record its mean THC concentration.
    (iii) For the background system, record the mean THC concentration 
of the last fill and purge.
    (6) Record this value as the initial THC concentration, 
xTHC[THC-FID]init, and use it to correct measured values as 
described in Sec.  1065.660.
    (7) You may correct the measured initial THC concentration for 
drift as follows:
    (i) For batch and continuous HC analyzers, after determining the 
initial THC concentration, flow zero gas to the analyzer zero or sample 
port. When the analyzer reading is stable, record the mean analyzer 
value.
    (ii) Flow span gas to the analyzer span or sample port. When the 
analyzer reading is stable, record the mean analyzer value.
    (iii) Use mean analyzer values from paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), 
(f)(7)(i), and (f)(7)(ii) of this section to correct the initial THC 
concentration recorded in paragraph (f)(6) of this section for drift, 
as described in Sec.  1065.550.
    (8) If any of the xTHC[THC-FID]init values exceed the 
greatest of the following values, determine the source of the 
contamination and take corrective action, such as purging the system 
during an additional preconditioning cycle or replacing contaminated 
portions:
    (i) 2% of the flow-weighted mean wet, net concentration expected at 
the HC (THC or NMHC) standard.
    (ii) 2% of the flow-weighted mean wet, net concentration of HC (THC 
or NMHC) measured during testing.
    (iii) 2 [mu]mol/mol.
    (9) If corrective action does not resolve the deficiency, you may 
request to use the contaminated system as an alternate procedure under 
Sec.  1065.10.
0
255. Section 1065.526 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3) and 
(d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.526  Repeating of void modes or test intervals.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Precondition the engine by operating it at the mode at which 
the

[[Page 30120]]

test was interrupted and continue with the duty cycle as specified in 
the standard-setting part.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Use good engineering judgment to restart (as applicable) and 
precondition the engine to the same condition as would apply for normal 
testing. This may require you to complete the voided test interval. For 
example, you may generally repeat a hot-start test of a heavy-duty 
highway engine after completing the voided hot-start test and allowing 
the engine to soak for 20 minutes.
* * * * *
0
256. Section 1065.530 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(13) and 
revising paragraphs (a), (b)(12), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.530  Emission test sequence.

    (a) Time the start of testing as follows:
    (1) Perform one of the following if you precondition the engine as 
described in Sec.  1065.518:
    (i) For cold-start duty cycles, shut down the engine. Unless the 
standard-setting part specifies that you may only perform a natural 
engine cooldown, you may perform a forced engine cooldown. Use good 
engineering judgment to set up systems to send cooling air across the 
engine, to send cool oil through the engine lubrication system, to 
remove heat from coolant through the engine cooling system, and to 
remove heat from any exhaust aftertreatment systems. In the case of a 
forced aftertreatment cooldown, good engineering judgment would 
indicate that you not start flowing cooling air until the 
aftertreatment system has cooled below its catalytic activation 
temperature. For platinum-group metal catalysts, this temperature is 
about 200 [deg]C. Once the aftertreatment system has naturally cooled 
below its catalytic activation temperature, good engineering judgment 
would indicate that you use clean air with a temperature of at least 15 
[deg]C, and direct the air through the aftertreatment system in the 
normal direction of exhaust flow. Do not use any cooling procedure that 
results in unrepresentative emissions (see Sec.  1065.10(c)(1)). You 
may start a cold-start duty cycle when the temperatures of an engine's 
lubricant, coolant, and aftertreatment systems are all between (20 and 
30) [deg]C.
    (ii) For hot-start emission measurements, immediately after 
completing the last preconditioning cycle, shut down the engine and as 
soon as practical start the official hot-start transient cycle. We will 
start the official hot-start transient cycle within 1 minute of the 
conclusion of the preconditioning cycle where applicable. Start the 
hot-start duty cycle as specified in the standard-setting part if it is 
different from this procedure.
    (iii) For testing that involves hot-stabilized emission 
measurements, such as any steady-state testing, as soon as practical 
after completing the discrete-mode preconditioning time or the last 
preconditioning cycle, without shutting down the engine, start the 
official hot-stabilized cycle. We will start the official hot-
stabilized cycle within 1 minute of the conclusion of the 
preconditioning cycle where applicable. If the last preconditioning 
cycle ends with a different operating condition than the first mode of 
the hot-stabilized cycle, add a linear transition period of 20 s 
between cycles where you linearly ramp the (denormalized) reference 
speed and torque values over the transition period.
    (2) If you do not precondition the engine as described in Sec.  
1065.518, 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 hot-stabilized emission 
measurements, bring the engine either to warm idle or the first 
operating point of the duty cycle. Start the test within 10 min of 
achieving temperature stability. Determine temperature stability either 
as the point at which the engine coolant, block, or head absolute 
temperature is within 2% of its mean value for at least 2 
min, or as the point at which the engine thermostat controls engine 
temperature.
    (b) * * *
    (12) Drain any accumulated condensate from the intake air system 
before starting a duty cycle, as described in Sec.  1065.125(e)(1). If 
engine and aftertreatment preconditioning cycles are run before the 
duty cycle, treat the preconditioning cycles and any associated soak 
period as part of the duty cycle for the purpose of opening drains and 
draining condensate. Note that you must close any intake air condensate 
drains that are not representative of those normally open during in-use 
operation.
    (c) Start testing as follows:
    (1) If engine starting is not part of the duty cycle, perform the 
following for the various duty cycles:
    (i) Transient and steady-state ramped-modal cycles. Simultaneously 
start recording continuous data, any electronic integrating devices, 
batch sampling, and execution of the duty cycle.
    (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. For each mode, 
simultaneously start recording continuous data, any electronic 
integrating devices, and batch sampling.
    (2) If engine starting is part of the duty cycle, simultaneously 
start recording continuous data, any electronic integrating devices, 
and batch sampling before attempting to start the engine. Initiate the 
duty cycle when the engine starts.
    (3) For batch sampling systems you may use good engineering 
judgment to advance or delay the start and stop of sampling with 
respect to the beginning and end of the test interval to improve the 
accuracy of the batch sample.
* * * * *
0
257. Section 1065.545 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.545  Verification of proportional flow control for batch 
sampling.

    For any proportional batch sample such as a bag or PM filter, 
demonstrate that proportional sampling was maintained using one of the 
following, noting that you may omit up to 5% of the total number of 
data points as outliers:
    (a) For any pair of flow rates, use recorded sample and total flow 
rates, where total flow rate means the raw exhaust flow rate for raw 
exhaust sampling and the dilute exhaust flow rate for CVS sampling, or 
their 1 Hz means with the statistical calculations in Sec.  1065.602. 
Determine the standard error of the estimate, SEE, of the sample flow 
rate versus the total flow rate. For each test interval, demonstrate 
that SEE was less than or equal to 3.5% of the mean sample flow rate.
    (b) For any pair of flow rates, use recorded sample and total flow 
rates,

[[Page 30121]]

where total flow rate means the raw exhaust flow rate for raw exhaust 
sampling and the dilute exhaust flow rate for CVS sampling, or their 1 
Hz means to demonstrate that each flow rate was constant within 2.5% of its respective mean or target flow rate. You may use the 
following options instead of recording the respective flow rate of each 
type of meter:
    (1) Critical-flow venturi option. For critical-flow venturis, you 
may use recorded venturi-inlet conditions or their 1 Hz means. 
Demonstrate that the flow density at the venturi inlet was constant 
within 2.5% of the mean or target density over each test 
interval. For a CVS critical-flow venturi, you may demonstrate this by 
showing that the absolute temperature at the venturi inlet was constant 
within 4% of the mean or target absolute temperature over 
each test interval.
    (2) Positive-displacement pump option. You may use recorded pump-
inlet conditions or their 1 Hz means. 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.
    (c) Using good engineering judgment, demonstrate with an 
engineering analysis that the proportional-flow control system 
inherently ensures proportional sampling under all circumstances 
expected during testing. For example, you might use CFVs for both 
sample flow and total dilute exhaust (CVS) flow and demonstrate that 
they always have the same inlet pressures and temperatures and that 
they always operate under critical-flow conditions.
0
258. Section 1065.546 is amended by revising the section heading and 
the introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.546  Verification of minimum dilution ratio for PM batch 
sampling.

    Use continuous flows and/or tracer gas concentrations for transient 
and ramped-modal cycles to verify the minimum dilution ratios for PM 
batch sampling as specified in Sec.  1065.140(e)(2) over the test 
interval. You may use mode-average values instead of continuous 
measurements for discrete mode steady-state duty cycles. Determine the 
minimum primary and minimum overall dilution ratios using one of the 
following methods (you may use a different method for each stage of 
dilution):
* * * * *
0
259. Section 1065.550 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.550  Gas analyzer range verification and drift verification.

    (a) Range verification. If an analyzer operated above 100% of its 
range at any time during the test, perform the following steps:
    (1) For batch sampling, re-analyze the sample using the lowest 
analyzer range that results in a maximum instrument response below 
100%. Report the result from the lowest range from which the analyzer 
operates below 100% of its range.
    (2) For continuous sampling, repeat the entire test using the next 
higher analyzer range. If the analyzer again operates above 100% of its 
range, repeat the test using the next higher range. Continue to repeat 
the test until the analyzer always operates at less than 100% of its 
range.
    (b) Drift verification. Gas analyzer drift verification is required 
for all gaseous exhaust constituents for which an emission standard 
applies. It is also required for CO2 even if there is no 
CO2 emission standard. It is not required for other gaseous 
exhaust constituents for which only a reporting requirement applies 
(such as CH4 and N2O).
    (1) Verify drift using one of the following methods:
    (i) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the mass of 
a single component, perform drift verification based on the regulated 
constituent. For example, when NOX mass is determined with a 
dry sample measured with a CLD and the removed water is corrected based 
on measured CO2, CO, THC, and NOX concentrations, 
you must verify the calculated NOX value.
    (ii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the masses 
of multiple subcomponents, perform the drift verification based on 
either the regulated constituent or all the mass subcomponents. For 
example, when NOX is measured with separate NO and 
NO2 analyzers, you must verify either the NOX 
value or both the NO and NO2 values.
    (iii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the 
concentrations of multiple gaseous emission subcomponents prior to 
performing mass calculations, perform drift verification on the 
regulated constituent. You may not verify the concentration 
subcomponents (e.g., THC and CH4 for NMHC) separately. For 
example, for NMHC measurements, perform drift verification on NMHC; do 
not verify THC and CH4 separately.
    (2) Drift verification requires two sets of emission calculations. 
For each set of calculations, include all the constituents in the drift 
verification. Calculate one set using the data before drift correction 
and calculate the other set after correcting all the data for drift 
according to Sec.  1065.672. Note that for purposes of drift 
verification, you must leave unaltered any negative emission results 
over a given test interval (i.e., do not set them to zero). These 
unaltered results are used when verifying either test interval results 
or composite brake-specific emissions over the entire duty cycle for 
drift. For each constituent to be verified, both sets of calculations 
must include the following:
    (i) Calculated mass (or mass rate) emission values over each test 
interval.
    (ii) If you are verifying each test interval based on brake-
specific values, calculate brake-specific emission values over each 
test interval.
    (iii) If you are verifying over the entire duty cycle, calculate 
composite brake-specific emission values.
    (3) The duty cycle is verified for drift if you satisfy the 
following criteria:
    (i) For each regulated gaseous exhaust constituent, you must 
satisfy one of the following:
    (A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference 
between the uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific emission 
values of the regulated constituent must be within 4% of 
the uncorrected value or the applicable emissions standard, whichever 
is greater. Alternatively, the difference between the uncorrected and 
the corrected emission mass (or mass rate) values of the regulated 
constituent must be within 4% of the uncorrected value or 
the composite work (or power) multiplied by the applicable emissions 
standard, whichever is greater. For purposes of verifying each test 
interval, you may use either the reference or actual composite work (or 
power).
    (B) For each test interval of the duty cycle and for each mass 
subcomponent of the regulated constituent, the difference between the 
uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific emission values must be 
within 4% of the uncorrected value. Alternatively, the 
difference between the uncorrected and the corrected emissions mass (or 
mass rate) values must be within 4% of the uncorrected 
value.
    (C) For the entire duty cycle, the difference between the 
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific emission values 
of the regulated constituent must be within 4% of the 
uncorrected value or applicable emission standard, whichever is 
greater.
    (D) For the entire duty cycle and for each subcomponent of the 
regulated constituent, the difference between the

[[Page 30122]]

uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific emission values 
must be within 4% of the uncorrected value.
    (ii) Where no emission standard applies for CO2, you 
must satisfy one of the following:
    (A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference 
between the uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific CO2 
values must be within 4% of the uncorrected value; or the 
difference between the uncorrected and the corrected CO2 
mass (or mass rate) values must be within 4% of the 
uncorrected value.
    (B) For the entire duty cycle, the difference between the 
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific CO2 
values must be within 4% of the uncorrected value.
    (4) If the test is not verified for drift as described in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, you may consider the test results for the duty 
cycle to be valid only if, using good engineering judgment, the 
observed drift does not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance 
with the applicable emission standards. For example, if the drift-
corrected value is less than the standard by at least two times the 
absolute difference between the uncorrected and corrected values, you 
may consider the data to be verified for demonstrating compliance with 
the applicable standard.

Subpart G--[Amended]

0
260. Section 1065.601 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.601  Overview.

* * * * *
    (b) You may use data from multiple systems to calculate test 
results for a single emission test, consistent with good engineering 
judgment. You may also make multiple measurements from a single batch 
sample, such as multiple weighings of a PM filter or multiple readings 
from a bag sample. Although you may use an average of multiple 
measurements from a single test, you may not use test results from 
multiple emission tests to report emissions. We allow weighted means 
where appropriate. You may discard statistical outliers, but you must 
report all results.
* * * * *
0
261. Section 1065.630 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.630  1980 international gravity formula.

    The acceleration of Earth's gravity, ag, varies 
depending on your location. Calculate ag at your latitude, 
as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.196

Where:

[thgr] = Degrees north or south latitude.

Example:
[thgr] = 45 [deg]
ag = 9.7803267715 [middot] (1 + 5.2790414 [middot] 
10-\3\[middot]sin\2\ (45) + 2.32718 [middot] 
10-\5\[middot]sin\4\ (45)
+ 1.262 [middot] 10-\7\[middot]sin\6\ (45) + 7 [middot] 
10-\10\[middot]sin\8\ (45)
ag = 9.8061992026 m/s\2\

0
262. Section 1065.640 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(e) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.640  Flow meter calibration calculations.

* * * * *
* * * * *
    (a) Reference meter conversions. The calibration equations in this 
section use molar flow rate, nref, as a reference quantity. 
If your reference meter outputs a flow rate in a different quantity, 
such as standard volume rate, Vstdref, actual volume rate, 
Vactref, or mass rate, mref, convert your 
reference meter output to a molar flow rate using the following 
equations, noting that while values for volume rate, mass rate, 
pressure, temperature, and molar mass may change during an emission 
test, you should ensure that they are as constant as practical for each 
individual set point during a flow meter calibration:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.008

Where:

 nref = reference molar flow rate.
Vstdref = reference volume flow rate, corrected to a 
standard pressure and a standard temperature.
Vactref = reference volume flow rate at the actual 
pressure and temperature of the flow rate.
mref = reference mass flow.
pstd = standard pressure.
pact = actual pressure of the flow rate.
Tstd = standard temperature.
Tact = actual temperature of the flow rate.
R = molar gas constant.
Mmix = molar mass of the flow rate.

Example 1:
Vstdref = 1000.00 ft\3\/min = 0.471948 m\3\/s
pstd = 29.9213 in Hg @ 32 [deg]F = 101325 Pa
Tstd = 68.0 [deg]F = 293.15 K
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.009

nref = 19.619 mol/s

Example 2:
mref = 17.2683 kg/min = 287.805 g/s
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.010

nref = 10.0000 mol/s

    (b) PDP calibration calculations. For each restrictor position, 
calculate the following values from the mean values determined in Sec.  
1065.340, as follows:

[[Page 30123]]

    (1) PDP volume pumped per revolution, Vrev (m\3\/r):
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.011
    
Example:
nref = 25.096 mol/s
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K)
Tin = 299.5 K
Pin = 98290 Pa
fnPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.012

Vrev = 0.03166 m\3\/r
    (2) PDP slip correction factor, Ks (s/r):
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.013
    
Example:
fnPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
Pout = 100.103 kPa
Pin> = 98.290 kPa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.014

Ks = 0.006700 s/r

    (3) Perform a least-squares regression of PDP volume pumped per 
revolution, Vrev, versus PDP slip correction factor, 
Ks, by calculating slope, a1, and intercept, 
a0, as described in Sec.  1065.602.
    (4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section for every speed that you run your PDP.
    (5) The following example illustrates these calculations:

       Table 1 of Sec.   1065.640--Example of PDP Calibration Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     fnPDP (r/min)            a1 (m\3\/min)             a0 (m\3\/r)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           755.0                    50.43                    0.056
           987.6                    49.86                   -0.013
          1254.5                    48.54                    0.028
          1401.3                    47.30                   -0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the 
corresponding slope, a1, and intercept, a0, to 
calculate flow rate during emission testing as described in Sec.  
1065.642.
* * * * *
    (e) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single 
venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different 
combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. For 
CFV flow meters that consist of multiple venturis, either calibrate 
each venturi independently to determine a separate discharge 
coefficient, Cd, for each venturi, or calibrate each 
combination of venturis as one venturi. In the case where you calibrate 
a combination of venturis, use the sum of the active venturi throat 
areas as At, the square root of the sum of the squares of 
the active venturi throat diameters as dt, and the ratio of 
the venturi throat to inlet diameters as the ratio of the square root 
of the sum of the active venturi throat diameters (dt) to 
the diameter of the common entrance to all of the venturis (D). To 
determine the Cd for a single venturi or a single 
combination of venturis, perform the following steps:
    (1) Use the data collected at each calibration set point to 
calculate an individual Cd for each point using Eq. 
1065.640-4.
    (2) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the 
Cd values according to Eqs. 1065.602-1 and 1065.602-2.
    (3) If the standard deviation of all the Cd values is 
less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean Cd, use the mean 
Cd in Eq. 1065.642-4, and use the CFV only up to the highest 
r measured during calibration using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.015

Where:

[Delta]pCFV = Differential static pressure; venturi inlet 
minus venturi outlet.

    (4) If the standard deviation of all the Cd values 
exceeds 0.3% of the mean Cd, omit the Cd value 
corresponding to the data point collected at the highest r measured 
during calibration.
    (5) If the number of remaining data points is less than seven, take 
corrective action by checking your calibration data or repeating the 
calibration process. If you repeat the calibration process, we 
recommend checking for leaks, applying tighter tolerances to 
measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize.
    (6) If the number of remaining Cd values is seven or 
greater, recalculate the mean and standard deviation of the remaining 
Cd values.
    (7) If the standard deviation of the remaining Cd values 
is less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean of the remaining 
Cd, use that mean Cd in Eq. 1065.642-4, and use 
the CFV values only up to the highest r associated with the remaining 
Cd.
    (8) If the standard deviation of the remaining Cd still 
exceeds 0.3% of the mean of the remaining Cd values, repeat 
the steps in paragraph (e)(4) through (8) of this section.
0
263. Section 1065.642 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1065.642  SSV, CFV, and PDP molar flow rate calculations.

* * * * *
    (a) PDP molar flow rate. Based upon the speed at which you operate 
the PDP for a test interval, select the corresponding slope, 
a1, and intercept, a0, as calculated in Sec.  
1065.640, to calculate molar flow rate, n as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.016

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.017

Example:
a1 = 50.43 (m\3\/min) = 0.8405 (m\3\/s)
fnPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s
pout = 99950 Pa
pin = 98575 Pa
a0 = 0.056 (m\3\/r)
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[middot]K)
T in> = 323.5 K
Cp = 1000 (J/m\3\)/kPa
Ct = 60 s/min
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.018


[[Page 30124]]


Vrev = 0.06383 m\3\/r
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.019

n = 29.428 mol/s
* * * * *
    (c) CFV molar flow rate. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single 
venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different 
combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. If you 
use multiple venturis and you calibrated each venturi independently to 
determine a separate discharge coefficient, Cd (or 
calibration coefficient, Kv), for each venturi, calculate 
the individual molar flow rates through each venturi and sum all their 
flow rates to determine n. If you use multiple venturis and you 
calibrated each combination of venturis, calculate n using the sum of 
the active venturi throat areas as At, the square root of 
the sum of the squares of the active venturi throat diameters as 
dt, and the ratio of the venturi throat to inlet diameters 
as the ratio of the square root of the sum of the active venturi throat 
diameters (dt) to the diameter of the common entrance to all 
of the venturis (D).
    (1) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or one 
combination of venturis, use its respective mean Cd and 
other constants you determined according to Sec.  1065.640 and 
calculate its molar flow rate n during an emission test, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.020

Example:
Cd = 0.985
Cf = 0.7219
At = 0.00456 m\2\
pin = 98836 Pa
Z = 1
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 kg/mol
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K)
Tin = 378.15 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.021

n = 33.690 mol/s

    (2) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or a 
combination of venturis, you may use its respective mean Kv 
and other constants you determined according to Sec.  1065.640 and 
calculate its molar flow rate n during an emission test. Note that if 
you choose to follow the permissible ranges of dilution air dewpoint 
versus calibration air dewpoint in Table 3 of Sec.  1065.640, you may 
set Mmix-cal and Mmix equal to 1. Calculate n as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.022

Where:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.023

Vstdref = volumetric flow of the standard at reference 
conditions of 293.15 K and 101.325 kPa.
Tin-cal = Venturi inlet temperature during calibration.
Pin-cal = Venturi inlet pressure during calibration.
Mmix-cal = Molar mass of gas mixture used during 
calibration.
Mmix = Molar mass of gas mixture during the emission test 
calculated using Equation 1065.640-9.


Example:
Vstdref = 0.4895 m\3\
Tin-cal = 302.52 K
Pin-cal = 99654 Pa
pin = 98836 Pa
pstd = 101325 Pa
Mmix-cal = 28.9656 g/mol = 0.0289656 kg/mol
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 kg/mol
Tin = 353.15 K
Tstd = 293.15 K
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.024

n = 16.457 mol/s

0
264. Section 1065.645 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.645  Amount of water in an ideal gas.

    This section describes how to determine the amount of water in an 
ideal gas, which you need for various performance verifications and 
emission calculations. Use the equation for the vapor pressure of water 
in paragraph (a) of this section or another appropriate equation and, 
depending on whether you measure dewpoint or relative humidity, perform 
one of the calculations in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. 
Paragraph (d) of this section provides an equation for determining 
dewpoint from relative humidity and dry bulb temperature measurements. 
The equations for the vapor pressure of water as presented in this 
section are derived from equations in ``Saturation Pressure of Water on 
the New Kelvin Temperature Scale'' (Goff, J.A., Transactions American 
Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Vol. 63, No. 1607, 
pages 347-354). Note that the equations were originally published to 
derive vapor pressure in units of atmospheres and

[[Page 30125]]

have been modified to derive results in units of kPa by converting the 
last term in each equation.
    (a) Vapor pressure of water. Calculate the vapor pressure of water 
for a given saturation temperature condition, Tsat, as 
follows, or use good engineering judgment to use a different 
relationship of the vapor pressure of water to a given saturation 
temperature condition:
    (1) For humidity measurements made at ambient temperatures from (0 
to 100) [deg]C, or for humidity measurements made over super-cooled 
water at ambient temperatures from (-50 to 0) [deg]C, use the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.025

Where:

pH20 = vapor pressure of water at saturation temperature 
condition, kPa.
Tsat = saturation temperature of water at measured 
conditions, K.

Example:
Tsat = 9.5 [deg]C = 282.65 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.026

log10(pH20) = 0.074297
pH20 = 10\0.074297\ = 1.186581 kPa

    (2) For humidity measurements over ice at ambient temperatures from 
(-100 to 0) [deg]C, use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.027

Example:
Tice = -15.4 [deg]C = 257.75 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.028

log10(pH20) = -0.798207
pH20 = 10-0.79821 = 0.159145 kPa
* * * * *
    (d) Dewpoint determination from relative humidity and dry bulb 
temperature. This paragraph (d) describes how to calculate dewpoint 
temperature from relative humidity, RH %. This is based on ``ITS-90 
Formulations for Vapor Pressure, Frostpoint Temperature, Dewpoint 
Temperature, and Enhancement Factors in the Range -100 to +100 [deg]C'' 
(Hardy, B., The Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on 
Humidity & Moisture, Teddington, London, England, April 1998). 
Calculate pH20sat as described in paragraph (a) of this 
section based on setting Tsat equal to Tamb. 
Calculate pH20scaled by multiplying pH20sat by RH 
%. Calculate the

[[Page 30126]]

dewpoint, Tdew, from pH20 using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.029

Where:

In(pH20) = the natural log of pH2Oscaled, 
which is the water vapor pressure scaled to the relative humidity at 
the location of the relative humidity measurement, Tsat = 
Tamb.

Example:
RH % = 39.61%
Tsat = Tamb = 20.00 [deg]C = 293.15K
Using Eq. 1065.645-1,
pH20sat = 2.3371 kPa
pH2Oscaled = (39.61%[squ][squ][squ][squ][squ]1) = 
0.925717 kPa = 925.717 Pa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.030

Tdew = 279.00 K = 5.85 [deg]C

0
265. Section 1065.650 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  1065.650  Emission calculations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Concentration corrections. Perform the following sequence of 
preliminary calculations on recorded concentrations:
    (i) Correct all gaseous emission analyzer concentration readings, 
including continuous readings, sample bag readings, and dilution air 
background readings, for drift as described in Sec.  1065.672. Note 
that you must omit this step where brake-specific emissions are 
calculated without the drift correction for performing the drift 
validation according to Sec.  1065.550(b). When applying the initial 
THC and CH4 contamination readings according to Sec.  
1065.520(f), use the same values for both sets of calculations. You may 
also use as-measured values in the initial set of calculations and 
corrected values in the drift-corrected set of calculations as 
described in Sec.  1065.520(g)(7).
    (ii) Correct all THC and CH4 concentrations for initial 
contamination as described in Sec.  1065.660(a), including continuous 
readings, sample bags readings, and dilution air background readings.
    (iii) Correct all concentrations measured on a ``dry'' basis to a 
``wet'' basis, including dilution air background concentrations, as 
described in Sec.  1065.659.
    (iv) Calculate all NMHC and CH4 concentrations, 
including dilution air background concentrations, as described in Sec.  
1065.660.
    (v) For emission testing with an oxygenated fuel, calculate any HC 
concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as 
described in Sec.  1065.665. See subpart I of this part for testing 
with oxygenated fuels.
    (vi) Correct all the NOX concentrations, including 
dilution air background concentrations, for intake-air humidity as 
described in Sec.  1065.670.
* * * * *
0
266. Section 1065.655 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 
introductory text, (c)(3), (d), (e), and (f)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.655  Chemical balances of fuel, intake air, and exhaust.

* * * * *
    (c) Chemical balance procedure. The calculations for a chemical 
balance involve a system of equations that require iteration. We 
recommend using a computer to solve this system of equations. You must 
guess the initial values of up to three quantities: The amount of water 
in the measured flow, [khgr]H2Oexh, fraction of dilution air in diluted 
exhaust, [khgr]dil/exh, and the amount of products on a C1 basis per 
dry mole of dry measured flow, [khgr]Ccombdry. You may use time-
weighted mean values of combustion air humidity and dilution air 
humidity in the chemical balance; as long as your combustion air and 
dilution air humidities remain within tolerances of 0.0025 
mol/mol of their respective mean values over the test interval. For 
each emission concentration, [khgr], and amount of water, [khgr]H2Oexh, 
you must determine their completely dry concentrations, [khgr]dry and 
[khgr]H2Oexhdry. You must also use your fuel's atomic hydrogen-to-
carbon ratio, [alpha], oxygen-to-carbon ratio, [beta], sulfur-to-carbon 
ratio, [gamma], and nitrogen-to-carbon ratio, [delta]. You may 
calculate [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] based on measured fuel 
composition as described in paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this 
section, or you may use default values for a given fuel as described in 
Sec.  1065.655(d)(3). Use the following steps to complete a chemical 
balance:
* * * * *
    (3) Use the following symbols and subscripts in the equations for 
this paragraph (c):

[khgr]dil/exh = amount of dilution gas or excess air per mole of 
exhaust.
[khgr]H2Oexh = amount of H2O in exhaust per mole of exhaust.
[khgr]Ccombdry = amount of carbon from fuel in the exhaust per mole of 
dry exhaust.
[khgr]H2dry = amount of H2 in exhaust per amount of dry 
exhaust.
KH2Ogas = water-gas reaction equilibrium coefficient. You may use 3.5 
or calculate your own value using good engineering judgment.
[khgr]H2Oexhdry = amount of H2O in exhaust per dry mole of 
dry exhaust.
[khgr]prod/intdry = amount of dry stoichiometric products per dry mole 
of intake air.
[khgr]dil/exhdry = amount of dilution gas and/or excess air per mole of 
dry exhaust.
[khgr]int/exhdry = amount of intake air required to produce actual 
combustion products per mole of dry (raw or diluted) exhaust.
[khgr]raw/exhdry = amount of undiluted exhaust, without excess air, per 
mole of dry (raw or diluted) exhaust.
[khgr]O2int = amount of intake air O2 per mole of intake 
air.
[khgr]CO2intdry = amount of intake air CO2 per mole of dry 
intake air. You may use

[[Page 30127]]

xCO2intdry = 375 [micro]mol/mol, but we recommend measuring the actual 
concentration in the intake air.
[khgr]H2Ointdry = amount of intake air H2O per mole of dry 
intake air.
[khgr]CO2int = amount of intake air CO2 per mole of intake air.
[khgr]CO2dil = amount of dilution gas CO2 per mole of 
dilution gas.
[khgr]CO2dildry = amount of dilution gas CO2 per mole of dry 
dilution gas. If you use air as diluent, you may use xCO2dildry = 375 
[micro]mol/mol, but we recommend measuring the actual concentration in 
the intake air.
[khgr]H2Odildry = amount of dilution gas H2O per mole of dry 
dilution gas.
[khgr]H2Odil = amount of dilution gas H2O per mole of 
dilution gas.
[khgr][emission]meas = amount of measured emission in the sample at the 
respective gas analyzer.
[khgr][emission]dry = amount of emission per dry mole of dry sample.
[khgr]H2O[emission]meas = amount of H2O in sample at 
emission-detection location. Measure or estimate these values according 
to Sec.  1065.145(e)(2).
[khgr]H2Oint = amount of H2O in the intake air, based on a 
humidity measurement of intake air.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being 
combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[gamma] = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being 
combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[delta] = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
* * * * *
    (d) Carbon mass fraction and fuel composition. Determine carbon 
mass fraction of fuel, wc, and fuel composition represented by [alpha], 
[beta], [gamma], and [delta] using one of the following methods:
    (1) You may calculate wc as described in this paragraph (d)(1) 
based on measured fuel properties. To do so, you must determine values 
for [alpha] and [beta] in all cases, but you may set [gamma] and 
[delta] to zero if the default value listed in Table 1 of this section 
is zero. Calculate wc using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.031


Where:

wc = carbon mass fraction of fuel.
MC = molar mass of carbon.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MH = molar mass of hydrogen.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MO = molar mass of oxygen.
[gamma] = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MS = molar mass of sulfur.
[delta] = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MN = molar mass of nitrogen.

Example:

[alpha] = 1.8
[beta] = 0.05
[gamma] = 0.0003
[delta] = 0.0001
MC = 12.0107
MH = 1.00794
MO = 15.9994
MS = 32.065
MN = 14.0067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.032


[[Page 30128]]


wc = 0.8206

    (2) Determine a fuel's elemental mass fractions and values for 
[alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] as follows:
    (i) For gaseous fuels, use the default values for [alpha], [beta], 
[gamma], and [delta] in Table 1 of this section or use good engineering 
judgment to determine those values based on measurement.
    (ii) Determine mass fractions for liquid fuels as follows:
    (A) You may determine the fuel carbon and hydrogen mass fractions 
according to ASTM D5291 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1065.1010). 
When using ASTM D5291 to determine carbon and hydrogen mass fractions 
from gasoline (with or without blended ethanol), use good engineering 
judgment to adapt the method as appropriate.
    (B) Determine oxygen mass fraction for gasoline (with or without 
blended ethanol) according to ASTM D5599 (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  1065.1010). For all other liquid fuels, determine the oxygen mass 
fraction using good engineering judgment.
    (C) Determine the nitrogen mass fraction according to ASTM D4629 or 
ASTM D5762 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1065.1010) for all 
liquid fuels. Select the correct method based on the expected nitrogen 
content.
    (D) Determine the sulfur mass fraction according to subpart H of 
this part.
    (iii) For liquid fuels, use the default values for [alpha], [beta], 
[gamma], and [delta] in Table 1 of this section, or you may determine 
the value for any of these parameters based on measurement. Calculate 
measured values using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.033

Where:

wC = carbon mass fraction of fuel.
wH = hydrogen mass fraction of fuel.
wO = oxygen mass fraction of fuel.
wS = sulfur mass fraction of fuel.
wN = nitrogen mass fraction of fuel.


Example:

wC = 0.8206
wH = 0.1239
wO = 0.0547
wS = 0.00066

 Table 1 of Sec.   1065.655--Default Values of [alpha], [beta], [gamma],
                   [delta], and wc, for Various Fuels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fuel                   Atomic hydrogen,       Carbon mass
                                    oxygen, sulfur, and      fraction,
                                    nitrogen-to-carbon
                                          ratios
                                 CH[alpha]O[beta]S[gamma           wcg/g
                                  ]N[delta].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline.......................  CH1.85O0S0N0...........           0.866
E10 Gasoline...................  CH1.92O0.03S0N0........           0.833
E15 Gasoline...................  CH1.95O0.05S0N0........           0.817
E85 Gasoline...................  CH2.73O0.38S0N0........           0.576
1 Diesel..............  CH1.93O0S0N0...........           0.861
2 Diesel..............  CH1.80O0S0N0...........           0.869
Liquefied petroleum gas........  CH2.64O0S0N0...........           0.819
Natural gas....................  CH3.78 O0.016S0N0......           0.747
E100 Ethanol...................  CH3O0.5S0N0............           0.521
M100 Methanol..................  CH4O1S0N0..............           0.375
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residual fuel blends...........    Must be determined by measured fuel
                                   properties as described in paragraph
                                          (d)(1) of this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Calculated raw exhaust molar flow rate from measured intake air 
molar flow rate or fuel mass flow rate. You may calculate the raw 
exhaust molar flow rate from which you sampled emissions, 
nexh, based on the measured intake air molar flow rate, 
nint, or the measured fuel mass flow rate, mfuel, 
and the values calculated using the chemical balance in paragraph (c) 
of this section. The chemical balance must be based on raw exhaust gas 
concentrations. Solve for the chemical balance in paragraph (c) of this 
section at the same frequency that you update and record 
nint or mfuel.

[[Page 30129]]

For laboratory tests, calculating raw exhaust molar flow rate using 
measured fuel mass flow rate is valid only for steady-state testing. 
See Sec.  1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for application to field testing.
    (1) Crankcase flow rate. If engines are not subject to crankcase 
controls under the standard-setting part, you may calculate raw exhaust 
flow based on nint or mfuel using one of the 
following:
    (i) You may measure flow rate through the crankcase vent and 
subtract it from the calculated exhaust flow.
    (ii) You may estimate flow rate through the crankcase vent by 
engineering analysis as long as the uncertainty in your calculation 
does not adversely affect your ability to show that your engines comply 
with applicable emission standards.
    (iii) You may assume your crankcase vent flow rate is zero.
    (2) Intake air molar flow rate calculation. Calculate 
nexh based on nint using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.034

Where:

nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you 
measured emissions.
nint = intake air molar flow rate including humidity in 
intake air.

Example:
[chi]nint = 3.780 mol/s
[chi]int/exhdry = 0.69021 mol/mol
[chi]raw/exhdry = 1.10764 mol/mol
xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.035

nexh = 6.066 mol/s

    (3) Fuel mass flow rate calculation. This calculation may be used 
only for steady-state laboratory testing. See Sec.  1065.915(d)(5)(iv) 
for application to field testing. Calculate nexh based on 
mfuel using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.036

Where:

nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you 
measured emissions.
mfuel = fuel flow rate including humidity in intake air.

Example:
mfuel = 7.559 g/s
wc = 0.869 g/g
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
[khgr]Ccombdry = 99.87 mmol/mol = 0.09987 mol/mol
[khgr]H2Oexhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.037

nexh = 6.066 mol/s

    (f) * * *
    (2) Dilute exhaust and intake air molar flow rate calculation. 
Calculate nexh as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.038

Example:
nint = 7.930 mol/s
[khgr]raw/exhdry = 0.1544 mol/mol
[khgr]int/exhdry = 0.1451 mol/mol
[khgr]H2Oexh32.46 mmol/mol = 0.03246 mol/mol
ndexh = 49.02 mol/s
nexh = (0.1544 - 0.1451)[middot](1 - 0.03246)[middot]49.02 + 
7.930 = 8.371 mol/s

0
267. Section 1065.659 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.659  Removed water correction.

    (a) If you remove water upstream of a concentration measurement, 
[khgr], correct for the removed water. Perform this correction based on 
the amount of water at the concentration measurement, 
[khgr]H2O[emission]meas, and at the flow meter, 
[khgr]H2Oexh, whose flow is used to determine the mass 
emission rate or total mass over a test interval. For continuous 
analyzers downstream of a sample dryer for transient and ramped-modal 
cycles, you must apply this correction on a continuous basis over the 
test interval, even if you use one of the options in Sec.  
1065.145(e)(2) that results in a constant value for 
xH2O[emission]meas because xH2Oexh varies over 
the test interval. For batch analyzers, determine the flow-weighted 
average based on the continuous xH2Oexh values determined as 
described in paragraph (c) of this section. For batch analyzers, you 
may determine the flow-weighted average xH2Oexh based on a 
single value of xH2Oexh determined as described in 
paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, using flow-weighted average 
or batch concentration inputs.
* * * * *
0
268. Section 1065.665 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.665  THCE and NMHCE determination.

    (a) If you measured an oxygenated hydrocarbon's mass concentration, 
first calculate its molar concentration in the exhaust sample stream 
from which the sample was taken (raw or diluted exhaust), and convert 
this into a C1-equivalent molar concentration. Add these 
C1-equivalent molar concentrations to the molar 
concentration of non-oxygenated total hydrocarbon (NOTHC). The result 
is the molar concentration of total hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE). 
Calculate THCE concentration using the following equations, noting that 
Eq. 1065.665-3 is required only if you need to convert your oxygenated 
hydrocarbon (OHC) concentration from mass to moles:

[[Page 30130]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.039

Where:

[khgr]THCE = The sum of the C1-equivalent 
concentrations of non-oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols, and 
aldehydes.
[khgr]NOTHC = The sum of the C1-equivalent 
concentrations of NOTHC.
[khgr]OHCi = The C1-equivalent concentration 
of oxygenated species i in diluted exhaust, not corrected for 
initial contamination.
[khgr]OHCi-init = The C1-equivalent 
concentration of the initial system contamination (optional) of 
oxygenated species i, dry-to-wet corrected.
[khgr]THC[THC-FID]cor = The C1-equivalent 
response to NOTHC and all OHC in diluted exhaust, HC contamination 
and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC-FID.
RFOHCi[THC-FID] = The response factor of the FID to 
species i relative to propane on a C1-equivalent basis.
C\#\ = the mean number of carbon atoms in the particular compound.
Mdexh = The molar mass of diluted exhaust as determine in 
Sec.  1065.340.
mdexhOHCi = The mass of oxygenated species i in dilute 
exhaust.
MOHCi = The C1-equivalent molecular weight of 
oxygenated species i.
mdexh = The mass of diluted exhaust
ndexhOHCi = The number of moles of oxygenated species i 
in total diluted exhaust flow.
ndexh = The total diluted exhaust flow.

    (b) If we require you to determine nonmethane hydrocarbon 
equivalent (NMHCE), use the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.040

Where:

[khgr]NMHCE = The sum of the C1-equivalent 
concentrations of nonoxygenated nonmethane hydrocarbon (NONMHC), 
alcohols, and aldehydes.
RFCH4[THC-FID] = response factor of THC-FID to 
CH4.
[khgr]CH4 = concentration of CH4, HC 
contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet corrected, as measured by 
the gas chromatograph FID.

    (c) The following example shows how to determine NMHCE emissions 
based on ethanol (C2H5OH), methanol 
(CH3OH), acetaldehyde (C2H4O), and 
formaldehyde (HCHO) as C1-equivalent molar concentrations:

[khgr]THC[THC-FID]cor = 145.6 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]CH4 = 18.9 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]C2H5OH = 100.8 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]CH3OH = 1.1 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]C2H4O = 19.1 [micro]mol/mol
[khgr]HCHO = 1.3 [micro]mol/mol
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 1.07
RFC2H5OH[THC-FID] = 0.76
RFCH3OH[THC-FID] = 0.74
RFH2H4O[THC-FID] = 0.50
RFHCHO[THC-FID] = 0.0
[khgr]NMHCE = [khgr]THC[THC-FID]cor--
([khgr]C2H5OH [middot] RFC2H5OH[THC-FID] + 
[khgr]CH3OH [middot] RFCH3OH[THC-FID] + 
[khgr]C2H4O [middot] RFC2H4O[THC-FID] + 
[khgr]HCHO [middot] RFHCHO[THC-FID]) + 
[khgr]C2H5OH + [khgr]CH3OH + 
[khgr]C2H4O + [khgr]HCHO--
(RFCH4[THC-FID] [middot] [khgr]CH4)
[khgr]NMHCE = 145.6-(100.8 [middot] 0.76 + 1.1 [middot] 0.74 
+ 19.1 [middot] 0.50 + 1.3 [middot] 0) + 100.8 + 1.1 + 19.1 + 1.3-(1.07 
[middot] 18.9)
[khgr]NMHCE = 160.71 [micro]mol/mol

0
269. Section 1065.695 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(i) and 
adding paragraph (c)(6)(x) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.695  Data requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
(i) Linearity verification.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (x) Number and type of preconditioning cycles.
* * * * *

Subpart H--[Amended]

0
270. Section 1065.701 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d), and 
(f) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.701  General requirements for test fuels.

    (a) General. For all emission measurements, use test fuels that 
meet the specifications in this subpart, unless the standard-setting 
part directs otherwise. Section 1065.10(c)(1) does not apply with 
respect to test fuels. Note that the standard-setting parts generally 
require that you design your emission controls to function properly 
when

[[Page 30131]]

using commercially available fuels, even if they differ from the test 
fuel. Where we specify multiple grades of a certain fuel type (such as 
diesel fuel with different sulfur concentrations), see the standard-
setting part to determine which grade to use.
* * * * *
    (d) Fuel specifications. Specifications in this section apply as 
follows:
    (1) Measure and calculate values as described in the appropriate 
reference procedure. Record and report final values expressed to at 
least the same number of decimal places as the applicable limit value. 
The right-most digit for each limit value is significant unless 
specified otherwise. For example, for a specified distillation 
temperature of 60 [deg]C, determine the test fuel's value to the 
nearest whole number.
    (2) The fuel parameters specified in this subpart depend on 
measurement procedures that are incorporated by reference. For any of 
these procedures, you may instead rely upon the procedures identified 
in 40 CFR part 80 for measuring the same parameter. For example, we may 
identify different reference procedures for measuring gasoline 
parameters in 40 CFR 80.46.
* * * * *
    (f) Service accumulation and field testing fuels. If we do not 
specify a service-accumulation or field-testing fuel in the standard-
setting part, use an appropriate commercially available fuel such as 
those meeting minimum specifications from the following table:

              Table 1 of Sec.   1065.701--Examples of Service-Accumulation and Field-Testing Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Fuel category                           Subcategory                    Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel...............................  Light distillate and light blends     ASTM D975
                                        with residual.
                                       Middle distillate...................  ASTM D6985
                                       Biodiesel (B100)....................  ASTM D6751
Intermediate and residual fuel.......  All.................................  See Sec.   1065.705
Gasoline.............................  Motor vehicle gasoline..............  ASTM D4814
                                       Motor gasoline with ethanol           ASTM D4814
                                        concentrations up to 10 volume %.
Alcohol..............................  Ethanol (E51-83)....................  ASTM D5798
                                       Methanol (M70-M85)..................  ASTM D5797
Aviation fuel........................  Aviation gasoline...................  ASTM D910
                                       Gas turbine.........................  ASTM D1655
                                       Jet B wide cut......................  ASTM D6615
Gas turbine fuel.....................  General.............................  ASTM D2880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM specifications are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010.

0
271. Section 1065.703 is amended by revising Table 1 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.703  Distillate diesel fuel.

                                     Table 1 of Sec.   1065.703--Test Fuel Specifications for Distillate Diesel Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Property                      Unit            Ultra low sulfur         Low sulfur           High sulfur          Reference procedure \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetane Number....................  ....................  40-50...............  40-50...............  40-50..............  ASTM D613.
Distillation range:..............  [deg]C..............
Initial boiling point............  ....................  171-204.............  171-204.............  171-204............  ASTM D86.
10 pct. point....................  ....................  204-238.............  204-238.............  204-238............
50 pct. point....................  ....................  243-282.............  243-282.............  243-282............
90 pct. point....................  ....................  293-332.............  293-332.............  293-332............
Endpoint.........................  ....................  321-366.............  321-366.............  321-366............
Gravity..........................  [deg]API............  32-37...............  32-37...............  32-37..............  ASTM D4052.
Total sulfur, ultra low sulfur...  mg/kg...............  7-15................  ....................  ...................  See 40 CFR 80.580.
Total sulfur, low and high sulfur  mg/kg...............  ....................  300-500.............  800-2500...........  ASTM D2622 or alternates as
                                                                                                                           allowed under 40 CFR 80.580.
Aromatics, min. (Remainder shall   g/kg................  100.................  100.................  100................  ASTM D5186.
 be paraffins, naphthenes, and
 olefins).
Flashpoint, min..................  [deg]C..............  54..................  54..................  54.................  ASTM D93.
Kinematic Viscosity..............  cSt.................  2.0-3.2.............  2.0-3.2.............  2.0-3.2............  ASTM D445.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.

0
272. Section 1065.710 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.710  Gasoline.

    (a) This section specifies test fuel properties for gasoline with 
ethanol (low-level blend only) and for gasoline without ethanol. Note 
that the ``fuel type'' for the fuels specified in paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section is considered to be gasoline. In contrast, fuels 
with higher ethanol concentrations, such as fuel containing 82 percent 
ethanol, are considered to be ethanol fuels rather than gasoline. We 
specify some test fuel parameters that apply uniquely for low-
temperature testing and for testing at altitudes above 1,219 m. For all 
other testing, use the test fuel parameters specified for general 
testing. Unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise, use the 
fuel specified in paragraph (c) of this section for general testing.
    (b) The following specifications apply for a blended gasoline test 
fuel that has nominally 15% ethanol (commonly called E15 test fuel):
    (1) Prepare the blended test fuel from typical refinery gasoline 
blending

[[Page 30132]]

components. You may not use pure compounds, except as follows:
    (i) You may use neat ethanol as a blendstock.
    (ii) You may adjust the test fuel's vapor pressure by adding 
butane.
    (iii) You may adjust the test fuel's benzene content by adding 
benzene.
    (iv) You may adjust the test fuel's sulfur content by adding sulfur 
compounds that are representative of those found with in-use fuels.
    (2) Table 1 of this section identifies limit values consistent with 
the units in the reference procedure for each fuel property. These 
values are generally specified in international units. Values presented 
in parentheses are for information only. Table 1 follows:

                               Table 1 of Sec.   1065.710--Test Fuel Specifications for a Low-Level Ethanol-Gasoline Blend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Specification
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
             Property                       Unit                                  Low-temperature       High altitude        Reference  procedure \1\
                                                             General testing          testing              testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antiknock Index (R+M)/2..........  .....................  87.0--88.4 \2\                             87.0 Minimum.......  ASTM D2699 and D2700.
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitivity (R-M)................  .....................  7.5 Minimum                                                     ASTM D2699 and D2700.
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent      kPa (psi)............  60.0-63.4...........  77.2-81.4..........  52.4-55.2..........  ASTM D5191.
 (DVPE) \3\.                                              (8.7-9.2)...........  (11.2-11.8)........  (7.6-8.0)..........
Distillation 10% evaporated......  [deg]C ([deg]F)......  49-60...............  43-54..............  49-60..............  ASTM D86.
                                                          (120-140)...........  (110-130)..........  (120-140)..........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50% evaporated...................  [deg]C ([deg]F)......  77-88 (170-190)
90% evaporated...................  [deg]C ([deg]F)......  154-166 (310-330)
Evaporated final boiling point...  [deg]C ([deg]F)......  193-216 (380-420)
Residue..........................  milliliter...........  2.0 Maximum                                                     ASTM D5769.
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons......  volume %.............  19.5-24.5
C6 Aromatics (benzene)...........  volume %.............  0.6-0.8
C7 Aromatics (toluene)...........  volume %.............  4.4-5.5
C8 Aromatics.....................  volume %.............  5.5-6.9
C9 Aromatics.....................  volume %.............  5.0-6.2
C10+ Aromatics...................  volume %.............  4.0-5.0
Olefins \4\......................  mass %...............  4.5-11.5                                                        ASTM D6550.
Ethanol blended \5\..............  volume %.............  14.6-15.0                                                       See paragraph (b)(3) of this
                                                                                                                           section.
Ethanol confirmatory 6 7.........  volume %.............  14.3-15.3                                                       ASTM D5599.
Total Content of Oxygenates Other  volume %.............  0.1 Maximum                                                     ASTM D5599.
 than Ethanol \7\.
Sulfur...........................  mg/kg................  8.0-11.0                                                        ASTM D2622, D5453 or D7039.
Lead.............................  g/liter..............  0.0026 Maximum                                                  ASTM D3237.
Phosphorus.......................  g/liter..............  0.0013 Maximum                                                  ASTM D3231.
Copper Corrosion.................  .....................  No. 1 Maximum                                                   ASTM D130.
Solvent-Washed Gum Content.......  mg/100 milliliter....  3.0 Maximum                                                     ASTM D381.
Oxidation Stability..............  minute...............  1000 Minimum                                                    ASTM D525.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
\2\ Octane specifications apply only for testing related to exhaust emissions. For engines or vehicles that require the use of premium fuel, as
  described in paragraph (d) of this section, the adjusted specification for antiknock index is a minimum value of 91.0; no maximum value applies. All
  other specifications apply for this high-octane fuel.
\3\ Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, in kPa using the following equation: DVPE =
  0.956[middot]pT-2.39. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method.
\4\ The specified olefin concentration range equates to approximately 4-10 volume % when measured according to ASTM D1319.
\5\ The ethanol blended specification is based on the volume % ethanol content of the fuel as determined during blending by the fuel supplier and as
  stated by the supplier at the time of fuel delivery.
\6\ The ethanol confirmatory specification is based on the volume % ethanol as measured according to ASTM D5599.
\7\ The reference procedure prescribes measurement of ethanol concentration in mass %. Convert results to volume % as specified in ASTM D4815.

    (3) Use good engineering judgment to determine the volume % of 
ethanol based on the volume of each blendstock. We recommend using a 
flow-based or gravimetric procedure that has an accuracy and 
repeatability of 0.1%.
    (c) The specifications of this paragraph (c) apply for testing with 
neat gasoline. This is sometimes called indolene or E0 test fuel. 
Gasoline for testing must have octane values that represent 
commercially available fuels for the appropriate application. Test fuel 
specifications apply as follows:

[[Page 30133]]



                   Table 2 of Sec.   1065.710--Test Fuel Specifications for Neat (E0) Gasoline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Specification
                                                   --------------------------------------  Reference  Procedure
            Property                    Unit                            Low-temperature             \1\
                                                     General testing        testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation Range.............  [deg]C...........  .................  .................  ASTM D86
Evaporated initial boiling       .................  24-35 2..........  24-36............
 point.
10% evaporated.................  .................  49-57............  37-48............
50% evaporated.................  .................  93-110...........  82-101...........
90% evaporated.................  .................  149-163..........  158-174..........
Evaporated final boiling point.  .................  Maximum, 213.....  Maximum, 212.....
Hydrocarbon composition........  volume %.........  .................  .................  ASTM D1319
Olefins........................  .................  Maximum, 0.10....  Maximum, 0.175...
Aromatics......................  .................  Maximum, 0.35....  Maximum, 0.304...
Saturates......................  .................  Remainder........  Remainder.
Lead...........................  g/liter..........  Maximum, 0.013...  Maximum, 0.013.    ASTM D3237
Phosphorous....................  g/liter..........  Maximum, 0.0013..  Maximum, 0.005.    ASTM D3231
Total sulfur...................  mg/kg............  Maximum, 80......  Maximum, 80.       ASTM D2622
Dry vapor pressure equivalent    kPa..............  60.0-63.4 \3,\     77.2-81.4.         ASTM D5191
 \2\.                                                \4\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed
  procedures.
\2\ Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, in kPa using
  the following equation: DVPE = 0.956[middot]pT-2.39. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure
  using a different test method.
\3\ For testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is (52.0 to 55.2) kPa and the
  specified initial boiling point range is (23.9 to 40.6) [deg]C.
\4\ For testing unrelated to evaporative emissions, the specified range is (55.2 to 63.4) kPa.

    (d) Use the high-octane gasoline specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section only for engines or vehicles for which the manufacturer 
conditions the warranty on the use of premium gasoline.
0
273. Section 1065.715 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.715  Natural gas.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, natural 
gas for testing must meet the specifications in the following table:

  Table 1 of Sec.   1065.715--Test Fuel Specifications for Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Property                             Value \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane, CH4......................  Minimum, 0.87 mol/mol.
Ethane, C2H6......................  Maximum, 0.055 mol/mol.
Propane, C3H8.....................  Maximum, 0.012 mol/mol.
Butane, C4H10.....................  Maximum, 0.0035 mol/mol.
Pentane, C5H12....................  Maximum, 0.0013 mol/mol.
C6 and higher.....................  Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol.
Oxygen............................  Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol.
Inert gases (sum of CO2 and N2)...  Maximum, 0.051 mol/mol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demonstrate compliance with fuel specifications based on the
  reference procedures in ASTM D1945 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
   1065.1010), or on other measurement procedures using good engineering
  judgment. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.

* * * * *
0
274. Section 1065.720 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.720  Liquefied petroleum gas.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, liquefied 
petroleum gas for testing must meet the specifications in the following 
table:

                Table 1 of Sec.   1065.720--Test Fuel Specifications for Liquefied Petroleum Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Property                              Value                    Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propane, C3H8................................  Minimum, 0.85 m \3\/m \3\  ASTM D2163
Vapor pressure at 38 [deg]C..................  Maximum, 1400 kPa........  ASTM D1267 or 2598 \2\
Volatility residue (evaporated temperature,    Maximum, -38 [deg]C......  ASTM D1837
 35 [deg]C).
Butanes......................................  Maximum, 0.05 m \3\/m \3\  ASTM D2163
Butenes......................................  Maximum, 0.02 m \3\/m \3\  ASTM D2163
Pentenes and heavier.........................  Maximum, 0.005 m \3\/m     ASTM D2163
                                                \3\.
Propene......................................  Maximum, 0.1 m \3\/m \3\.  ASTM D2163
Residual matter (residue on evap. of 100) ml   Maximum, 0.05 ml pass \3\  ASTM D2158
 oil stain observ.).
Corrosion, copper strip......................  Maximum, No. 1...........  ASTM D1838
Sulfur.......................................  Maximum, 80 mg/kg........  ASTM D2784
Moisture content.............................  pass.....................  ASTM D2713
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed
  procedures.
\2\ If these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D1267.
\3\ The test fuel must not yield a persistent oil ring when you add 0.3 ml of solvent residue mixture to a
  filter paper in 0.1 ml increments and examine it in daylight after two minutes.


[[Page 30134]]

* * * * *
0
275. A new Sec.  1065.725 is added to subpart H to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.725  High-level ethanol-gasoline blends.

    For testing ethanol-fueled vehicles, create a high-level ethanol-
gasoline blend test fuel as follows:
    (a) Add ethanol to an E15 fuel meeting the specifications described 
in Sec.  1065.710 until the ethanol content of the blended fuel is 
between 80 and 83 volume %.
    (b) You may alternatively add ethanol to a gasoline base fuel with 
no ethanol if you can demonstrate that such a base fuel blended with 
the proper amount of ethanol would meet all the specifications for E15 
test fuel described in Sec.  1065.710, other than the ethanol content.
    (c) The ethanol used for blending must be either denatured ethanol 
meeting the specifications in 40 CFR 80.1510, or fuel-grade ethanol 
with no denaturant. Be sure to account for the volume of any denaturant 
when calculating volumetric percentages.
    (d) The blended test fuel must have a dry vapor pressure equivalent 
between 6.0 and 6.5 when measured using the procedure specified in 
Sec.  1065.710. You may add commercial grade butane as needed to meet 
this specification.
0
276. Section 1065.750 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.750  Analytical gases.

    Analytical gases must meet the accuracy and purity specifications 
of this section, unless you can show that other specifications would 
not affect your ability to show that you comply with all applicable 
emission standards.
    (a) * * *
    (1) Use purified gases to zero measurement instruments and to blend 
with calibration gases. Use gases with contamination no higher than the 
highest of the following values in the gas cylinder or at the outlet of 
a zero-gas generator:
    (i) 2% contamination, measured relative to the flow-weighted mean 
concentration expected at the standard. For example, if you would 
expect a flow-weighted CO concentration of 100.0 [mu]mol/mol, then you 
would be allowed to use a zero gas with CO contamination less than or 
equal to 2.000 [mu]mol/mol.
    (ii) Contamination as specified in the following table:

                    Table 1 of Sec.   1065.750--General Specifications for Purified Gases \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Constituent                            Purified air                        Purified N2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC (C1 equivalent)......................  <= 0.05 [mu]mol/mol..............  <= 0.05 [mu]mol/mol
CO.......................................  <= 1 [mu]mol/mol.................  <= 1 [mu]mol/mol
CO2......................................  <= 10 [mu]mol/mol................  <= 10 [mu]mol/mol
O2.......................................  0.205 to 0.215 mol/mol...........  <= 2 [mu]mol/mol
NOX......................................  <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol..............  <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol
N2O\2\...................................  <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol..............  <= 0.02 [mu]mol/mol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We do not require these levels of purity to be NIST-traceable.
\2\ The N2O limit applies only if the standard-setting part requires you to report N2O or certify to an N2O
  standard.

    (2) Use the following gases with a FID analyzer:
    (i) FID fuel. Use FID fuel with a stated H2 
concentration of (0.39 to 0.41) mol/mol, balance He or N2, 
and a stated total hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05 [mu]mol/mol or 
less. For GC-FIDs that measure methane (CH4) using a FID 
fuel that is balance N2, perform the CH4 
measurement as described in SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  1065.1010).
    (ii) FID burner air. Use FID burner air that meets the 
specifications of purified air in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For 
field testing, you may use ambient air.
    (iii) FID zero gas. Zero flame-ionization detectors with purified 
gas that meets the specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 
except that the purified gas O2 concentration may be any 
value. Note that FID zero balance gases may be any combination of 
purified air and purified nitrogen. We recommend FID analyzer zero 
gases that contain approximately the expected flow-weighted mean 
concentration of O2 in the exhaust sample 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 [mu]mol/mol, 
span a FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol. Note that FID 
span balance gases may be any combination of purified air and purified 
nitrogen. We recommend FID analyzer span gases that contain 
approximately the flow-weighted mean concentration of O2 
expected during testing. If the expected O2 concentration in 
the exhaust sample is zero, we recommend using a balance gas of 
purified nitrogen.
    (v) FID CH4 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 CH4. Calibrate on a 
carbon number basis of one (C1). For example, if you use a 
CH4 span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span a FID to 
respond with a value of 200 [mu]mol/mol. Note that FID span balance 
gases may be any combination of purified air and purified nitrogen. We 
recommend FID analyzer span gases that contain approximately the 
expected flow-weighted mean concentration of O2 in the 
exhaust sample during testing. If the expected O2 
concentration in the exhaust sample is zero, we recommend using a 
balance gas of purified nitrogen.
    (3) Use the following gas mixtures, with gases traceable within 
1% of the NIST-accepted value or other gas standards we 
approve:
    (i) CH4, balance purified air and/or N2 (as 
applicable).
    (ii) C2H6, balance purified air and/or 
N2 (as applicable).
    (iii) C3H8, balance purified 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 air.
    (viii) O2, balance purified N2.
    (ix) C3H8, CO, CO2, NO, balance 
purified N2.
    (x) C3H8, CH4, CO, CO2, 
NO, balance purified N2.
    (xi) N2O, balance purified air and/or N2 (as 
applicable).
* * * * *
    (5) You may generate your own calibration gases using a precision 
blending device, such as a gas divider, to dilute gases with purified 
N2 or purified air. If your gas divider meets the 
specifications in Sec.  1065.248, and the gases being blended meet the 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) of this section, the 
resulting blends

[[Page 30135]]

are considered to meet the requirements of this paragraph (a).
* * * * *

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
277. Section 1065.805 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1065.805  Sampling system.

* * * * *
    (d) You may bubble a sample of the exhaust through water to collect 
alcohols for later analysis. You may also use a photo-acoustic analyzer 
to quantify ethanol and methanol in an exhaust sample as described in 
Sec.  1065.269.
* * * * *
    (f) You may sample alcohols or carbonyls using ``California Non-
Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures'' (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  1065.1010). If you use this method, follow its calculations to 
determine the mass of the alcohol/carbonyl in the exhaust sample, but 
follow subpart G of this part for all other calculations (40 CFR part 
1066, subpart G, for vehicle testing).
* * * * *
0
278. Section 1065.845 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c), 
respectively, and adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.845  Response factor determination.

    Since FID analyzers generally have an incomplete response to 
alcohols and carbonyls, determine each FID analyzer's alcohol/carbonyl 
response factor (such as RFMeOH) after FID optimization to 
subtract those responses from the FID reading. Use the most recently 
determined alcohol/carbonyl response factors to compensate for alcohol/
carbonyl response. You are not required to determine the response 
factor for a compound unless you will subtract its response to 
compensate for a response.
    (a) You may generate response factors as described in paragraph (b) 
of this section, or you may use the following default response factors, 
consistent with good engineering judgment:

 Table 1 of Sec.   1065.665--Default Values for THC FID Response Factor
              Relative to Propane on a C1-Equivalent Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Response
                        Compound                            factor (RF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetaldehyde............................................            0.50
ethanol.................................................            0.75
formaldehyde............................................            0.00
methanol................................................            0.63
propanol................................................            0.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
279. Section 1065.850 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.850  Calculations.

    Use the calculations specified in Sec.  1065.665 to determine THCE 
or NMHCE and the calculations specified in 40 CFR 1066.665 to determine 
NMOG.

Subpart K--[Amended]

0
280. Section 1065.1001 is amended by removing the definition for 
``Engine'' and revising the definitions for ``C1 equivalent 
(or basis)'', ``Oxygenated fuels'', and ``Precision'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1065.1001  Definitions.

* * * * *
    C1 equivalent (or basis) means a convention of expressing HC 
concentrations based on the total number of carbon atoms present, such 
that the C1 equivalent of a molar HC concentration equals 
the molar concentration multiplied by the mean number of carbon atoms 
in each HC molecule. For example, the C1 equivalent of 10 
[mu]mol/mol of propane (C3H8) is 30 [mu]mol/mol. 
C1 equivalent molar values may be denoted as ``ppmC'' in the 
standard-setting part. Molar mass may also be expressed on a 
C1 basis. Note that calculating HC masses from molar 
concentrations and molar masses is only valid where they are each 
expressed on the same carbon basis.
* * * * *
    Oxygenated fuels means fuels composed of at least 25% oxygen-
containing compounds, such as ethanol or methanol. Testing engines that 
use oxygenated fuels generally requires the use of the sampling methods 
in subpart I of this part. However, you should read the standard-
setting part and subpart I of this part to determine appropriate 
sampling methods.
* * * * *
    Precision means two times the standard deviation of a set of 
measured values of a single zero or reference quantity. See also the 
related definitions of noise and repeatability in this section.
* * * * *
0
281. Section 1065.1005 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  1065.1005  Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of 
measure.

* * * * *
    (a) Symbols for quantities. This part uses the following symbols 
and units of measure for various quantities:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Symbol                      Quantity                           Unit                    Unit symbol            Units in terms of SI base units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[alpha]............  atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio.....  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
A..................  area................................  square meter..............  m\2\....................  m\2\
A0.................  intercept of least squares
                      regression.
A1.................  slope of least squares regression...
[beta].............  ratio of diameters..................  meter per meter...........  m/m.....................  1
[beta].............  atomic oxygen to carbon ratio.......  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
C#.................  number of carbon atoms in a molecule
d..................  Diameter............................  meter.....................  m.......................  m
DR.................  dilution ratio......................  mole per mol..............  mol/mol.................  1
[egr]..............  error between a quantity and its
                      reference.
e..................  brake-specific emission or fuel       gram per kilowatt hour....  g/(kW[middot]hr)........  g[middot]3.6-1[middot]10\6\[middot]m-
                      consumption.                                                                                2[middot]kg[middot]s\2\
F..................  F-test statistic....................
f..................  frequency...........................  hertz.....................  Hz......................  s-1
fn.................  angular speed (shaft)...............  revolutions per minute....  r/min...................  2[middot][pi][middot]60-
                                                                                                                  1[middot]m[middot]m-1[middot]s-1

[[Page 30136]]

 
[gamma]............  ratio of specific heats.............  (joule per kilogram         (J/(kg[middot]K))/(J/     1
                                                            kelvin) per (joule per      (kg[middot]K)).
                                                            kilogram kelvin).
K..................  correction factor...................  1.........................
Kv.................  calibration coefficient.............  ..........................  m\4\[middot]s[middot]K\0  m\4\[middot]s[middot]K\0.5\[middot]kg-1
                                                                                        .5\/kg.
l..................  length..............................  meter.....................  m.......................  m
[mu]...............  viscosity, dynamic..................  pascal second.............  Pa[middot]s.............  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-1
M..................  molar mass\1\.......................  gram per mole.............  g/mol...................  10-3[middot]kg[middot]mol-1
m..................  mass................................  kilogram..................  kg......................  kg
m..................  mass rate...........................  kilogram per second.......  kg/s....................  kg[middot]s-1
[nu]...............  viscosity, kinematic................  meter squared per second..  m\2\/s..................  m\2\[middot]s-1
N..................  total number in series..............
n..................  amount of substance.................  mole......................  mol.....................  mol
n..................  amount of substance rate............  mole per second...........  mol/s...................  mol[middot]s-1
P..................  power...............................  kilowatt..................  kW......................  10\3\[middot]m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-3
PF.................  penetration fraction................
p..................  pressure............................  pascal....................  Pa......................  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-2
[rho]..............  mass density........................  kilogram per cubic meter..  kg/m\3\.................  kg[middot]m-3
r..................  ratio of pressures..................  pascal per pascal.........  Pa/Pa...................  1
R\2\...............  coefficient of determination........
Ra.................  average surface roughness...........  micrometer................  [mu]m...................  10-6 m
Re#................  Reynolds number.....................
RF.................  response factor.....................
RH.................  relative humidity...................
[sigma]............  non-biased standard deviation.......
S..................  Sutherland constant.................  kelvin....................  K.......................  K
SEE................  standard estimate of error..........
T..................  absolute temperature................  kelvin....................  K.......................  K
T..................  Celsius temperature.................  degree Celsius............  [deg]C..................  K-273.15
T..................  torque (moment of force)............  newton meter..............  N[middot]m..............  m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-2
t..................  time................................  second....................  s.......................  s
[Delta]t...........  time interval, period, 1/frequency..  second....................  s.......................  s
V..................  volume..............................  cubic meter...............  m\3\....................  m\3\
V..................  volume rate.........................  cubic meter per second....  m\3\/s..................  m\3\[middot]s-1
W..................  work................................  kilowatt hour.............  kW[middot]hr............  3.6[middot]10-
                                                                                                                  6[middot]m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-2
wc.................  carbon mass fraction................  gram per gram.............  g/g.....................  1
x..................  amount of substance mole fraction     mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
                      \2\.
x..................  flow-weighted mean concentration....  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
y..................  generic variable....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the values to use for molar masses. Note that in the cases of NOX and HC, the regulations specify effective
  molar masses based on assumed speciation rather than actual speciation.
\2\ Note that mole fractions for THC, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, and NOTHC are expressed on a C1 equivalent basis.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar 
masses of chemical species:

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             g/mol (10-\3\[middot]kg[middot]mol-
        Symbol                                Quantity                                       \1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mair..................  molar mass of dry air \1\..........................  28.96559
MAr...................  molar mass of argon................................  39.948
MC....................  molar mass of carbon...............................  12.0107
MCH3OH................  molar mass of methanol.............................  32.04186
MC2H5OH...............  molar mass of ethanol..............................  46.06844
MC2H4O................  molar mass of acetaldehyde.........................  44.05256
MC3H8.................  molar mass of propane..............................  44.09562
MC3H7OH...............  molar mass of propanol.............................  60.09502
MCO...................  molar mass of carbon monoxide......................  28.0101
MCH4..................  molar mass of methane..............................  16.0425
MCO2..................  molar mass of carbon dioxide.......................  44.0095
MH....................  molar mass of atomic hydrogen......................  1.00794
MH2...................  molar mass of molecular hydrogen...................  2.01588
MH2O..................  molar mass of water................................  18.01528
MHCHO.................  molar mass of formaldehyde.........................  30.02598
MHe...................  molar mass of helium...............................  4.002602
MN....................  molar mass of atomic nitrogen......................  14.0067
MN2...................  molar mass of molecular nitrogen...................  28.0134
MNH3..................  molar mass of ammonia..............................  17.03052

[[Page 30137]]

 
MNMHC.................  effective C1 molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon    13.875389
                         \2\.
MNMHCE................  effective C1 molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon    13.875389
                         equivalent \2\.
MNOx..................  effective molar mass of oxides of nitrogen \3\.....  46.0055
MN2O..................  molar mass of nitrous oxide........................  44.0128
MO....................  molar mass of atomic oxygen........................  15.9994
MO2...................  molar mass of molecular oxygen.....................  31.9988
MS....................  molar mass of sulfur...............................  32.065
MTHC..................  effective C1 molar mass of total hydrocarbon \2\...  13.875389
MTHCE.................  effective C1 molar mass of total hydrocarbon         13.875389
                         equivalent \2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air.
\2\ The effective molar masses of THC, THCE, NMHC, and NMHCE are defined on a C1 basis and are based on an
  atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, [alpha], of 1.85 (with [beta], [gamma], and [delta] equal to zero).
\3\ The effective molar mass of NOX is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO2.

* * * * *
0
282. Section 1065.1010 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1065.1010  Reference materials.

* * * * *
    (a) ASTM materials. Copies of these materials may be obtained from 
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or by calling (877) 909-ASTM, or at https://www.astm.org.
    (1) ASTM D86-11b, Standard Test Method for Distillation of 
Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
1065.703, 1065.710.
    (2) ASTM D93-12, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky- 
Martens Closed Cup Tester, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.703.
    (3) ASTM D445-12, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of 
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity), 
IBR approved for Sec.  1065.703.
    (4) ASTM D613-10a, Standard Test Method for Cetane Number of Diesel 
Fuel Oil, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.703.
    (5) ASTM D910-11, Standard Specification for Aviation Gasolines, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701.
    (6) ASTM D975-12a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.701.
    (7) ASTM D1267-02 (Reapproved 2007), Standard Test Method for Gage 
Vapor Pressure of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases (LP-Gas Method), IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.720.
    (8) ASTM D1319-10, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.710.
    (9) ASTM D1655-12, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine 
Fuels, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701.
    (10) ASTM D1837-11, Standard Test Method for Volatility of 
Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720.
    (11) ASTM D1838-12, Standard Test Method for Copper Strip Corrosion 
by Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720.
    (12) ASTM D1945-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.715.
    (13) ASTM D2158-11, Standard Test Method for Residues in Liquefied 
Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720.
    (14) ASTM D2163-07, Standard Test Method for Analysis of Liquefied 
Petroleum (LP) Gases and Propene Concentrates by Gas Chromatography, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720.
    (15) ASTM D2598-02 (Reapproved 2007), Standard Practice for 
Calculation of Certain Physical Properties of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) 
Gases from Compositional Analysis, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720.
    (16) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  1065.703, 1065.710.
    (17) ASTM D2713-12, Standard Test Method for Dryness of Propane 
(Valve Freeze Method), IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720.
    (18) ASTM D2784-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Liquefied 
Petroleum Gases (Oxy-Hydrogen Burner or Lamp), IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.720.
    (19) ASTM D2880-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Specification for 
Gas Turbine Fuel Oils, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701.
    (20) ASTM D2986-95a (Reapproved 1999), Standard Practice for 
Evaluation of Air Assay Media by the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl 
Phthalate) Smoke Test, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.170.
    (21) ASTM D3231-11, Standard Test Method for Phosphorus in 
Gasoline, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710.
    (22) ASTM D3237-12, Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline By 
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710.
    (23) ASTM D4052-11, Standard Test Method for Density and Relative 
Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.703.
    (24) ASTM D4629-12, Standard Test Method for Trace Nitrogen in 
Liquid Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Syringe/Inlet Oxidative Combustion and 
Chemiluminescence Detection, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.655.
    (25) ASTM D4814-11b, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701.
    (26) ASTM D4815-09, Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, 
ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to 
C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1065.710.
    (27) ASTM D5186-03 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of the Aromatic Content and Polynuclear Aromatic Content 
of Diesel Fuels and Aviation Turbine Fuels By Supercritical Fluid 
Chromatography, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.703.
    (28) ASTM D5191-12, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of 
Petroleum Products (Mini Method), IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710.
    (29) ASTM D5291-10, Standard Test Method for Instrumental 
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products 
and Lubricants, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.655.
    (30) ASTM D5599-00 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and 
Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.655.
    (31) ASTM D5762-12, Standard Test Method for Nitrogen in Petroleum 
and

[[Page 30138]]

Petroleum Products by Boat-Inlet Chemiluminescence, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1065.655.
    (32) ASTM D5797-07, Standard Specification for Fuel Methanol (M70- 
M85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.701.
    (33) ASTM D5798-11, Standard Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed75- 
Ed85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.701.
    (34) ASTM D6615-11a, Standard Specification for Jet B Wide-Cut 
Aviation Turbine Fuel, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701.
    (35) ASTM D6751-12, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend 
Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.701.
    (36) ASTM D6985-04a, Standard Specification for Middle Distillate 
Fuel Oil--Military Marine Applications, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.701.
    (37) ASTM F1471-09, Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 
Performance of a High- Efficiency Particulate Air Filter System, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.1001.
* * * * *
    (f) SAE material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from 
the Society of Automotive Engineers International, 400 Commonwealth 
Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, or by calling (724) 776-4841, or at 
https://www.sae.org.
    (1) SAE 770141, 1977, Optimization of Flame Ionization Detector for 
Determination of Hydrocarbon in Diluted Automotive Exhausts, Glenn D. 
Reschke, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.360.
    (2) SAE J1151, Methane Measurement Using Gas Chromatography, 
Revised September 2011, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1065.267 and 
1065.750.

0
283. A new subpart L is added to read as follows:
Subpart L--Methods for Unregulated and Special Pollutants
Sec.
1065.1101 Applicability.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
1065.1103 General provisions for SVOC measurement.
1065.1105 Sampling system design.
1065.1107 Sample media and sample system preparation; sampler 
assembly.
1065.1109 Post-test sampler disassembly and sample extraction.
1065.1111 Sample analysis.

Subpart L--Methods for Unregulated and Special Pollutants


Sec.  1065.1101  Applicability.

    This subpart specifies procedures that may be used to measure 
emission constituents that are not measured (or not separately 
measured) by the test procedures in the other subparts of this part. 
These procedures are included to facilitate consistent measurement of 
unregulated pollutants primarily for purposes other than compliance 
with emission standards. Unless otherwise specified in the standard-
setting part, use of these procedures is optional and does not replace 
any requirements in the rest of this part.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds


Sec.  1065.1103  General provisions for SVOC measurement.

    The provisions of Sec. Sec.  1065.1103 through 1065.1111 specify 
procedures for the measurement of semi-volatile organic compounds 
(SVOC) along with PM. The provisions of these sections specify how to 
collect a sample of the SVOCs during exhaust testing procedures, as 
well as how to use wet chemistry techniques to extract SVOCs from the 
sample media for analysis. Note that the precise method you use will 
depend on the category of SVOCs being measured. For example, the method 
used to measure polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) will differ 
slightly from the method used to measure dioxins.
    (a) Laboratory cleanliness is especially important throughout the 
course of SVOC testing. Thoroughly clean all sample train components 
and glassware before testing to avoid sample contamination.
    (b) Throughout the course of your testing we recommend that media 
blanks be analyzed for each batch of media (sorbent, filters, etc.) 
that is prepared for testing. Blank sorbent modules with inlet and 
outlet covered (i.e., field blanks) should periodically accompany the 
test sample train throughout the course of a test, including the sample 
train and sorbent module disassembly, sample packaging, and storage. 
Use good engineering judgment to determine the frequency of field 
blanks. During testing, the field blank sample train should reside in 
close proximity to the sampler.
    (c) We recommend the use of isotope dilution techniques, including 
the use of isotopically labeled surrogate, internal, alternate, and 
injection standards.
    (d) If your target analytes degrade when exposed to ultraviolet 
radiation (such as nPAH), perform these procedures in the dark or with 
ultraviolet filters installed over the lights.
    (e) Follow standard analytic chemistry methods for aspects of the 
analysis not specified.
    (f) The following definitions and abbreviations apply for SVOC 
measurements:
    (1) Soxhlet extraction means the extraction method invented by 
Franz von Soxhlet, in which the sample is placed in a thimble and 
rinsed repeatedly with a recycle of the extraction solvent.
    (2) XAD-2 means a hydrophobic cross linked polystyrene copolymer 
resin adsorbent known commercially as Amberlite[supreg] XAD[supreg]-2, 
or an equivalent adsorbent.
    (3) Semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) means an organic compound 
that is sufficiently volatile to exist in vapor form in engine exhaust, 
but that readily condenses to liquid or solid form under atmospheric 
conditions. Most SVOCs have at least 14 carbon atoms per molecule and 
have a boiling point between 240 [deg]C and 400 [deg]C. SVOCs include 
dioxin, quinone, and nitro-PAH compounds. They may be a natural 
byproduct of combustion or created post combustion. Note that SVOCs may 
be detected as hydrocarbons and/or PM using the measurement procedures 
specified in this part; in other words, some fraction of measured mass 
of hydrocarbons and/or PM may be SVOCs.
    (4) Kuderna-Danish concentrator means laboratory glassware known by 
this name that consists of an air-cooled condenser on top of an 
extraction bulb.
    (5) Dean-Stark trap means laboratory glassware known by this name 
that uses a reflux condenser to collect water from samples extracted 
under reflux.
    (6) PUF means polyurethane foam.
    (7) Isotopically labeled means relating to a compound in which 
either all of the hydrogen atoms are replaced with the atomic isotope 
hydrogen-2 (deuterium) or one of the carbon atoms at a defined position 
in the molecule is replaced with the atomic isotope carbon-13.


Sec.  1065.1105  Sampling system design.

    (a) General. We recommend that you design your SVOC batch sampler 
to extract sample from undiluted emissions to minimize the amount of 
SVOCs lost to the system. To the extent practical, adjust sampling 
times based on the rate of emission of target analytes from the engine 
to obtain analyte concentrations above the limit of detection. In some 
instances you may need to run repeat test cycles without replacing the 
sample media or disassembly of the batch sampler.
    (b) Sample probe, transfer lines, and sample media holder design 
and construction. The sampling system should consist of a sample probe, 
transfer line, PM filter holder, cooling coil, sorbent module, and 
condensate trap. Construct sample probes, transfer lines, and sample 
media holders that

[[Page 30139]]

have inside surfaces of Nickel, Titanium or another nonreactive 
material capable of withstanding raw exhaust gas temperatures. All 
joints in the hot zone of the system should be sealed with gaskets made 
of nonreactive material similar to that of the sample train components. 
Teflon gaskets may be used in the cold zone. We recommend keeping the 
sampling system length as short as possible by locating all components 
as close to probes as practical to minimize the surface exposed to the 
exhaust.
    (c) Sample system configuration. This paragraph (c) specifies the 
components necessary to collect SVOC samples, along with our 
recommended design parameters. Where you do not follow our 
recommendations, use good engineering judgment to design your sampling 
system so that it does not result in loss of SVOC during sampling. The 
sampling system should contain the following components in series in 
the order listed:
    (1) Sample probe. Use a sample probe similar to the PM sample probe 
specified in subpart B of this part. We recommend that you heat the 
sample probe with a set point no higher the 200 [deg]C. Note that heat 
from the engine exhaust may cause the probe temperature to exceed 200 
[deg]C at some points during the test.
    (2) Filter holder. Use a PM filter holder similar to type of holder 
specified in subpart B of this part, although you will likely need to 
use a larger size to accommodate the high sample flow rates. We 
recommend the use of 110 mm filter for the testing of engines that 
utilize exhaust after treatment for removal of PM and 293 mm filters 
for engines that do not. You may heat the filter holder, but we 
recommend that your set point does not exceed 200 [deg]C. Note that 
this differs from normal PM sampling procedures which maintain the 
filter at a much lower temperature to capture a significant fraction of 
exhaust SVOCs on the filter. In this method SVOCs that pass through the 
filter will be collected on the downstream sorbent module.
    (3) Cooling coil. Use good engineering judgment to design a cooling 
coil (to be used with the water bath described in paragraph (e) of this 
section) that will drop the sample temperature to approximately 5 
[deg]C. Note that downstream of the cooling coil, the sample will be a 
mixture of a vapor phase hydrocarbons in CO2 and air and a 
primarily aqueous liquid phase.
    (4) Sorbent and sorbent module. Use a hydrophobic sorbent in a 
sealed sorbent module. Note that this sorbent module is intended to be 
the final stage for collecting the SVOC sample and should be sized 
accordingly. We recommend sizing the module to hold 40 g of XAD-2 along 
with polyurethane (PUF) plugs at either end of the module.
    (5) Condensate trap/drain. Include a condensate trap to separate 
the aqueous liquid phase from the gas stream. We recommend using a 
peristaltic pump to remove water from the condensate trap over the 
course of the test to prevent build up of the condensate. Note that for 
some tests it may be appropriate to collect this water for analysis.
    (d) Sampler flow control. For testing using the recommended filter 
and sorbent module sizes, we recommended targeting an average sample 
flow rate of 70 l/min to maximize SVOC collection. The sampler must be 
designed to maintain proportional sampling throughout the test. Verify 
proportional sampling after an emission test as described in Sec.  
1065.545.
    (e) Water bath. Design the sample system with a water bath in which 
the cooling coil, sorbent module, and condensate trap will be 
submerged. Use a heat exchanger or ice to maintain the bath temperature 
at (3 to 7) [deg]C.


Sec.  1065.1107  Sample media and sample system preparation; sampler 
assembly.

    This section describes the types of sample media to be used as well 
as the cleaning procedure required to prepare the media and wetted 
sample surfaces for sampling.
    (a) Sample media. The sampling system uses two types of sample 
media in series: The first to simultaneously capture the PM and some of 
the SVOCs, and a second to capture SVOCs that remain in the gas phase. 
Use the following sample media for capture of PM and gas phase SVOCs:
    (1) For capture of PM, use pure quartz filters that do not contain 
any binder. Size the filter diameter to account for the expected PM 
emission rate, sample flow rate, and number of repeat tests to minimize 
filter change intervals. Note that when repeating test cycles to 
increase sample mass, you may replace the filter without replacing the 
sorbent or otherwise disassembling the batch sampler. In those cases 
include all filters in the extraction.
    (2) For capture of gaseous SVOCs, utilize XAD-2 resin contained 
between two PUF plugs.
    (b) Sample media and sampler preparation. Prepare pre-cleaned PM 
filters and pre-cleaned PUF/XAD-2 as needed. If the media is not to be 
used immediately after cleaning, store it in containers protected from 
light and ambient air.
    (1) Pre-clean the filters via Soxhlet extraction with methylene 
chloride for 24 hours and dry over dry nitrogen in a low temperature 
vacuum oven.
    (2) Pre-clean PUF and XAD-2 via a series of Soxhlet extractions: 8 
h with water, 22 h with methanol, 22 h with methylene chloride, and 22 
hours with toluene followed by drying with nitrogen.
    (3) Clean sampler components including the probe, filter holder, 
condenser, sorbent module, and condensate collection vessel by rinsing 
three times with methylene chloride followed by three rinses with 
toluene. Prepare pre-cleaned aluminum foil for capping the probe inlet 
of the sampler after the sample train has been assembled.
    (c) Sorbent spiking. Use good engineering judgment to verify the 
extent to which your extraction methods recover SVOCs absorbed to the 
sample media. We recommend spiking the XAD-2 resin with a surrogate 
standard prior to testing with a carbon-13 or hydrogen-2 isotopically 
labeled standard for each of the class of analytes targeted for 
analysis. Perform this spiking as follows:
    (1) Insert the lower PUF plug into the bottom of the sorbent 
module.
    (2) Add half of one portion of XAD-2 resin to the module and spike 
the XAD-2 in the module with the standard.
    (3) Wait 1 hour for the solvent from the standard(s) to evaporate 
and then add the remaining 20 g of the XAD-2 resin to the module 
followed by the top PUF plug.
    (4) Cover the inlet and outlet of the sorbent module with pre-
cleaned aluminum foil.
    (d) Sample train assembly. Upon completion of the sample media and 
sampler preparation, assemble the condensate trap, cooling coil, filter 
holder with filter, and sample probe to the sorbent module and lower 
assembly into the reservoir. Cover the probe inlet with pre-cleaned 
aluminum foil.


Sec.  1065.1109  Post-test sampler disassembly and sample extraction.

    This section describes the process for sample train disassembly, 
sample train rinsing, sample extraction, and sample clean-up.
    (a) Sample train disassembly. Disassemble the sample train in a 
clean environment upon completion of testing. Prepare to extract the 
SVOCs as follows:
    (1) Remove the PM filter, PUF, and all of the XAD-2 from the sample 
train and place them into a Soxhlet extraction

[[Page 30140]]

thimble. If the sample media are to be stored, store them at <= 37 
[deg]C.
    (2) Rinse sample train wetted surfaces upstream of the condensate 
trap with acetone followed by toluene (or a comparable solvent system), 
ensuring that all of the solvent that remains in liquid phase is 
collected (note that a fraction of the acetone and toluene will likely 
be lost via evaporation during mixing.) Rinse with solvent volumes that 
are sufficient to cover the all of the surfaces exposed to sample 
during testing. We recommend three fresh solvent rinses with acetone 
and two with toluene. We recommend rinse volumes of 60 mL per rinse for 
all sample train components except the condenser coil, of which you 
should use 200 mL per rinse. Keep the acetone rinsate separate from the 
toluene rinsate to the extent practicable. Rinsate fractions should be 
stored separately in glass bottles that have been pre-rinsed with 
acetone, hexane, and toluene (or bottles purchased pre-cleaned).
    (3) Use good engineering judgment to determine if you should 
analyze the aqueous condensate phase for SVOCs. If you determine that 
analysis is necessary, use toluene to perform a liquid-liquid 
extraction of the SVOCs from the collected aqueous condensate using a 
sepratory funnel or equivalent. Add the toluene from this aqueous 
extraction to the toluene rinsate fraction mentioned in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section.
    (4) Reduce rinsate solvent volumes as needed using a Kuderna-Danish 
concentrator or rotary evaporator and retain these rinse solvents for 
reuse during sample media extraction for the same test. Care should be 
taken when concentrating via rotary evaporation to avoid loss of low 
molecular weight analytes.
    (b) Sample extraction. Extract the SVOCs from the sorbent using 
Soxhlet extraction as described in this paragraph (b). To accommodate 
the Soxhlet extractions of all SVOCs from a single sample, two 16 hour 
extractions are required. This will reduce the possibility of loss of 
low molecular weight SVOCs and promote water removal. We recommend 
performing the first extraction with acetone/hexane and the second 
using toluene (or an equivalent solvent system).
    (1) We recommend equipping the Soxhlet extractor with a Dean-Stark 
trap to facilitate the removal of residual water from the sample train 
rinse. The Soxhlet apparatus must be large enough to allow extraction 
of the PUF, XAD-2, and filter in a single batch. Include in the 
extractor setup a glass thimble with a coarse or extra coarse sintered 
glass bottom. Pre-clean the extractor using proper glass cleaning 
procedures. We recommend that the Soxhlet apparatus be cleaned with a 4 
to 8 hr Soxhlet extraction with methylene chloride at a cycling rate of 
3 cycles per hour. Discard the solvent used for pre-cleaning (no 
analysis is necessary).
    (2) Load the extractor thimble before placing it in the extractor 
by first rolling the PM filter around the inner circumference of the 
thimble with the sampled side facing in. Push one PUF plug down into 
the bottom of the thimble then add approximately half of the XAD-2. The 
then spike the XAD-2 in the thimble with the isotopically labeled 
extraction standards of known mass. Target the center of the XAD-2 bed 
for extraction standard delivery. We recommend using multiple 
isotopically labeled extraction standards that cover the range of 
target analytes. Generally this means that you should use isotopically 
labeled standards at least for the lowest and highest molecular weight 
analytes for each category of compounds (such as PAHs and dioxins). 
These extraction standards monitor the efficiency of the extraction and 
are also used to determine analyte concentrations after analysis. Upon 
completion of spiking, add the remaining XAD-2 to the thimble followed 
by the remaining PUF plug. Then place the thimble into the extractor.
    (3) For the initial extraction, combine the concentrated acetone 
rinses (from the sample train in paragraph (a) of this section) with 
enough hexane to bring the solvent volume up to the target level of 700 
mL. Assemble the extractor and turn on the heating controls and cooling 
water. Allow the sample to reflux for 16 hours with the rheostat 
adjusted so that the extraction cycles at a rate of 3.0 0.5 
cycles per hour. Drain the water from the Dean-Stark trap as it accrues 
by opening the stopcock on the trap. Discard this water unless it is to 
be analyzed. In most cases, any water present will be removed within 
approximately 2 hours of the start of the extraction.
    (4) Upon completion of the initial extraction, remove the solvent 
and concentrate it to 4.0 0.5 mL using a Kuderna-Danish 
concentrator that includes a condenser such as a three-ball Snyder 
column with venting dimples and graduated collection tube. The use of 
this concentrator will minimize evaporative loss of lower molecular 
weight analytes.
    (i) Rinse the round bottom flask of the extractor with 60 to 100 mL 
of hexane and add the rinsate to this concentrated extract.
    (ii) Concentrate the mixture to 4 0.5 mL using a 
Kuderna-Danish concentrator or similar concentration apparatus.
    (iii) Repeat paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section 3 times 
or as necessary, to remove all of the residual solvent from the 
extractor round bottom flask, concentrating the final rinse to 4 0.5 mL.
    (5) For the second extraction, combine the toluene rinses (from the 
sample train in paragraph (a) of this section) with any additional 
toluene needed to bring the solvent volume up to the target level of 
700 mL. As noted in this paragraph (a) of this section, you may need to 
concentrate the rinse prior to addition to the extraction apparatus if 
the rinse solvent volume is too large. Allow the sample to reflux for 
16 hours with the rheostat adjusted so that the extraction cycles at a 
rate of 3.0 0.5 cycles per hour. Although little or no 
water should be present during this stage, check the Dean-Stark trap 
during the first 2 hours of the extraction.
    (6) Upon completion of the second extraction, remove the solvent 
and concentrate it to 4 0.5 mL as described in paragraph 
(b)(4) of this section. Using hexane from paragraph (4) of this section 
as the rinse solvent, effectively performs a solvent exchange of 
toluene with hexane.
    (7) Combine the concentrated extract from paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section with the concentrated extract from paragraph (b)(6) of this 
section. Divide the extract into a number of fractions based on the 
number of analyses to be performed. Perform the separate sample clean 
up described in paragraph (c) of this section as needed for each 
fraction.
    (c) Sample clean up. This paragraph (c) describes how to perform 
sample cleaning to remove unwanted SVOCs (that is, those SVOCs which 
you are not analyzing for) and solids from the sample extract before 
analysis. This process, which is known as ``sample clean up, reduces 
the potential for interference or co-elution of peaks during analytical 
analysis. Before proceeding with the sample clean up, spike the extract 
with an alternate standard that contains a known mass of isotopically 
labeled compounds that are identical (with the exception of the 
labeling) to the target analytes. The number of compounds that make up 
the standard will be determined by the category of the target analyte 
compounds (such as PAHs or dioxin). For example, PAHs require the use 
of 4 compounds in the alternate standard to cover the 4 basic ring 
structures of PAHs (2-ring, 3-ring, 4-ring, and 5-ring structures). 
These alternate standards

[[Page 30141]]

are used to monitor the efficiency of the clean up procedure. Before 
sample clean up, concentrate the fractionated sample to about 2 mL with 
a Kuderna-Danish concentrator or rotary evaporator, and then transfer 
the extract to an 8-mL test tube with hexane rinse. Concentrate to a 
volume of about 1 mL using a Kuderna-Danish concentrator. Since there 
are several column chromatographic cleanup options available, use good 
engineering judgment to select one appropriate for your target 
analytes. Note that these clean-up techniques generally remove 
compounds based on their polarity. The clean up procedures given in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are examples of clean-up 
techniques for PAHs and nitropolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (nPAHs).
    (1) PAH clean up. The following method is appropriate for cleaning 
up extracts intended for analysis of PAHs:
    (i) Pack a glass gravity column (250 mm x 10 mm recommended) by 
inserting a clean glass wool plug into the bottom of the column 
followed by the addition of 10 grams of activated silica gel in 
methylene chloride. Tap the column to settle the silica gel, and then 
add a 1 cm layer of anhydrous sodium sulfate. Since variations among 
batches of silica gel may affect the elution volume of the various PAH, 
the volume of solvent required to completely elute all of the PAH must 
be verified by the analyst. The weight of the silica gel can then be 
adjusted accordingly.
    (ii) Elute the column with 40 mL of hexane. The rate for all 
elutions should be about 2 mL/min and you may use dry air or 
N2 to maintain the headspace slightly above atmospheric 
pressure to increase the elution rate. Discard the eluate just prior to 
exposure of the sodium sulfate layer to the air or N2, 
transfer the 1 mL sample extract onto the column using two additional 2 
mL rinses of hexane to complete the transfer. Just prior to exposure of 
the sodium sulfate layer to the air or N2, begin elution of 
the column with 25 mL of hexane followed by 25 mL of 40 volume % 
methylene chloride in hexane. Collect the entire eluate and concentrate 
it to about 5 mL using the Kuderna-Danish concentrator or a rotary 
evaporator. Make sure that you do not evaporate all of the solvent from 
the extract during the concentration process. Transfer to a small 
sample vial using a hexane rinse and concentrate to 100 [mu]L using a 
stream of nitrogen, gentle enough to not violently disturb the solvent. 
Store the extracts in a refrigerator at 4 [deg]C or lower away from 
light until analysis.
    (2) nPAH clean up. The following procedure, that was adapted from 
``Determination and Comparison of Nitrated-Polycyclic Aromatic 
Hydrocarbons Measured in Air and Diesel Particulate Reference 
Materials'' (Bamford, H.A., et al, Chemosphere, Vol. 50, Issue 5, pages 
575-587), is an appropriate method to clean up extracts intended for 
analysis of nPAHs:
    (i) Condition an aminopropyl solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge 
by eluting it with 20 mL of 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane 
before use. Transfer the extract quantitatively to the SPE cartridge 
with at least two methylene chloride rinsings. Elute the extract 
through the SPE cartridge by using 40 ml of 20 volume % methylene 
chloride in hexane to minimize potential interference of polar 
constituents. Then reduce the extract to 0.5 ml in hexane and subject 
the extract to normal-phase liquid chromatography using pre-prepared a 
9.6 mm X 25 cm semi-preparative Chromegabond[supreg] amino/cyano 
column, 5 [mu]m particle size to isolate the nPAH fraction. The mobile 
phase is 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane at a constant flow 
rate of 5 ml/min. Prior to each injection, the column should be back 
flashed with 60 ml of methylene chloride and then conditioned with 200 
ml of 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane. Collect the effluent 
and concentrate to about 2 mL using the Kuderna-Danish concentrator or 
a rotary evaporator. Transfer to a minivial using a hexane rinse and 
concentrate to 100 [mu]L using a gentle stream of nitrogen. Store the 
extracts at 4 [deg]C or lower away from light until analysis.
    (ii) [Reserved]


Sec.  1065.1111  Sample analysis.

    This subpart does not specify chromatographic or analytical methods 
to analyze extracts, because the selection of such methods is highly 
dependent on the nature of the target analytes. However, we recommend 
that prior to whichever sample analysis you choose, you spike the 
extract with an injection standard that contains a known mass of an 
isotopically labeled compound that is identical (with the exception of 
the labeling) to one of the target analytes. This injection standard is 
used to monitor the efficiency of the analytical process by verifying 
the volume of sample injected for analysis.
0
284. Part 1066 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1066--VEHICLE-TESTING PROCEDURES

Subpart A--Applicability and General Provisions
1066.1 Applicability.
1066.2 Submitting information to EPA under this part.
1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the 
standard-setting part.
1066.10 Other procedures.
1066.15 Overview of test procedures.
1066.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations.
1066.25 Recordkeeping.
Subpart B--Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical Gas 
Specifications
1066.101 Overview.
1066.105 Ambient controls and vehicle cooling fans.
1066.110 Equipment specifications for emission sampling systems.
1066.120 Measurement instruments.
1065.122 Data updating, recording, and control for measurement 
instruments.
1066.130 Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications.
1066.137 Linearity verification.
1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration.
1066.145 Engine fluids, test fuels, analytical gases, and other 
calibration standards.
1066.150 Analyzer interference and quench verification limit.
Subpart C--Dynamometer Specifications
1066.201 Dynamometer overview.
1066.210 Dynamometers.
1066.215 Summary of verification and calibration procedures for 
chassis dynamometers.
1066.220 Linearity verification for chassis dynamometer systems.
1066.225 Roll runout and diameter verification procedure.
1066.230 Time verification procedure.
1066.235 Speed verification procedure.
1066.240 Torque transducer calibration.
1066.245 Response time verification.
1066.250 Base inertia verification.
1066.255 Parasitic loss verification.
1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation evaluation.
1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration verification.
1066.270 Unloaded coastdown verification.
1066.280 Daily dynamometer readiness verification.
1066.290 Driver's aid.
Subpart D--Coastdown
1066.301 Overview of coastdown procedures.
1066.305 Coastdown procedures for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 
pounds GVWR.
1066.310 Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.
1066.320 Dynamometer road-load setting.
Subpart E--Preparing Vehicles and Running an Exhaust Emission Test
1066.401 Overview.
1066.407 Vehicle preparation and preconditioning.

[[Page 30142]]

1066.410 Dynamometer test procedure.
1066.420 Vehicle operation.
1066.425 Test preparation.
1066.430 Performing emission tests.
Subpart F--Hybrids and Electric Vehicles
1066.501 Overview.
Subpart G--Calculations
1066.601 Overview.
1066.610 Mass-based and molar-based exhaust emission calculations.
1066.620 Dilution air background correction.
1066.630 NOX intake-air humidity correction.
1066.640 Removed water correction.
1066.650 Flow meter calibration calculations.
1066.652 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations.
1066.665 NMOG determination.
1066.695 Data requirements.
Subpart H--Cold-Temperature Test Procedures
1066.701 Applicability and general provisions.
1066.710 Cold-testing procedures for measuring CO and NMHC emissions 
and determining fuel economy.
Subpart I--Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles
1066.801 Applicability and general provisions.
1066.810 Road load power, test weight, and inertia weight class 
determination.
1066.814 Vehicle preparation.
1066.820 Exhaust emission test procedures for FTP emissions.
1066.822 Composite calculations for FTP exhaust emissions.
1066.830 Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.
1066.831 Exhaust emission test procedures for agressive driving.
1066.832 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.
1066.835 AC17 Air conditioning efficiency test procedure.
1066.839 Highway fuel economy test procedure.
1066.840 Fuel storage system leak test procedure.
Subpart J--[Reserved]
Subpart K--Definitions and Other Reference Material
1066.1001 Definitions.
1066.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of measure.
1066.1010 Reference materials.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--Applicability and General Provisions


Sec.  1066.1  Applicability.

    (a) This part describes the procedures that apply to testing we 
require for the following vehicles:
    (1) Model year 2014 and later heavy-duty highway vehicles we 
regulate under 40 CFR part 1037 that are not subject to chassis testing 
for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR part 86.
    (2) Model year 2022 and later highway vehicles (light-duty and 
heavy-duty) that are subject to chassis testing for exhaust emissions 
under 40 CFR part 86. See 40 CFR part 86 for provisions describing how 
to implement this part 1066.
    (b) The procedures of this part may apply to other types of 
vehicles, as described in this part and in the standard-setting part.
    (c) The term ``you'' means anyone performing testing under this 
part other than EPA.
    (1) This part is addressed primarily to manufacturers of vehicles, 
but it applies equally to anyone who does testing under this part for 
such manufacturers.
    (2) This part applies 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.
    (d) Paragraph (a) of this section identifies the parts of the CFR 
that define emission standards and other requirements for particular 
types of vehicles. In this part, we refer to each of these other parts 
generically as the ``standard-setting part.'' For example, 40 CFR part 
1037 is the standard-setting part for heavy-duty highway vehicles and 
parts 86 and 600 are the standard-setting parts for light-duty 
vehicles. For vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, references 
to the standard-setting part include subpart I of this part.
    (e) Unless we specify otherwise, the terms ``procedures'' and 
``test procedures'' in this part include all aspects of vehicle 
testing, including the equipment specifications, calibrations, 
calculations, and other protocols and procedural specifications needed 
to measure emissions.
    (f) For additional information regarding these test procedures, 
visit our Web site at www.epa.gov, and in particular https://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/regulations.htm.


Sec.  1066.2  Submitting information to EPA under this part.

    (a) You are responsible for statements and information in your 
applications for certification, requests for approved procedures, 
selective enforcement audits, laboratory audits, production-line test 
reports, or any other statements you make to us related to this part 
1066. If you provide statements or information to someone for 
submission to EPA, you are responsible for these statements and 
information as if you had submitted them to EPA yourself.
    (b) In the standard-setting part and in 40 CFR 1068.101, we 
describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information 
and the consequences of failing to meet this obligation. See also 18 
U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2). This obligation applies whether 
you submit this information directly to EPA or through someone else.
    (c) We may void any certificates or approvals associated with a 
submission of information if we find that you intentionally submitted 
false, incomplete, or misleading information. For example, if we find 
that you intentionally submitted incomplete information to mislead EPA 
when requesting approval to use alternate test procedures, we may void 
the certificates for all engine 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.
    (d) We may require an authorized representative of your company to 
approve and sign the submission, and to certify that all the 
information submitted is accurate and complete. This includes everyone 
who submits information, including manufacturers and others.
    (e) See 40 CFR 1068.10 for provisions related to confidential 
information. Note however that under 40 CFR 2.301, emission data are 
generally not eligible for confidential treatment.
    (f) Nothing in this part should be interpreted to limit our ability 
under Clean Air Act section 208 (42 U.S.C. 7542) to verify that 
vehicles conform to the regulations.


Sec.  1066.5  Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the 
standard-setting part.

    (a) This part specifies procedures that can apply generally to 
testing various categories of vehicles. See the standard-setting part 
for directions in applying specific provisions in this part for a 
particular type of vehicle. Before using this part's procedures, read 
the standard-setting part to answer at least the following questions:
    (1) What drive schedules must I use for testing?
    (2) Should I warm up the test vehicle before measuring emissions, 
or do I need to measure cold-start emissions during a warm-up segment 
of the duty cycle?
    (3) Which exhaust constituents do I need to measure? Measure all 
exhaust constituents that are subject to emission standards, any other 
exhaust

[[Page 30143]]

constituents needed for calculating emission rates, and any additional 
exhaust constituents as specified in the standard-setting part. See 40 
CFR 1065.5 regarding requests to omit measurement of N2O and 
CH4 for vehicles, not subject to N2O or 
CH4 emission standards.
    (4) Do any unique specifications apply for test fuels?
    (5) What maintenance steps may I take before or between tests on an 
emission-data vehicle?
    (6) Do any unique requirements apply to stabilizing emission levels 
on a new vehicle?
    (7) Do any unique requirements apply to test limits, such as 
ambient temperatures or pressures?
    (8) [Reserved]
    (9) Are there any emission standards specified at particular 
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:

      Table 1 of Sec.   1066.5--Description of Part 1066 Subparts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Describes these specifications or
           This subpart                          procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A........................  Applicability and general provisions.
Subpart B........................  Equipment for testing.
Subpart C........................  Dynamometer specifications.
Subpart D........................  Coastdowns for testing.
Subpart E........................  How to prepare your vehicle and run
                                    an emission test.
Subpart F........................  How to test hybrid vehicles.
Subpart G........................  Test procedure calculations.
Subpart H........................  Cold temperature testing.
Subpart I........................  Exhaust emission test procedures for
                                    motor vehicles.
Subpart J........................  Reserved.
Subpart K........................  Definitions and reference material.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1066.10  Other procedures.

    (a) Your testing. The procedures in this part apply for all testing 
you do to show compliance with emission standards, with certain 
exceptions noted in this section. In some other sections in this part, 
we allow you to use other procedures (such as less precise or less 
accurate procedures) if they do not affect your ability to show that 
your vehicles 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 engines meet all applicable emission 
standards.
    (b) Our testing. These procedures generally apply for testing that 
we do to determine if your vehicles comply with applicable emission 
standards. We may perform other testing as allowed by the Act.
    (c) Exceptions. We may allow or require you to use procedures other 
than those specified in this part as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c). 
All the test procedures noted as exceptions to the specified procedures 
are considered generically as ``other procedures.'' Note that the terms 
``special procedures'' and ``alternate procedures'' have specific 
meanings; ``special procedures'' are those allowed by 40 CFR 
1065.10(c)(2) and ``alternate procedures'' are those allowed by 40 CFR 
1065.10(c)(7). If we require you to request approval to use other 
procedures under this paragraph (c), you may not use them until we 
approve your request.


Sec.  1066.15  Overview of test procedures.

    This section outlines the procedures to test vehicles that are 
subject to emission standards.
    (a) In the standard-setting part, we set emission standards in g/
mile (or g/km), for the following constituents:
    (1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX.
    (2) Hydrocarbons, HC, which may be expressed in the following ways:
    (i) Total hydrocarbons, THC.
    (ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting 
methane (CH4) from THC.
    (iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, THCE, which results from 
adjusting THC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
    (iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbon-equivalent, NMHCE, which results from 
adjusting NMHC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
    (v) Nonmethane organic gases, NMOG, which are calculated either 
from fully or partially speciated measurement of hydrocarbons including 
oxygenates, or by adjusting measured NMHC values based on fuel 
oxygenate properties.
    (3) Particulate mass, PM.
    (4) Carbon monoxide, CO.
    (5) Carbon dioxide, CO2.
    (6) Methane, CH4.
    (7) Nitrous oxide, N2O.
    (8) Formaldehyde, CH2O.
    (b) Note that some vehicles may not be subject to standards for all 
the emission constituents identified in paragraph (a) of this section. 
Note also that the standard-setting part may include standards for 
pollutants not listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) The provisions of this part apply for chassis dynamometer 
testing where vehicle speed is controlled to follow a prescribed duty 
cycle while simulating vehicle driving through the dynamometer's road-
load settings. We generally set emission standards over test intervals 
and/or drive schedules, as follows:
    (1) Vehicle operation. Testing involves measuring emissions and 
miles travelled while operating the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer. 
Refer to the definitions of ``duty cycle'' and ``test interval'' in 
Sec.  1066.1001. Note that a single drive schedule may have multiple 
test intervals and require weighting of results from multiple test 
intervals to calculate a composite distance-based emission value to 
compare to the standard.
    (2) Constituent determination. Determine the total mass of each 
constituent over a test interval by selecting from the following 
methods:
    (i) Continuous sampling. In continuous sampling, measure the 
constituent's concentration continuously from raw or dilute exhaust. 
Multiply this concentration by the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate 
at the emission sampling location to determine the constituent's flow 
rate. Sum the constituent's flow rate continuously over the test 
interval. This sum is the total mass of the emitted constituent.
    (ii) Batch sampling. In batch sampling, continuously extract and 
store a sample of raw or dilute exhaust for later measurement. Extract 
a sample proportional to the raw or dilute exhaust flow rate, as 
applicable. You may extract and store a proportional sample of exhaust 
in an appropriate container, such as a bag, and then measure HC, CO, 
and NOX concentrations in the container after the test 
interval. You may deposit PM from proportionally extracted exhaust onto 
an appropriate substrate, such as a filter. In this case, divide the PM 
by the amount of filtered exhaust to calculate the PM concentration. 
Multiply batch sampled concentrations by the total (raw or dilute) flow 
from which it was extracted during the test interval. This product is 
the total mass of the emitted constituent.
    (iii) Combined sampling. You may use continuous and batch sampling 
simultaneously during a test interval, as follows:

[[Page 30144]]

    (A) You may use continuous sampling for some constituents and batch 
sampling for others.
    (B) You may use continuous and batch sampling for a single 
constituent, with one being a redundant measurement, subject to the 
provisions of 40 CFR 1065.201.
    (d) Refer to the standard-setting part for calculations to 
determine g/mile emission rates.
    (e) You must use good engineering judgment for all aspects of 
testing under this part. While this part highlights several specific 
cases where good engineering judgment is especially relevant, the 
requirement to use good engineering judgment is not limited to those 
provisions where we specifically re-state this requirement.


Sec.  1066.20  Units of measure and overview of calculations.

    (a) System of units. The procedures in this part follow both 
conventional English Units and the International System of Units (SI), 
as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811, which we incorporate by 
reference in Sec.  1066.1010. Except where specified, equations work 
with any system of units. Where the equations depend on the use of 
specific units, these units are identified.
    (b) Units conversion. Use good engineering judgment to convert 
units between measurement systems as needed. For example, if you 
measure vehicle speed as kilometers per hour and we specify a precision 
requirement in terms of miles per hour, convert your measured kilometer 
per hour value to miles per hour before comparing it to our 
specification. The following conventions are used throughout this 
document and should be used to convert units as applicable:
    (1) 1 hp = 33,000 ft[middot]lbf/min = 550 ft[middot]lbf/s = 0.7457 
kW.
    (2) 1 lbf = 32.174 ft[middot]lbm/s\2\ = 4.4482 N.
    (3) 1 inch = 25.4 mm.
    (4) 1 mile = 1609.344 m.
    (5) For ideal gases, 1 [micro]mol/mol = 1 ppm.
    (6) For ideal gases, 10 mmol/mol = 1%.
    (c) Temperauture. We generally designate temperatures in units of 
degrees Celsius ([deg]C) unless a calculation requires an absolute 
temperature. In that case, we designate temperatures in units of Kelvin 
(K). For conversion purposes throughout this part, 0 [deg]C equals 
273.15 K. Unless specified otherwise, always use absolute temperature 
values for multiplying or dividing by temperature.
    (d) Absolute pressure. Measure absolute pressure directly or 
calculate it as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus a differential 
pressure that is referenced to atmospheric pressure. Always use 
absolute pressure values for multiplying or dividing by pressure.
    (e) Rounding. The rounding provisions of 40 CFR 1065.20 apply for 
calculations in this part. This generally specifies that you round 
final values but not intermediate values. Use good engineering judgment 
to record the appropriate number of significant digits for all 
measurements.
    (f) Interpretation of ranges. Interpret a range as a tolerance 
unless we explicitly identify it as an accuracy, repeatability, 
linearity, or noise specification. See 40 CFR 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 (such as X Y), 
target the associated control point to that single value (X). Examples 
of this type of range include ``10% of maximum pressure'', 
or ``(30 10) kPa''. In these examples, you would target the 
maximum pressure or 30 kPa, respectively.
    (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 1066 applies to a wide range of vehicles 
and emission standards, some of the specifications in this part are 
scaled with respect to a vehicle's applicable standard or weight. 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.


Sec.  1066.25  Recordkeeping.

    The procedures in this part include various requirements to record 
data or other information. Refer to the standard-setting part and Sec.  
1066.695 regarding recordkeeping requirements. You must promptly send 
us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may 
review them at any time.

Subpart B--Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical 
Gas Specifications


Sec.  1066.101  Overview.

    (a) This subpart addresses equipment related to emission testing, 
as well as test fuels and analytical gases. This section addresses 
emission sampling and analytical equipment, test fuels, and analytical 
gases.
    (b) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 specify engine-based 
procedures for measuring emissions. Except as specified otherwise in 
this part, the provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for testing 
required by this part as follows:
    (1) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart B, describe 
equipment specifications for exhaust dilution and sampling systems; 
these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in 
Sec.  1066.110.
    (2) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, describe 
specifications for measurement instrument; these specifications apply 
for testing under this part as described in Sec.  1066.120.
    (3) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, describe 
specifications for measurement instrument calibrations and 
verifications; these specifications apply for testing under this part 
as described in Sec.  1066.130.
    (4) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, describe 
specifications for fuels, engine fluids, and analytical gases; these 
specifications apply for testing under this part as described in Sec.  
1066.145.
    (5) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, describe 
specifications for testing with oxygenated fuels; these specifications 
apply for NMOG determinations as described in Sec.  1066.665.
    (c) The provisions of this subpart are intended to specify systems 
that can very accurately and precisely measure emissions from motor 
vehicles such as light-duty vehicles. To the extent that this level of 
accuracy and/or precision is not necessary for testing highway 
motorcycles or nonroad vehicles, we may waive or modify the 
specifications and requirements of this part for testing these other 
vehicles, consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, it 
may be appropriate to allow the use of a hydrokinetic dynamometer that 
is not able to meet all the

[[Page 30145]]

performance specifications described in this subpart.


Sec.  1066.105  Ambient controls and vehicle cooling fans.

    (a) Ambient conditions. Dynamometer testing under this part 
generally requires that you maintain the test cell within a specified 
range of ambient temperature and humidity. Use good engineering 
judgment to maintain relatively uniform temperatures throughout the 
test cell before testing. You are generally not required to maintain 
uniform temperatures throughout the test cell while the vehicle is 
running due to the heat generated by the vehicle. Measured humidity 
values must accurately represent the humidity of intake air; other than 
the intake air, humidity does not affect emissions so humidity need not 
be uniform throughout the test cell.
    (b) General requirements for cooling fans. Use good engineering 
judgment to select and configure fans to cool the test vehicle in a way 
that meets the specifications of paragraph (c) of this section and 
simulates in-use operation. If you demonstrate that the specified fan 
configuration is impractical for special vehicle designs, such as 
vehicles with rear-mounted engines, or it does not provide adequate 
cooling to properly represent in-use operation, you may ask us to 
approve increasing the fan's capacity or using additional fans.
    (c) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 
GVWR. Cooling fan specifications for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 
GVWR depend on the test cycle. Paragraph (c)(1) of this section 
summarizes the cooling fan specifications for the different test 
cycles; the detailed specifications are described in paragraphs (c)(2) 
through (5) of this section. See Sec.  1066.410 for instruction 
regarding how to use the fans during testing.
    (1) Cooling fan specifications for different test cycles are 
summarized as follows:
    (i) For FTP and LA-92 test cycles, the allowable cooling fan 
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this 
section.
    (ii) For the US06 test cycle, the allowable cooling fan 
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (5) of this 
section. The cooling fan configuration in paragraph (c)(4) of this 
section is also allowable with advance approval.
    (iii) For SC03 and AC17 test cycles, the allowable cooling fan 
configuration is described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (iv) For the HFET test cycle, the allowable cooling fan 
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this 
section.
    (2) You may use a road-speed modulated fan system meeting the 
specifications of this paragraph (c)(2) for anything other than SC03 
and AC17 testing. Use a road-speed modulated fan that achieves a linear 
speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within 3.0 mph (1.3 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed 
when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 to 13.4 m/s), and 
within 6.5 mph (2.9 m/s) of the corresponding 
roll speed at higher vehicle speeds; however you may limit the fan's 
maximum linear speed to 70 mph. We recommend that the cooling fan have 
a minimum opening of 0.2 m\2\ and a minimum width of 0.8 m.
    (i) Verify the air flow velocity for fan speed corresponding to 
vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph using an instrument that has an 
accuracy of 2% of the measured air flow speed.
    (ii) For fans with rectangular outlets, divide the fan outlet into 
the as shown in Figure 1 of this section. As denoted by the ``+'' in 
the figure, measure flow from the center of each section; however do 
not measure the flow from the center section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.041

    (iii) For fans with circular outlets, divide the fan outlet into 8 
equal sections as shown in Figure 2 of this section. As denoted by the 
``+'' in the figure, measure flow on the radial centerline of each 
section (at 22.5[deg]) at a radius of two-thirds of the total radius.

[[Page 30146]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.042

    (iv) Verify that the fan air flow velocity vector perpendicular to 
the axial flow velocity vector is less than 15% of the mean velocity 
measured at fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 
mph.
    (v) Verify that the uniformity of the fan axial flow tolerance is 
within 4.0 mph at fan speeds corresponding to 20 mph and 
within 8.0 mph at fan speeds corresponding to 40 mph. For 
example, at 20 mph, flow at all axial locations denoted by the ``+'' 
across the discharge nozzle must be between 16 and 24 mph. Measure the 
fan axial air flow velocity 60 cm from the nozzle outlet at each point 
of the discharge area grid.
    (3) For SC03 and AC17 testing, use a road-speed modulated fan with 
a minimum air flow nozzle discharge area that is equal to or exceeds 
the vehicle's frontal inlet area. We recommend using a fan with a 
discharge area of 1.7 m\2\.
    (i) Air flow volumes must be proportional to vehicle speed. When 
meeting the minimum discharge area requirements, the flow volume would 
vary from 0 m\3\/s at 0 mph to approximately 450 m\3\/s at 60 mph. If 
this fan is also the only source of test cell air circulation or if fan 
operational mechanics make the 0 mph air flow requirement impractical, 
air flow of 2 mph or less at 0 mph vehicle speed is allowed.
    (ii) Verify that the fan air flow velocity vector perpendicular to 
the axial flow velocity vector is less than 10% of the mean velocity 
measured at fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds between 20 and 
40 mph.
    (iii) Verify that the uniformity of fan axial flow tolerance is 20% 
of the fan speed corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph. For 
example, at 20 mph, flow at all axial locations across the discharge 
nozzle must be between 16 and 24 mph. Measure the fan axial air flow 
velocity 60 cm from the nozzle outlet at each point of the discharge 
area grid.
    (iv) The instrument used to verify the air velocity must have an 
accuracy of 2% of the measured air flow speed.
    (v) In addition to the road-speed modulated fan, we may approve the 
use of one or more fixed-speed fans to provide proper cooling to 
represent in-use operation, but only up to a total of 2.50 m\3\/s for 
all additional fans.
    (4) You may use a fixed-speed fan with a maximum capacity up to 
2.50 m\3\/s for FTP, LA-92, and HFET testing.
    (5) You may use a fixed-speed fan with a maximum capacity up to 
7.10 m\3\/s for US06 testing.
    (d) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. 
For all testing, use a road-speed modulated fan system that achieves a 
linear speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within 3.0 mph (1.3 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed 
when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 to 13.4 m/s), and 
within 10 mph (4.5 m/s) of the corresponding 
roll speed at higher vehicle speeds. For vehicles above 19,500 pounds 
GVWR, we recommend that the cooling fan have a minimum opening of 2.75 
m\2\, a minimum flow rate of 60 m\3\/s at 50 mph, and a minimum speed 
profile across the duct, in the free stream flow, that is 15% of the target flow rate.


Sec.  1066.110  Equipment specifications for emission sampling systems.

    (a) This section specifies equipment related to emission testing, 
other than measurement instruments. This equipment includes two broad 
categories--dynamometers (described further in subpart C of this part) 
and emission-sampling hardware. Other related sections in this subpart 
identify measurement instruments (Sec.  1066.120), describe how to 
evaluate the performance of these instruments (Sec. Sec.  1066.130 and 
1066.137), describe how to calibrate a CVS (Sec.  1066.140), specify 
engine fluids and analytical gases (Sec.  1066.145), and specify 
requirements for analyzer interference and quench verification (Sec.  
1066.150).
    (b) The following equipment specifications apply for testing under 
this part:
    (1) Tailpipe connections. Connect a vehicle's exhaust system to any 
dilution stage as follows:
    (i) Minimize laboratory exhaust tubing lengths. You may use a total 
length of laboratory tubing up to 4 m, without needing to heat or 
insulate the tubing. However, you may use a total length of laboratory 
tubing up to 10 m if you insulate and/or heat the tubing to minimize 
the temperature difference between the exhaust gas and the tubing wall 
over the course of the emission test. The laboratory exhaust tubing 
starts at the end of the vehicle's tailpipe. The laboratory exhaust 
tubing ends at the first sample point or the point of first dilution. 
You may use flexible laboratory exhaust tubing at any location in the 
laboratory exhaust system, although we recommend that you limit the 
amount of flexible tubing to the extent practicable. For multiple-
tailpipe configurations where the tailpipes combine into a single flow 
path for emission sampling, the start of the laboratory exhaust tubing 
may be taken at the last joint where the exhaust flow first becomes a 
single, combined flow.
    (ii) You may insulate or heat any laboratory exhaust tubing.
    (iii) Use laboratory exhaust tubing materials that are smooth-
walled and not chemically reactive with exhaust constituents. (For 
purposes of this paragraph (b)(1), nominally smooth spiral-style and 
accordion-style flexible tubing are considered to be smooth-walled.) 
For measurements involving

[[Page 30147]]

PM, tubing materials must also be electrically conductive. Stainless 
steel is an acceptable material for any measurements. You may use short 
sections of nonconductive flexible tubing to connect a PM sampling 
system to the vehicle's tailpipe; use good engineering judgment to 
limit the amount of nonconductive surface area exposed to the vehicle's 
exhaust.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) You must seal your system to the extent necessary to ensure 
that any remaining leaks do not affect your ability to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable standards. We recommend that you seal 
all known leaks.
    (vi) Electrically ground the entire exhaust system, with the 
exception of nonconductive flexible tubing, as allowed under paragraph 
(b)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (vii) For vehicles with multiple tailpipes, route the exhaust into 
a single flow. 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 combined flow at the first sampling point. Re 
is defined in 40 CFR 1065.640.
    (2) Provisions from 40 CFR part 1065. Use equipment specifications 
in 40 CFR 1065.140 through 40 CFR 1065.190, except as follows:
    (i) For PM background measurement, the following provisions apply 
instead of the analogous provisions in 40 CFR 1065.140(b):
    (A) You need not measure PM background for every test. You may 
apply PM background correction using a moving-average background value 
as long as your background PM sample media (e.g., filters) were all 
made by the same manufacturer from the same material. Use good 
engineering judgment to determine how many background samples make up 
the moving average and how frequently to update those values. For 
example, you might take one background sample per week and average that 
sample into previous background values, maintaining five observations 
for each calculated average value. Background sampling time should be 
representative of the test interval duration to which the background 
correction is applied.
    (B) You may sample background PM from the dilution tunnel at any 
time before or after an emission test using the same sample train used 
during the emission test. For this background sampling, the dilution 
tunnel blower must be turned on, the vehicle must be disconnected from 
the exhaust transfer tube, and the exhaust transfer tube must be 
capped.
    (C) The duration of your background sample does not need to be the 
same as the test cycle in which you are applying the background 
correction, provided it is not inconsistent with the use of good 
engineering judgment.
    (D) Your background correction may not exceed 5 [micro]g or 5% of 
the net PM mass expected at the standard, whichever allowance is 
greater.
    (ii) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.140(d)(2)(iv) do not apply.
    (iii) For PM samples, configure dilution systems using the 
following limits:
    (A) Control the dilution air temperature as described in 40 CFR 
1065.140(e)(1), except that the temperature may set to (15 to 52) 
[deg]C. Use good engineering judgment to control PM sample temperature 
as required under 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(4).
    (B) Apply the provisions of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) instead 
of 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2). Add dilution air to the raw exhaust such that 
the overall dilution factor of diluted exhaust to raw exhaust, as 
determined in Eq. 1066.620-2 or 1066.620-3, is within the range of (7:1 
to 20:1). Compliance with this dilution factor range may be determined 
for an individual test interval or as a time-weighted average over the 
entire duty cycle as determined in Eq. 1066.620-4. The maximum dilution 
factor limit of 20:1 does not apply for plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles (PHEVs) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), since the 
dilution factor is infinite when the engine is off; however we strongly 
recommend that you stay under the maximum dilution factor limit when 
the engine is running. For partial-flow sampling systems, determine 
dilution factor using Eq. 1066.620-3. When determining dilution factor 
for PM samples utilizing secondary dilution air, multiply the dilution 
factor by the dilution ratio of secondary dilution air to primary 
diluted exhaust.
    (iv) In addition to the allowances in 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6) you may 
also heat the dilution air as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of 
this section to prevent or limit aqueous condensation.
    (v) If you choose to dilute the exhaust by using a remote mix tee, 
which dilutes the exhaust at the tailpipe, you may use the following 
provisions consistent with good engineering judgment, provided they do 
not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the standard:
    (A) You may use accordion-style or smooth-walled flexible tubing in 
the dilution tunnel upstream of flow or gaseous emission measurement 
locations.
    (B) You may use smooth-walled electrically conductive flexible 
tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of where PM emission 
measurements are made.
    (C) Materials for inside surfaces are limited to 300 series 
stainless steel and polymer-based materials.
    (D) Use good engineering judgment to ensure that the materials you 
choose do not cause or contribute to significant loss of PM from your 
sample.
    (vi) Paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section applies instead of 40 CFR 
1065.145(b).
    (c) The following table summarizes the requirements of paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section:

 Table 1 of Sec.   1066.110--Summary of Equipment Specifications From 40
        CFR Part 1065, Subpart B, That Apply for Chassis Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicability for chassis testing
    40 CFR part 1065 references                under this part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 1065.140...................  Use all except:
                                       40 CFR 1065.140(b) applies as
                                        described in this section.
                                       Use 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6), with
                                        the additional allowance
                                        described in this section.
                                       Do not use 40 CFR
                                        1065.140(d)(2)(iv).
                                       Use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(1) as
                                        described in this section.
                                       Do not use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2).
40 CFR 1065.145...................  Use all except 40 CFR 1065.145(b).
40 CFR 1065.150 through 1065.190..  Use all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 30148]]

Sec.  1066.120  Measurement instruments.

    The measurement instrument requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, 
subpart C, apply with the following exceptions:
    (a) The provisions of Sec.  1066.122 apply instead of 40 CFR 
1065.202.
    (b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.210 and 1065.295 do not apply.


Sec.  1066.122  Data updating, recording, and control for measurement 
instruments.

    This section specifies criteria that your test system must meet for 
updating and recording data. It also specifies criteria for controlling 
the systems related to driver demand, the dynamometer, sampling 
equipment, and measurement instruments.
    (a)(1) This paragraph (a)(1) applies where we specify a minimum 
command and control frequency that is greater than the minimum 
recording frequency, such as for sample flow rates from a CVS that does 
not have a heat exchanger. For these measurements, the rate at which 
you read and interpret the signal must be at least as frequent as the 
minimum command and control frequency. Values may be recorded at the 
same frequency. They may also be recorded as means of the values, 
provided the frequency of the mean values meets the minimum recording 
frequency. All values read must be either recorded or used to calculate 
the mean values. For example, if your system reads and controls the 
sample flow rate at 10 Hz, you may record these values at 10 Hz, record 
them at 5 Hz by averaging pairs of consecutive points together, or 
record them at 1 Hz by averaging five consecutive points together.
    (2) For all other measured values covered by this section, you may 
record the values instantaneously or as mean values, consistent with 
good engineering judgment.
    (3) You may not use rolling averages of measured values where a 
given measured value is included in more than one recorded mean value.
    (b) Use data acquisition and control systems that can command, 
control, and record at the following minimum frequencies:

                   Table 1 of Sec.   1066.122--Data Recording and Control Minimum Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Minimum  command
     Applicable section          Measured values       and control          Minimum recording frequency \a\
                                                        frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1066.310.............  Vehicle speed.......  ................  10 Hz.
Sec.   1066.320.............
Sec.   1066.430.............  Continuous            ................  1 Hz.
                               concentrations of
                               raw or dilute
                               analyzers.
Sec.   1066.430.............  Power analyzer \b\..  ................  1 Hz.
Sec.   1066.501.............
Sec.   1066.430.............  Bag concentrations    ................  1 mean value per test interval.
                               of raw or dilute
                               analyzers.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Diluted exhaust flow  ................  1 Hz.
Sec.   1066.430.............   rate from a CVS
                               with a heat
                               exchanger upstream
                               of the flow
                               measurement.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Diluted exhaust flow  N/A.............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1066.430.............   rate from a CVS
                               without a heat
                               exchanger upstream
                               of the flow
                               measurement.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Dilution air flow if  5 Hz............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1066.430.............   actively controlled
                               (for example, a
                               partial-flow PM
                               sampling system).
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Sample flow from a    1 Hz............  1 Hz.
Sec.   1066.430.............   CVS that has a heat
                               exchanger.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Sample flow from a    5 Hz............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1066.430.............   CVS that does not
                               have a heat
                               exchanger.
Sec.   1066.425.............  Ambient temperature.  ................  1 Hz.
Sec.   1066.425.............  Ambient humidity....  ................  1 Hz.
Sec.   1066.425.............  Heated sample system  ................  1 Hz.
                               temperatures,
                               including PM filter
                               face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 1 Hz means are data reported from the instrument at a higher frequency, but recorded as a series of mean
  values at a rate of 1 Hz.
\b\ For power analyzers' sampling frequency, follow SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.   1066.1010).

Sec.  1066.130  Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications.

    The measurement instrument calibration and verification 
requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, apply with the following 
exceptions:
    (a) The calibration and verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.303 
do not apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow. 
Section 1066.133 specifies additional calibration and verification 
provisions that apply specifically for chassis testing.
    (b) The linearity verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.307 do not 
apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow. Section 
1066.137 specifies additional linearity verification provisions that 
apply specifically for chassis testing.
    (c) The provisions of Sec.  1066.220 apply instead 40 CFR 1065.310.
    (d) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.320, 1065.325, and 1065.395 do 
not apply.
    (e) If you are measuring flow volumetrically (rather than by 
molar), the provisions of Sec.  1066.140 apply instead of 40 CFR 
1065.340.
    (f) The provisions of Sec.  1066.150 apply instead 40 CFR 
1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c).
    (g) Table 1 of this section summarizes the required and recommended 
calibrations and verifications that are unique to testing under this 
part and indicates when these have to be performed. Perform other 
required or recommended calibration and verifications as described in 
40 CFR 1065.303, with the exceptions noted in this section. Table 1 
follows:

[[Page 30149]]



     Table 1 of Sec.   1066.130-Summary of Required Calibration and
                              Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Type of calibration or
           verification                     Minimum frequency \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 1065.303: Flow rates.......  This calibration does not apply for
                                     testing under this part; see Sec.
                                     1066.133 for alternative
                                     provisions.
40 CFR 1065.307: Linearity          The linearity calibrations from 40
 verification.                       CFR part 1065 do not apply under
                                     this part for engine speed, torque,
                                     fuel rate, or intake air flow; the
                                     linearity verification described in
                                     Sec.   1066.137 applies for the
                                     following measurements:
                                    Dynamometer Speed: See Sec.
                                     1066.220.
                                    Dynamometer Torque: See Sec.
                                     1066.220.
40 CFR 1065.310: Torque...........  This calibration does not apply for
                                     testing under this part; see Sec.
                                     1066.220.
40 CFR 1065.320: Fuel flow........  This calibration does not apply for
                                     testing under this part.
40 CFR 1065.325: Intake flow......  This calibration does not apply for
                                     testing under this part.
40 CFR 1065.340: CVS calibration..  This calibration does not apply for
                                     CVS flow meters calibrated
                                     volumetrically as described in Sec.
                                       1066.140.
40 CFR 1065.345: Vacuum leak......  Required upon initial installation
                                     of the sampling system; recommended
                                     within 35 days before the start of
                                     an emissions test and after
                                     maintenance such as pre-filter
                                     changes.
40 CFR 1065.350(c), 1065.355(c),    These provisions do not apply for
 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c).       testing under this part; see Sec.
                                     1066.150.
40 CFR 1065.395: Inertial PM        These verifications do not apply for
 balance and weighing.               testing under this part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently if needed to
  conform to the measurement system manufacturer's instructions and good
  engineering judgment.

Sec.  1066.137  Linearity verification.

    This section describes requirements for linearity verification that 
are unique to testing under this part. (Note: see the definition of 
``linearity'' in 40 CFR 1065.1001, where we explain that linearity 
means the degree to which measured values agree with respective 
reference values and that the term ``linearity'' is not used to refer 
to the shape of a measurement instrument's unprocessed response curve.) 
Perform other required or recommended calibration and verifications as 
described in 40 CFR 1065.307, with the exceptions noted in this 
section.
    (a) For testing under this subpart, linearity verification under 40 
CFR part 1065 is not required for speed, torque, fuel flow rate, or 
intake air flow.
    (b) For gas analyzer linearity, use one of the following options:
    (1) Use instrument manufacturer recommendations and good 
engineering judgment to select at least ten reference values, 
yrefi, that cover the range of values that you expect during 
testing (to prevent extrapolation beyond the verified range during 
emission testing). We recommend selecting zero as one of your reference 
values. For each range calibrated, if the deviation from a least-
squares best-fit straight line is 2% or less of the value at each data 
point, concentration values may be calculated by use of a single 
calibration factor for that range. If the deviation exceeds 2% at any 
point, use the best-fit nonlinear equation that represents the data to 
within 2% of each test point to determine concentration. If you use a 
gas divider to blend calibration gases, verify that the calibration 
curve produced names a calibration gas within 2% of its certified 
concentration. Perform this verification between 15 and 50% of the full 
scale analyzer range.
    (2) Use the linearity requirements of 40 CFR 1065.307, except for 
CO2 measurements used for determining fuel economy and GHG 
emissions for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. If you 
choose this linearity option, you must drift check and drift correct 
your emission data according to 40 CFR 1065.672.
    (c) Perform linearity verifications for the following temperature 
measurements instead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(7):
    (1) Test cell ambient air.
    (2) Dilution air for PM sampling, including CVS, double-dilution, 
and partial-flow systems.
    (3) PM sample.
    (4) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling systems that use thermal 
chillers to dry samples and that use chiller temperature to calculate 
dewpoint at the chiller outlet. For testing, if you choose to use the 
high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as a 
constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the 
emission sample, you may verify the accuracy of the high alarm 
temperature setpoint using good engineering judgment without following 
the linearity verification for chiller temperature. We recommend that 
you input a simulated reference temperature signal below the alarm 
setpoint, increase this signal until the high alarm trips, and verify 
that the alarm setpoint value is no less than 2 [deg]C below the 
reference value at the trip point.
    (5) CVS inlet temperature.
    (d) Perform linearity verifications for the following pressure 
measurements instead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(8):
    (1) Exhaust back pressure.
    (2) Barometric pressure.
    (3) CVS inlet gage pressure or absolute pressure transducer.
    (4) Sample dryer, for gaseous sampling systems that use either 
osmotic-membrane or thermal chillers to dry samples. For your testing, 
if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the sample dryer 
pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed 
from the emission sample, you may verify the accuracy of the low alarm 
pressure setpoint using good engineering judgment without following the 
linearity verification for sample dryer pressure. We recommend that you 
input a reference pressure signal above the alarm setpoint, decrease 
this signal until the low alarm trips, and verify that the alarm 
setpoint value is no more than 4 kPa above the reference value at the 
trip point.
    (e) When following procedures or practices that we incorporate by 
reference in Sec.  1066.1010, you must meet the linearity requirements 
given by the procedure or practice for any analytical instruments not 
covered under 40 CFR 1065.307, such as GC-FID or HPLC.


Sec.  1066.140  Diluted exhaust flow calibration.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to calibrate flow meters 
for diluted exhaust constant-volume sampling (CVS) systems. You may 
follow the molar flow calibration procedures in 40 CFR 1065.340 instead 
of the procedures in this section.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this calibration while the flow 
meter is installed in its permanent position, except as allowed in 
paragraph (c) of this section. Perform this calibration after you 
change any part of the flow

[[Page 30150]]

configuration upstream or downstream of the flow meter that may affect 
the flow-meter calibration. Perform this calibration upon initial CVS 
installation and whenever corrective action does not resolve a failure 
to meet the diluted exhaust flow verification (i.e., propane check) in 
40 CFR 1065.341.
    (c) Ex-situ CFV and SSV calibration. You may remove a CFV or SSV 
from its permanent position for calibration as long as the flow meter 
meets the requirements in 40 CFR 1065.340(c).
    (d) Reference flow meter. Calibrate each CVS flow meter using a 
reference flow meter such as a subsonic venturi flow meter, a long-
radius ASME/NIST flow nozzle, a smooth approach orifice, a laminar flow 
element, a set of critical flow venturis, or an ultrasonic flow meter. 
Use a reference flow meter that reports quantities that are NIST-
traceable within 1[percnt] uncertainty. Use this reference 
flow meter's response to flow as the reference value for CVS flow-meter 
calibration.
    (e) Configuration. Calibrate the system with any upstream screens 
or other restrictions that will be used during testing and that could 
affect the flow ahead of the reference flow meter. You may not use any 
upstream screen or other restriction that could affect the flow ahead 
of the reference flow meter, unless the flow meter has been calibrated 
with such a restriction.
    (f) PDP calibration. Calibrate each positive-displacement pump 
(PDP) to determine a flow-versus-PDP speed equation that accounts for 
flow leakage across sealing surfaces in the PDP as a function of PDP 
inlet pressure. Determine unique equation coefficients for each speed 
at which you operate the PDP. Calibrate a PDP flow meter as follows:
    (1) Connect the system as shown in Figure 1 of this section.
    (2) Leaks between the calibration flow meter and the PDP must be 
less than 0.3[percnt] of the total flow at the lowest calibrated flow 
point; for example, at the highest restriction and lowest PDP-speed 
point.
    (3) While the PDP operates, maintain a constant temperature at the 
PDP inlet within 2[percnt] of the mean absolute inlet 
temperature, Tin.
    (4) Set the PDP speed to the first speed point at which you intend 
to calibrate.
    (5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide-open position.
    (6) Operate the PDP for at least 3 min to stabilize the system. 
Continue operating the PDP and record the mean values of at least 30 
seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
    (i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, 
Qref. This may include several measurements of different 
quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for 
calculating Qref.
    (ii) The mean temperature at the PDP inlet, Tin.
    (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet, 
pin.
    (iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet, 
pout.
    (v) The mean PDP speed, fnPDP.
    (7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve to decrease the 
absolute pressure at the inlet to the PDP, pin.
    (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section 
to record data at a minimum of six restrictor positions ranging from 
the wide-open restrictor position to the minimum expected pressure at 
the PDP inlet.
    (9) Calibrate the PDP by using the collected data and the equations 
in Sec.  1066.650(a).
    (10) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) through (9) of this 
section for each speed at which you operate the PDP.
    (11) Use the equations in Sec.  1066.652(a) to determine the PDP 
flow equation for emission testing.
    (12) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (i.e., 
propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341.
    (13) Ensure that the lowest inlet pressure tested during 
calibration is at least as low as the lowest PDP inlet pressure that 
will occur during emission testing. You may not use the PDP below the 
lowest inlet pressure tested during calibration.
    (g) SSV calibration. Calibrate each subsonic venturi (SSV) to 
determine its discharge coefficient, Cd, for the expected 
range of inlet pressures as follows:
    (1) Configure your calibration system as shown in Figure 1 of this 
section.
    (2) Verify that any leaks between the calibration flow meter and 
the SSV are less than 0.3[percnt] of the total flow at the highest 
restriction.
    (3) Start the blower downstream of the SSV.
    (4) While the SSV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the 
SSV inlet within 2[percnt] of the mean absolute inlet 
temperature, Tin.
    (5) Set the variable restrictor or variable-speed blower to a flow 
rate greater than the greatest flow rate expected during testing. You 
may not extrapolate flow rates beyond calibrated values, so we 
recommend that you make sure the Reynolds number, 
Re, at the SSV throat at the greatest calibrated 
flow rate is greater than the maximum Re expected 
during testing.
    (6) Operate the SSV for at least 3 min to stabilize the system. 
Continue operating the SSV and record the mean of at least 30 seconds 
of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
    (i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, 
Qref. This may include several measurements of different 
quantities for calculating Qref, such as reference meter 
pressures and temperatures.
    (ii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, Tin.
    (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet, 
Pin.
    (iv) Mean static differential pressure between the static pressure 
at the venturi inlet and the static pressure at the venturi throat, 
[Dgr]Pssv.
    (7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the blower 
speed to decrease the flow rate.
    (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (g)(6) and (7) of this section 
to record data at a minimum of ten flow rates.
    (9) Determine an equation to quantify Cd as a function 
of Re by using the collected data and the equations 
in Sec.  1066.650(b). Section 1066.650 also includes statistical 
criteria for validating the Cd versus Re 
equation.
    (10) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (i.e., 
propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341 using the Cd 
versus Re equation.
    (11) Use the SSV only between the minimum and maximum calibrated 
flow rates. If you want to use the SSV at a higher or lower flow rate, 
you must recalibrate the SSV.
    (12) Use the equations in Sec.  1066.652(b) to determine SSV flow 
during a test.
    (h) CFV calibration. The calibration procedure described in this 
paragraph (h) establishes the value of the calibration coefficient at 
measured values of pressure, temperature and air flow.
    Calibrate a critical-flow venturi (CFV) to verify its calibration 
coefficient, Kv, at the lowest expected static differential 
pressure between the CFV inlet and outlet. Calibrate a CFV flow meter 
as follows:
    (1) Configure your calibration system as shown in Figure 1 of this 
section.
    (2) Verify that any leaks between the calibration flow meter and 
the CFV are less than 0.3[percnt] of the total flow at the highest 
restriction.
    (3) Start the blower downstream of the CFV.
    (4) While the CFV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the 
CFV inlet within 2[percnt] of the mean absolute inlet 
temperature, Tin.
    (5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide-open position. Instead 
of a

[[Page 30151]]

variable restrictor, you may alternately vary the pressure downstream 
of the CFV by varying blower speed or by introducing a controlled leak. 
Note that some blowers have limitations on nonloaded conditions.
    (6) Operate the CFV for at least 3 min to stabilize the system. 
Continue operating the CFV and record the mean values of at least 30 
seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
    (i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, 
Qref. This may include several measurements of different 
quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for 
calculating Qref.
    (ii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, Tin.
    (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet, 
pin.
    (iv) The mean static differential pressure between the CFV inlet 
and the CFV outlet, [Dgr]p CFV.
    (7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the 
downstream pressure to decrease the differential pressure across the 
CFV, [Dgr]p CFV.
    (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (f)(6) and (7) of this section 
to record mean data at a minimum of ten restrictor positions, such that 
you test the fullest practical range of [Dgr]p CFV expected 
during testing. We do not require that you remove calibration 
components or CVS components to calibrate at the lowest possible 
restriction.
    (9) Determine K v and the lowest allowable pressure 
ratio, r, according to Sec.  1066.650.
    (10) Use K v to determine CFV flow during an emission 
test. Do not use the CFV below the lowest allowed r, as determined in 
Sec.  1066.650.
    (11) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (i.e., 
propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341.
    (12) If your CVS is configured to operate multiple CFVs in 
parallel, calibrate your CVS using one of the following methods:
    (i) Calibrate every combination of CFVs according to this section 
and Sec.  1066.650(c). Refer to Sec.  1065.652(c) for instructions on 
calculating flow rates for this option.
    (ii) Calibrate each CFV according to this section and Sec.  
1066.650. Refer to Sec.  1066.652 for instructions on calculating flow 
rates for this option.
    (i) Ultrasonic flow meter calibration. [Reserved]
BILLING CODE P

[[Page 30152]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.043

Sec.  1066.145  Test fuel, engine fluids, analytical gases, and other 
calibration standards.

    (a) Test fuel. Use test fuel as specified in the standard-setting 
part, or as specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, if it is not 
specified in the standard-setting part.
    (b) Lubricating oil. Use lubricating oil as specified in 40 CFR 
1065.740. For two-stroke engines that involve a specified mixture of 
fuel and lubricating oil, mix the lubricating oil with the fuel 
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
    (c) Coolant. For liquid-cooled engines, use coolant as specified in 
40 CFR 1065.745.
    (d) Analytical gases. Use analytical gases that meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 1065.750.
    (e) Mass standards. Use mass standards that meet the requirements 
of 40 CFR 1065.790.

[[Page 30153]]

Sec.  1066.150  Analyzer interference and quench verification limit.

    Analyzers must meet the interference and quench verification limits 
in the following table on the lowest instrument range that will be used 
during emission testing, instead of those specified in 40 CFR part 
1065, subpart D:

Table 1 of Sec.   1066.150-Analyzer Interference and Quench Verification
                                 Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Verification                             Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 1065.350.......................  2% of full scale.
40 CFR 1065.355.......................  2% of full scale.
40 CFR 1065.370.......................  2% of full scale.
40 CFR 1065.375.......................  2% of the flow-
                                         weighted mean concentration of
                                         N2O expected at the standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart C--Dynamometer Specifications


Sec.  1066.201  Dynamometer overview.

    This subpart addresses chassis dynamometers and related equipment.


Sec.  1066.210  Dynamometers.

    (a) General requirements. A chassis dynamometer typically uses 
electrically generated load forces combined with its rotational inertia 
to recreate the mechanical inertia and frictional forces that a vehicle 
exerts on road surfaces (known as ``road load''). Load forces are 
calculated using vehicle-specific coefficients and response 
characteristics. The load forces are applied to the vehicle tires by 
rolls connected to motor/absorbers. The dynamometer uses a load cell to 
measure the forces the dynamometer rolls apply to the vehicle's tires.
    (b) Accuracy and precision. The dynamometer's output values for 
road load must be NIST-traceable. We may determine traceability to a 
specific international standards organization to be sufficient to 
demonstrate NIST-traceability. The force-measurement system must be 
capable of indicating force readings as follows:
    (1) For dynamometer testing of vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds 
GVWR, the dynamometer force-measurement system must be capable of 
indicating force readings during a test to a resolution of 0.05% of the maximum load-cell force simulated by the dynamometer 
or 9.8 N (2.2 lbf), whichever is greater.
    (2) For dynamometers testing of vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR 
the force-measurement system must be capable of indicating force 
readings during a test to a resolution of 0.05% of the 
maximum load-cell force simulated by the dynamometer or 39.2 N (8.8 lbf), whichever is greater.
    (c) Test cycles. The dynamometer must be capable of fully 
simulating vehicle performance over applicable test cycles for the 
vehicles being tested as referenced in the corresponding standard-
setting part, including operation at the combination of inertial and 
road-load forces corresponding to maximum road load conditions and 
maximum simulated inertia at the highest acceleration rate experienced 
during testing.
    (d) Component requirements. The following specifications apply:
    (1) The nominal roll diameter must be 120 cm or greater. The 
dynamometer must have an independent drive roll for each drive axle as 
tested under Sec.  1066.410(g), except that two drive axles may share a 
single drive roll. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that the 
dynamometer roll diameter is large enough to provide sufficient tire-
roll contact area to avoid tire overheating and power losses from tire-
roll slippage.
    (2) Measure and record force and speed at 10 Hz or faster. You may 
convert measured values to 1-Hz, 2-Hz, or 5-Hz values before your 
calculations, using good engineering judgment.
    (3) The load applied by the dynamometer simulates forces acting on 
the vehicle during normal driving according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.044

Where:

FR = total road-load force to be applied at the surface of the roll. 
The total force is the sum of the individual tractive forces applied 
at each roll surface.
i = a counter to indicate a point in time over the driving schedule. 
For a dynamometer operating at 10-Hz intervals over a 600-second 
driving schedule, the maximum value of i should be 6,000.
A = a vehicle-specific constant value representing the vehicle's 
frictional load in lbf or newtons. See subpart D of this part.
B = a vehicle-specific coefficient representing load from drag and 
rolling resistance, which are a function of vehicle speed, in lbf/
mph or N[middot]s/m. See subpart D of this part.
v = linear speed at the roll surfaces as measured by the 
dynamometer, in mph or m/s. Let vi-1 = 0 for i = 0.
C = a vehicle-specific coefficient representing aerodynamic effects, 
which are a function of vehicle speed squared, in lbf/mph\2\ or 
N[middot]s\2\/m\2\. See subpart D of this part.
M = mass of the vehicle in lbm or kg. For vehicles at or below 
14,000 pounds GVWR, determine the vehicle's mass based on equivalent 
test weight (ETW) as specified in Sec.  1066.810 and set dynamometer 
inertia simulation as specified in Sec.  1066.410(h). For vehicles 
above 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine the vehicle's mass based on the 
test weight, taking into account the effect of rotating axles, as 
specified in Sec.  1066.310(b)(7) and dividing the weight by the 
acceleration due to gravity as specified in 40 CFR 1065.630, 
consistent with good engineering judgment.
t = elapsed time in the driving schedule as measured by the 
dynamometer, in seconds. Let ti-1 = 0 for i = 0.

    (4) We recommend that a dynamometer capable of testing vehicles at 
or below 20,000 pounds GVWR be designed to apply an actual road-load 
force within 1% or 9.8 N (2.2 lbf) 
of the reference value, whichever is greater. Dynamometers that do not 
fully meet this specification may be used consistent with good 
engineering judgment. For example, slightly higher errors may be 
permissible during highly transient operation for vehicles above 8,500 
pounds GVWR.
    (e) Dynamometer manufacturer instructions. This part specifies that 
you follow the dynamometer manufacturer's recommended procedures for 
things such as calibrations and general operation. If you perform 
testing with a dynamometer that you manufactured or if you otherwise do 
not have these recommended procedures, use good engineering judgment to 
establish the additional procedures and specifications we specify in 
this part, unless we specify otherwise. Keep records to describe these 
recommended procedures and how they are consistent

[[Page 30154]]

with good engineering judgment, including any quantified error 
estimates.


Sec.  1066.215  Summary of verification and calibration procedures for 
chassis dynamometers.

    (a) Overview. This section describes the overall process for 
verifying and calibrating the performance of chassis dynamometers.
    (b) Scope and frequency. The following table summarizes the 
required and recommended calibrations and verifications described in 
this subpart and indicates when they must occur:

Table 1 of Sec.   1066.215--Summary of Required Dynamometer Calibrations
                            and Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Type of calibration or
         verification                    Minimum frequency \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1066.220: Linearity     Speed: Upon initial installation, within
 verification.                  370 days before testing, and after major
                                maintenance.
                               Torque (load): Upon initial installation
                                and after major maintenance.
Sec.   1066.225: Roll runout   Upon initial installation and after major
 and diameter verification.     maintenance.
Sec.   1066.230: Time          Upon initial installation and after major
 verification.                  maintenance.
Sec.   1066.235: Speed         Upon initial installation, within 370
 measurement verification.      days before testing, and after major
                                maintenance.
Sec.   1066.240: Torque        Upon initial installation, within 7 days
 (load) transducer              of testing, and after major maintenance.
 verification.
Sec.   1066.245: Response      Upon initial installation, within 370
 time verification.             days before testing, and after major
                                maintenance.
Sec.   1066.250: Base inertia  Upon initial installation and after major
 verification.                  maintenance.
Sec.   1066.255: Parasitic     Upon initial installation, after major
 loss verification.             maintenance, and upon failure of a
                                verification in Sec.   1066.270 or Sec.
                                 1066.280.
Sec.   1066.260: Parasitic     Upon initial installation, after major
 friction compensation          maintenance, and upon failure of a
 evaluation.                    verification in Sec.   1066.270 or Sec.
                                 1066.280.
Sec.   1066.265: Acceleration  Upon initial installation and after major
 and deceleration               maintenance.
 verification.
Sec.   1066.270: Unloaded      Upon initial installation, within 7 days
 coastdown verification.        of testing, and after major maintenance.
Sec.   1066.280 Dynamometer    Upon initial installation, within 1 day
 readiness verification.        before testing, and after major
                                maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to
  measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering
  judgment.

     (c) Automated dynamometer verifications and calibrations. In some 
cases, dynamometers are designed with internal diagnostic and control 
features to accomplish the verifications and calibrations specified in 
this subpart. You may use these automated functions instead of 
following the procedures we specify in this subpart to demonstrate 
compliance with applicable requirements, consistent with good 
engineering judgment.
    (d) Sequence of verifications and calibrations. Upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance, perform the verifications and 
calibrations in the same sequence as noted in Table 1 of this section, 
except that you may perform speed linearity verification after the 
verifications in Sec. Sec.  1066.225 and 1066.230. At other times, you 
may need to perform specific verifications or calibrations in a certain 
sequence, as noted in this subpart. If you perform major maintenance on 
a specific component, you are required to perform verifications and 
calibrations only on components or parameters that are affected by the 
maintenance.
    (e) Corrections. Unless the regulation directs otherwise, if the 
dynamometer fails to meet any specified calibration or verification, 
make any necessary adjustments or repairs such that the dynamometer 
meets the specification before running a test. Repairs required to meet 
specifications are generally considered major maintenance under this 
part.


Sec.  1066.220  Linearity verification for chassis dynamometer systems.

    (a) Scope and frequency. Perform linearity verification for 
dynamometer speed and torque at least as frequently as indicated in 
Table 1 of Sec.  1066.215. The intent of linearity verification is to 
determine that the system responds accurately and proportionally over 
the measurement range of interest. Linearity verification generally 
consists of introducing a series of at least 10 reference values to a 
measurement system. The measurement system quantifies each reference 
value. The measured values are then collectively compared to the 
reference values by using a least-squares linear regression and the 
linearity criteria specified in Table 1 of this section.
    (b) Performance requirements. If a measurement system does not meet 
the applicable linearity criteria in Table 1 of this section, correct 
the deficiency by re-calibrating, servicing, or replacing components as 
needed. Repeat the linearity verification after correcting the 
deficiency to ensure that the measurement system meets the linearity 
criteria. Before you may use a measurement system that does not meet 
linearity criteria, you must demonstrate to us that the deficiency does 
not adversely affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable standards.
    (c) Procedure. Use the following linearity verification protocol, 
or use good engineering judgment to develop a different protocol that 
satisfies the intent of this section, as described in paragraph (a) of 
this section:
    (1) In this paragraph (c), the letter ``y'' denotes a generic 
measured quantity, the superscript over-bar denotes an arithmetic mean 
(such as y), and the subscript ``ref'' denotes the known or 
reference quantity being measured.
    (2) Operate the dynamometer system at the specified operating 
conditions. This may include any specified adjustment or periodic 
calibration of the dynamometer system.
    (3) Set dynamometer speed and torque to zero.
    (4) Verify the dynamometer speed or torque signal based on the 
dynamometer manufacturer's recommendations.
    (5) After verification, check for zero speed and torque. Use good 
engineering judgment to determine whether or not to rezero or re-verify 
speed and torque before continuing.
    (6) For both speed and torque, use the dynamometer manufacturer's 
recommendations and good engineering judgment to select reference 
values, yrefi, that cover a range of values that you expect 
would prevent extrapolation beyond these values during emission 
testing. We recommend selecting zero

[[Page 30155]]

speed and zero torque as reference values for the linearity 
verification.
    (7) Use the dynamometer manufacturer's recommendations and good 
engineering judgment to select the order in which you will introduce 
the series of reference values. For example, you may select the 
reference values randomly to avoid correlation with previous 
measurements and to avoid the influence of hysteresis; you may select 
reference values in ascending or descending order to avoid long 
settling times of reference signals; or you may select values to ascend 
and then descend to incorporate the effects of any instrument 
hysteresis into the linearity verification.
    (8) Set the dynamometer to operate at a reference condition.
    (9) Allow time for the dynamometer to stabilize while it measures 
the reference values.
    (10) At a recording frequency of at least 1 Hz, measure speed and 
torque values for 30 seconds and record the arithmetic mean of the 
recorded values, yi. Refer to 40 CFR 1065.602 for an example 
of calculating an arithmetic mean.
    (11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(8) though (10) of this 
section until you measure speeds and torques at each of the reference 
settings.
    (12) Use the arithmetic means, yi, and reference values, 
yrefi, to calculate least-squares linear regression 
parameters and statistical values to compare to the minimum performance 
criteria specified in Table 1 of this section. Use the calculations 
described in 40 CFR 1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may 
weight the results of individual data pairs (i.e., (yrefi, 
y), in the linear regression calculations. Table 1 follows:

        Table 1 of Sec.   1066.220--Dynamometer Measurement Systems That Require Linearity Verifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Linearity criteria
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
     Measurement system          Quantity    [verbarlm]ymin(a1-
                                              1)+a0 [verbarlm]         a1              SEE             r\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed.......................  v              <0.05%                   0.98-1.02  <2%                      >0.990
                                              [middot]v\max\.                     [middot]v\max\.
Torque (load)...............  T              <1% [middot]T\max\       0.99-1.01  <1%                      >0.990
                                                                                  [middot]T\max\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (d) Reference signals. Generate reference values for the 
linearity-verification protocol in paragraph (c) of this section as 
described for speed and torque in 40 CFR 1065.307(d).


Sec.  1066.225  Roll runout and diameter verification procedure.

    (a) Overview. This section describes the verification procedure for 
roll runout and roll diameter. Roll runout is a measure of the 
variation in roll radius around the circumference of the roll.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform these verifications upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance that could affect roll surface 
finish or dimensions (such as resurfacing or polishing).
    (c) Roll runout procedure. Verify roll runout based on the 
following procedure, or an equivalent procedure based on good 
engineering judgment:
    (1) Perform this verification with laboratory and dynamometer 
temperatures stable and at equilibrium. Release the roll brake and shut 
off power to the dynamometer. Remove any dirt, rubber, rust, and debris 
from the roll surface. Mark measurement locations on the roll surface 
using a nominally permanent marker. Mark the roll at a minimum of four 
equally spaced locations across the roll width; we recommend taking 
measurements every 150 mm across the roll. Secure the marker to the 
deck plate adjacent to the roll surface and slowly rotate the roll to 
mark a clear line around the roll circumference. Repeat this process 
for all measurement locations.
    (2) Measure roll runout using an indicator with a probe that allows 
for measuring the position of the roll surface relative to the roll 
centerline as it turns through a complete revolution. The indicator 
must have some means of being securely mounted adjacent to the roll. 
The indicator must have sufficient range to measure roll runout at all 
points, with a minimum accuracy of 0.025 mm. Calibrate the 
indicator according to the instrument manufacturer's instructions.
    (3) Position the indicator adjacent to the roll surface at the 
desired measurement location. Position the shaft of the indicator 
perpendicular to the roll such that the point of the indicator is 
slightly touching the surface of the roll and can move freely through a 
full rotation of the roll. Zero the indicator according to the 
instrument manufacturer's instructions. Avoid distortion of the runout 
measurement from the weight of a person standing on or near the mounted 
dial indicator.
    (4) Slowly turn the roll through a complete rotation and record the 
maximum and minimum values from the indicator. Calculate runout as the 
difference between these maximum and minimum values.
    (5) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section 
for all measurement locations.
    (6) The roll runout must be less than 0.254 mm (0.0100 inches) at 
all measurement locations.
    (d) Diameter procedure. Verify roll diameter based on the following 
procedure, or an equivalent procedure based on good engineering 
judgment:
    (1) Prepare the laboratory and the dynamometer as specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (2) Measure roll diameter using a Pi Tape[supreg]. Orient the Pi 
Tape[supreg] to the marker line at the desired measurement location 
with the Pi Tape[supreg] hook pointed outward. Temporarily secure the 
Pi Tape[supreg] to the roll near the hook end with adhesive tape. 
Slowly turn the roll, wrapping the Pi Tape[supreg] around the roll 
surface. Ensure that the Pi Tape[supreg] is flat and adjacent to the 
marker line around the full circumference of the roll. Attach a 2.26-kg 
weight to the hook of the Pi Tape[supreg] and position the roll so that 
the weight dangles freely. Remove the adhesive tape without disturbing 
the orientation or alignment of the Pi Tape[supreg].
    (3) Overlap the gage member and the vernier scale ends of the Pi 
Tape[supreg] to read the diameter measurement to the nearest 0.01 mm. 
Follow the manufacturer's recommendation to correct the measurement to 
20 [deg]C, if applicable.
    (4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section 
for all measurement locations.
    (5) The measured roll diameter must be within 0.254 mm 
of the specified nominal value at all measurement locations. You may 
revise the nominal value to meet this specification, as long as you use 
the corrected nominal value for all calculations in this subpart.


Sec.  1066.230  Time verification procedure.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy of 
the dynamometer's timing device.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance.

[[Page 30156]]

    (c) Procedure. Perform this verification using one of the following 
procedures:
    (1) WWV method. You may use the time and frequency signal broadcast 
by NIST from radio station WWV as the time standard if the trigger for 
the dynamometer timing circuit has a frequency decoder circuit, as 
follows:
    (i) Contact station WWV by telephone by dialing (303) 499-7111 and 
listen for the time announcement. Verify that the trigger started the 
dynamometer timer. Use good engineering judgment to minimize error in 
receiving the time and frequency signal.
    (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, re-dial station WWV and listen 
for the time announcement. Verify that the trigger stopped the 
dynamometer timer.
    (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time, yact, to the 
corresponding time standard, yref, to determine the time 
error, yerror, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.144

    (2) Ramping method. You may use an operator-defined ramp function 
to serve as the time standard as follows:
    (i) Set up a signal generator to output a marker voltage at the 
peak of each ramp to trigger the dynamometer timing circuit. Output the 
designated marker voltage to start the verification period.
    (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, output the designated marker 
voltage to end the verification period.
    (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time between marker signals, 
yact, to the corresponding time standard, yref, 
to determine the time error, yerror, using Eq. 1066.230-1.
    (3) Dynamometer coastdown method. You may use a signal generator to 
output a known speed ramp signal to the dynamometer controller to serve 
as the time standard as follows:
    (i) Generate upper and lower speed values to trigger the start and 
stop functions of the coastdown timer circuit. Use the signal generator 
to start the verification period.
    (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, use the signal generator to end 
the verification period.
    (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time between trigger signals, 
yact, to the corresponding time standard, yref, 
to determine the time error, yerror, using Eq. 1066.230-1.
    (d) Performance evaluation. The time error determined in paragraph 
(c) of this section may not exceed 0.001%.


Sec.  1066.235  Speed verification procedure.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy of 
the dynamometer speed determination. When performing this verification, 
you must also verify the dynamometer speed at any devices used to 
display or record vehicle speed (for example a driver's aid) is 
representative of the speed input from the dynamometer speed 
determination.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major 
maintenance.
    (c) Procedure. Use one of the following procedures to verify the 
accuracy and resolution of the dynamometer speed simulation:
    (1) Pulse method. Connect a universal frequency counter to the 
output of the dynamometer's speed-sensing device in parallel with the 
signal to the dynamometer controller. The universal frequency counter 
must be calibrated according to the counter manufacturer's instructions 
and be capable of measuring with enough accuracy to perform the 
procedure as specified in this paragraph (c)(1). Make sure the 
instrumentation does not affect the signal to the dynamometer control 
circuits. Determine the speed error as follows:
    (i) Set the dynamometer to speed-control mode. Set the dynamometer 
speed to a value of approximately 4.5 m/s (10 mph); record the output 
of the frequency counter after 10 seconds. Determine the roll speed, 
vact, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.045

Where:

f = frequency of the dynamometer speed sensing device, accurate to 
at least four significant figures.
droll = nominal roll diameter, accurate to the nearest 
1.0 mm, consistent with Sec.  1066.225(d).
n = the number of pulses per revolution from the dynamometer roll 
speed sensor.

    Example:

f = 2.9231 Hz = 2.9231 s-1
droll = 904.40 mm = 0.90440 m
n = 1 pulse/rev
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.046

    [ngr]act = 8.3053 m/s

    (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section for 
the maximum speed expected during testing and at least two additional 
evenly spaced speed points between the starting speed and the maximum 
speed point.
    (iii) Compare the calculated roll speed, vact, to each 
corresponding speed set point, vref, to determine values for 
speed error at each set point, verror, using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.047


Example:

vact = 8.3053 m/s
vref = 8.3000 m/s
verror = 8.3053-8.3000 = 0.0053 m/s

    (2) Frequency method. Install a piece of tape in the shape of an 
arrowhead on the surface of the dynamometer roll near the outer edge. 
Put a reference mark on the deck plate in line with the tape. Install a 
stroboscope or photo tachometer on the deck plate and direct the flash 
toward the tape on the roll. The stroboscope or photo tachometer must 
be calibrated according to the instrument manufacturer's instructions 
and be capable of measuring with enough accuracy to perform the 
procedure as specified in this paragraph (c)(2). Determine the speed 
error as follows:
    (i) Set the dynamometer to speed control mode. Set the dynamometer 
speed to a speed value of approximately 4.5 m/s (10 mph). Tune the 
stroboscope or photo tachometer until the signal matches the 
dynamometer roll speed. Record the frequency. Determine the roll speed, 
yact, using Eq. 1066.235-1, using the stroboscope or photo 
tachometer's frequency for f.
    (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for 
the maximum speed expected during testing and at least two additional 
evenly spaced speed points between the starting speed and the maximum 
speed point.
    (iii) Compare the calculated roll speed, vact, to each 
corresponding speed set point, vref, to determine values for 
speed error at each set point, yerror, using Eq. 1066.235-2.
    (d) Performance evaluation. The speed error determined in paragraph 
(c) of this section may not exceed 0.02 m/s at any speed 
set point.


Sec.  1066.240  Torque transducer verification.

    Verify torque-measurement systems by performing the verifications 
described in Sec. Sec.  1066.270 and 1066.280.


Sec.  1066.245  Response time verification.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the 
dynamometer's response time to a tractive effort force step change.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation,

[[Page 30157]]

within 370 days before testing (i.e., annually), and after major 
maintenance.
    (c) Procedure. Use the dynamometer's automated process to verify 
response time. You may perform this test either at two different 
inertia settings corresponding approximately to the minimum and maximum 
vehicle weights you expect to test or using base inertia and two 
acceleration rates that cover the range of acceleration rates 
experienced during testing (for example 0.5 and 8 mph/s). Use good 
engineering judgment to select road-load coefficients representing 
vehicles of the appropriate weight. Determine the dynamometer's 
settling response time, ts, based on the point at which 
there are no measured results more than 10% above or below the final 
equilibrium value, as illustrated in Figure 1 of this section. The 
observed settling response time must be less than 100 milliseconds for 
each inertia setting.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.048

Sec.  1066.250  Base inertia verification.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the 
dynamometer's base inertia.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance (such as maintenance that 
could affect roll assembly inertia).
    (c) Procedure. Verify the base inertia using the following 
procedure:
    (1) Warm up the dynamometer according to the dynamometer 
manufacturer's instructions. Set the dynamometer's road-load inertia to 
zero, turning off any electrical simulation of road load and inertia so 
that the base inertia of the dynamometer is the only inertia present, 
and motor the rolls to 5 mph. Apply a constant force to accelerate the 
roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed time to 
accelerate from 10 to 40 mph, noting the corresponding speed and time 
points to the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. Also determine average force 
over the measurement interval.
    (2) Starting from a steady roll speed of 45 mph, apply a constant 
force to the roll to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s. 
Measure the elapsed time to decelerate from 40 to 10 mph, noting the 
corresponding speed and time points to the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. 
Also determine average force over the measurement interval.
    (3) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section 
for a total of five sets of results at the nominal acceleration rate 
and the nominal deceleration rate.
    (4) Use good engineering judgment to select two additional 
acceleration and deceleration rate pairs that cover the middle and 
upper rates expected during testing. Repeat the steps in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section at each of these additional 
acceleration and deceleration rates.
    (5) Determine the base inertia, Ib, for each measurement 
interval using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.049

Where:

F = average dynamometer force over the measurement interval as 
measured by the dynamometer.
vfinal = roll surface speed at the end of the measurement 
interval to the nearest 0.01 mph.
vinitial = roll surface speed at the start of the 
measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 mph.
[Dgr]t = elapsed time during the measurement interval to 
the nearest 0.01 s.

Example:

F = 1.500 lbf = 48.26 ft[middot]lbm/s\2\
vfinal = 40.00 mph = 58.67 ft/s
vinitial = 10.00 mph = 14.67 ft/s
[Dgr]t = 30.00 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.050

Ib = 32.90 lbm

    (6) Calculate the base inertia error, Iberror, for each 
of the thirty measured base inertia values, Ib, by comparing 
it to the manufacturer's stated base inertia, Ibref, using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.051

Example:

Ibref = 32.96 lbm
Ibact = 32.90 lbm (from paragraph (c)(5) of this section)

[[Page 30158]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.052

Iberror = 0.18%

    (7) Determine the base inertia arithmetic mean value, 
Ib, from the ten acceleration and deceleration interval base 
inertia values for each of the three acceleration/deceleration rates. 
Then determine the base inertia arithmetic mean value, Ib, 
from the three acceleration/deceleration rate mean base inertia values. 
Calculate base inertia mean values as described in 40 CFR 1065.602(b).
    (8) Calculate the inertia error for the final mean base inertia 
value from paragraph (c)(7) of this section. Use Eq. 1066.250-2, 
substituting the final mean base inertia value from paragraph (c)(7) of 
this section for the individual base inertia.
    (d) Performance evaluation. The dynamometer must meet the following 
specifications to be used for testing under this part:
    (1) All base inertia errors determined under paragraph (c)(6) of 
this section may not exceed 1.0%.
    (2) The mean base inertia error determined under paragraph (c)(8) 
of this section may not exceed 0.20%.


Sec.  1066.255  Parasitic loss verification.

    (a) Overview. Verify the dynamometer's parasitic loss as described 
in this section, and correct as necessary. This procedure determines 
the dynamometer's internal losses that it must overcome to simulate 
road load. Characterize these losses in a parasitic loss curve that the 
dynamometer uses to apply compensating forces to maintain the desired 
road-load force at the roll surface.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a 
verification in either Sec.  1066.270 or Sec.  1066.280.
    (c) Procedure. Perform this verification by following the 
dynamometer manufacturer's specifications to establish a parasitic loss 
curve, taking data at fixed speed intervals to cover the range of 
vehicle speeds that will occur during testing. You may zero the load 
cell at a selected speed if that improves your ability to determine the 
parasitic loss. Parasitic loss forces may never be negative. Note that 
the torque transducers must be zeroed and spanned prior to performing 
this procedure.
    (d) Performance evaluation. Some dynamometers automatically updates 
the parasitic loss curve for further testing. If this is not the case, 
compare the new parasitic loss curve to the original parasitic loss 
curve from the dynamometer manufacturer or the most recent parasitic 
loss curve you programmed into the dynamometer. You may reprogram the 
dynamometer to accept the new curve in all cases, and you must 
reprogram the dynamometer if any point on the new curve departs from 
the earlier curve by more than 9.0 N for dynamometers 
capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR or 36.0 N (8.0 lbf) for dynamometers not capable of 
testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR.


Sec.  1066.260  Parasitic friction compensation evaluation.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy of 
the dynamometer's friction compensation.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a 
verification in either Sec.  1066.270 or Sec.  1066.280. Note that this 
procedure relies on proper calibration of speed and torque, as 
described in Sec. Sec.  1066.235 and 1066.240. You must also first 
verify the dynamometer's parasitic loss curve as specified in Sec.  
1066.255.
    (c) Procedure. Use the following procedure to verify the accuracy 
of the dynamometer's friction compensation:
    (1) Warm up the dynamometer as specified by the dynamometer 
manufacturer.
    (2) Perform a torque verification as specified by the dynamometer 
manufacturer. For torque verifications relying on shunt procedures, if 
the results do not conform to specifications, recalibrate the 
dynamometer using NIST-traceable standards as appropriate until the 
dynamometer passes the torque verification. Do not change the 
dynamometer's base inertia to pass the torque verification.
    (3) Set the dynamometer inertia to the base inertia with the road-
load coefficients A, B, and C set to 0. Set the dynamometer to speed-
control mode with a target speed of 50 mph or a higher speed 
recommended by the dynamometer manufacturer. Once the speed stabilizes 
at the target speed, switch the dynamometer from speed control to 
torque control and allow the roll to coast for 60 seconds. Record the 
initial and final speeds and the corresponding start and stop times. If 
friction compensation is executed perfectly, there will be no change in 
speed during the measurement interval.
    (4) Calculate the power equivalent of friction compensation error, 
FCerror, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.053

Where:

I = dynamometer inertia setting.
t = duration of the measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.01 
s.
vinit = the roll speed corresponding to the start of the 
measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.05 mph.
vfinal = the roll speed corresponding to the end of the 
measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.05 mph.

Example:

I = 2000 lbm = 62.16 lbf[middot] s\2\/ft
t = 60.0 s
vinit = 9.2 mph = 13.5 ft/s
vfinal = 10.0 mph = 14.7 ft/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.054

FCerror = -16.5 ft[middot]lbf/s = -0.031 hp

    (5) The friction compensation error may not exceed 0.15 
hp for dynamometers capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 
pounds GVWR, or 0.6 hp for dynamometers not capable of 
testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR.


Sec.  1066.265  Acceleration and deceleration verification.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the 
dynamometer's ability to achieve targeted acceleration and deceleration 
rates. Paragraph (c) of this section describes how this verification 
applies when the dynamometer is programmed directly for a specific 
acceleration or deceleration rate. Paragraph (d) of this section 
describes how this verification applies when the dynamometer is 
programmed with a calculated force to achieve a targeted acceleration 
or deceleration rate.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification or an equivalent 
procedure upon initial installation and after major maintenance that 
could affect acceleration and deceleration accuracy. Note that this 
procedure relies on proper calibration of speed as described in Sec.  
1066.235.
    (c) Verification of acceleration and deceleration rates. Activate 
the dynamometer's function generator for measuring roll revolution 
frequency. If the dynamometer has no such function generator, set up a 
properly calibrated external function generator consistent with the 
verification described in this paragraph (c). Use the function 
generator to determine actual acceleration and deceleration rates as 
the dynamometer traverses speeds between 10 and 40 mph at various

[[Page 30159]]

nominal acceleration and deceleration rates. Verify the dynamometer's 
acceleration and deceleration rates as follows:
    (1) Set up start and stop frequencies specific to your dynamometer 
by identifying the roll-revolution frequency, f, in revolutions per 
second (or Hz) corresponding to 10 mph and 40 mph vehicle speeds, 
accurate to at least four significant figures, using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.055

Where:
v = the target roll speed, in inches per second (corresponding to 
drive speeds of 10 mph or 40 mph).
n = the number of pulses from the dynamometer's roll-speed sensor 
per roll revolution.
droll = roll diameter, in inches.

    (2) Program the dynamometer to accelerate the roll at a nominal 
rate of 1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. Measure the elapsed time to 
reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement 
for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate for 
each run, aact, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.056

Where:

aact = acceleration rate (decelerations have negative 
values).
vfinal = the target value for the final roll speed.
vinit = the setpoint value for the initial roll speed.
t = time to accelerate from vinit to vfinal.

Example:

vfinal = 40 mph
vinit = 10 mph
t = 30.003 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.057

aact = 0.999 mph/s

    (3) Program the dynamometer to decelerate the roll at a nominal 
rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. Measure the elapsed time to 
reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement 
for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate, 
aact, using Eq. 1066.265-2
    (4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section 
for additional acceleration and deceleration rates in 1 mph/s 
increments up to and including one increment above the maximum 
acceleration rate expected during testing. Average the five repeat runs 
to calculate a mean acceleration rate, aact, at each 
setting.
    (5) Compare each mean acceleration rate, aact, to the 
corresponding nominal acceleration rate, aref, to determine 
values for acceleration error, aerror, using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.058

Example:

aact> = 0.999 mph/s
aref = 1 mph/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.059

aerror = -0.100%
    (d) Verification of forces for controlling acceleration and 
deceleration. Program the dynamometer with a calculated force value and 
determine actual acceleration and deceleration rates as the dynamometer 
traverses speeds between 10 and 40 mph at various nominal acceleration 
and deceleration rates. Verify the dynamometer's ability to achieve 
certain acceleration and deceleration rates with a given force as 
follows:
    (1) Calculate the force setting, F, using the following equation:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.060
    
Where:

Ib = the dynamometer manufacturer's stated base inertia, 
in lbf[middot]s2/ft.
a = nominal acceleration rate, in ft/s\2\.

Example:

Ib = 2967 lbm = 92.217 lbf[middot] s\2\/ft
a = 1 mph/s = 1.4667 ft/s\2\
F= 92.217 [middot] [verbarlm]1.4667[verbarlm]
F = 135.25 lbf

    (2) Set the dynamometer to road-load mode and program it with a 
calculated force to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s 
from 10 mph to 40 mph. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target 
speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of 
five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate, aact, for 
each run using Eq. 1066.265-2. Repeat this step to determine measured 
``negative acceleration'' rates using a calculated force to decelerate 
the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. Average 
the five repeat runs to calculate a mean acceleration rate, 
aact, at each setting.
    (3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (d)(2) of this section for 
additional acceleration and deceleration rates as specified in 
paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
    (4) Compare each mean acceleration rate, aact, to the 
corresponding nominal acceleration rate, aref, to determine 
values for acceleration error, aerror, using Eq. 1066.265-3
    (e) Performance evaluation. The acceleration error from paragraphs 
(c)(5) and (d)(4) of this section may not exceed 1.0%.


Sec.  1066.270  Unloaded coastdown verification.

    (a) Overview. Use force measurements to verify the dynamometer's 
settings based on coastdown procedures.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, within 7 days of testing, and after major maintenance.
    (c) Procedure. This procedure verifies the dynamometer's settings 
derived from coastdown testing. For dynamometers that have an automated 
process for this procedure, perform this evaluation by setting the 
initial speed, final speed, inertial coefficients, and road-load 
coefficients as required for each test, using good engineering judgment 
to ensure that these values properly represent in-use operation. Use 
the following procedure if your dynamometer does not perform this 
verification with an automated process:
    (1) Warm up the dynamometer as specified by the dynamometer 
manufacturer.
    (2) With the dynamometer in coastdown mode, set the dynamometer 
inertia for the smallest vehicle weight that you expect to test and set 
A, B, and C road-load coefficients to values typical of those used 
during testing. Program the dynamometer to coast down over the 
dynamometer operational speed range (typically from a speed of 80 mph 
through a minimum speed at or below 10 mph). Perform at least one 
coastdown over this speed range, collecting data over each 10 mph 
interval.
    (3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(2) of this section with the 
dynamometer inertia and road-load coefficients set for the largest 
vehicle weight that you expect to test.
    (4) Determine the average coastdown force, F, for each speed and 
inertia setting for each of the coastdowns performed using the 
following equation:

[[Page 30160]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.061


Where:

F = the average force measured during the coastdown for each speed 
interval and inertia setting, expressed in lbf[middot] s\2\/ft and 
rounded to four significant figures.
I = the dynamometer's inertia setting, in lbf[middot] s\2\/ft.
vinit = the speed at the start of the coastdown, 
expressed in ft/s and rounded to four significant figures.
vfinal = the speed at the end of the coastdown interval, 
rounded to four significant figures.
t = coastdown time for each speed and inertia setting, accurate to 
at least 0.01 s.

Example:

I = 2000 lbm = 65.17 lbf [middot] s\2\/ft
vinit = 25 mph = 36.66 ft/s
vfinal = 15 mph = 22.0 ft/s
t = 5.00 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.062

F = 191.1 lbf

    (5) Calculate the target value of coastdown force, Fref, 
based on the applicable dynamometer parameters for each speed and 
inertia setting.
    (6) Compare the mean value of the coastdown force measured for each 
speed and inertia setting, Fact, to the corresponding 
Fref to determine values for coastdown force error, 
Ferror, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.063

Example:

Fref = 192 lbf
Fact = 191 lbf
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.064

Ferror = 0.5%

    (d) Performance evaluation. The coastdown force error determined in 
paragraph (c) of this section may not exceed the following:
    (1) For vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, calculate 
Ferrormax from the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.065

Example:

Fref = 192 lbf
Ferrormax (%) = (2.2/192)[middot]100 = 1.14%

    (2) For vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR, the maximum allowable 
error, Ferrormax, for all speed and inertia settings is 
1.0% or 39.2 N, whichever is greater.
    (e) If the dynamometer is not able to meet this requirement, 
diagnose and repair the dynamometer before continuing with emission 
testing. Diagnosis should include performing the verifications in Sec.  
1066.255 and Sec.  1066.260.


Sec.  1066.280  Daily dynamometer readiness verification.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify that the 
dynamometer is ready for emission testing.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, within 1 day before testing, and after major maintenance.
    (c) Procedure. For dynamometers that have an automated process for 
this verification procedure, perform this evaluation by setting the 
initial speed and final speed and the inertial and road-load 
coefficients as required for the test, using good engineering judgment 
to ensure that these values properly represent in-use operation. Use 
the following procedure if your dynamometer does not perform this 
verification with an automated process:
    (1) With the dynamometer in coastdown mode, set the dynamometer 
inertia to the base inertia with the road-load coefficient A set to 20 
lbf (or a force that results in a coastdown time of less than 10 
minutes) and coefficients B and C set to 0. Program the dynamometer to 
coast down for one 10 mph interval from 55 mph down to 45 mph. If your 
dynamometer is not capable of performing one discrete coastdown, then 
coast down with preset 10 mph intervals that include a 55 mph to 45 mph 
interval.
    (2) Perform the coastdown.
    (3) Determine the coastdown force and coastdown force error using 
Eqs. 1066.270-1 and 1066.270-2.
    (d) Performance evaluation. The coastdown force error determined in 
paragraph (c) of this section may not exceed the following:
    (1) For vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, 1.0% 
or 9.8 N (2.2 lbf), whichever is greater.
    (2) For vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR, 1.0% or 
39.2 N (8.8 lbf), whichever is greater.
    (e) If the verification results fail to meet the performance 
criteria in paragraph (d) of this section, perform the procedure up to 
two additional times. If the dynamometer is consistently unable to meet 
the performance criteria, diagnose and repair the dynamometer before 
continuing with emission testing. Diagnosis should include performing 
the verifications in Sec.  1066.255 and Sec.  1066.260.


Sec.  1066.290  Driver's aid.

    Use good engineering judgment to provide a driver's aid that 
facilitates compliance with the requirements of Sec.  1066.430. Verify 
the speed accuracy of the driver's aid as described in Sec.  1066.235.

Subpart D--Coastdown


Sec.  1066.301  Overview of coastdown procedures.

    (a) The coastdown procedures described in this subpart are used to 
determine the load coefficients (A, B, and C) for the simulated road-
load equation in Sec.  1066.210(d)(3).
    (b) The general procedure for performing coastdown tests and 
calculating load coefficients is described in SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010). This subpart specifies 
certain deviations from those procedures for certain applications.
    (c) Use good engineering judgment for all aspects of coastdown 
testing. For example, minimize the effects of grade by performing 
coastdown testing on reasonably level surfaces and determining 
coefficients based on average values from vehicle operation in opposite 
directions over the course.


Sec.  1066.305  Coastdown procedures for motor vehicles at or below 
14,000 pounds GVWR.

    For motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, develop 
representative road-load coefficients to characterize each test 
vehicle. Calculate road-load coefficients by performing coastdowns 
using the provisions of SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1066.1010). Perform coastdowns at a starting speed 
as specified in SAE J2263, or at the highest speed from the range of 
applicable duty cycles. Use the same road-load coefficients for all 
duty cycles. However, if your test conditions are substantially 
different from the conditions represented by your road-load 
coefficients, such as cold-temperature testing, you may use good 
engineering judgment to develop separate road-load coefficients.


Sec.  1066.310  Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 pounds 
GVWR.

    This section describes coastdown procedures that are unique to 
vehicles

[[Page 30161]]

above 14,000 pounds GVWR. These procedures are valid for calculating 
road-load coefficients for chassis and post-transmission powerpack 
testing and for calculating drag area (CDA) for use in the GEM 
simulation tool under 40 CFR part 1037.
    (a) Determine load coefficients by performing a minimum of 16 valid 
coastdown runs (8 in each direction).
    (b) Follow the provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of SAE J1263, and 
SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010), except as 
described in this paragraph (b). The terms and variables identified in 
this paragraph (b) have the meaning given in SAE J1263 or J2263 unless 
specified otherwise.
    (1) The test condition specifications of SAE J1263 apply except as 
follows for wind and road conditions:
    (i) We recommend that you do not perform coastdown testing on days 
for which winds are forecast to exceed 6.0 mph.
    (ii) The grade of the test track or road must not be excessive 
(considering factors such as road safety standards and effects on the 
coastdown results). Road conditions should follow Section 7.4 of SAE 
J1263, except that road grade may exceed 0.5%. If road grade is greater 
than 0.02% over the length of the test surface, then the road grade as 
a function of distance along the length of the test surface must be 
incorporated into the analysis. To calculate the force due to grade use 
Section 11.5 of SAE J2263.
    (2) Operate the vehicle at a top speed above 70 mph, or at its 
maximum achievable speed if it cannot reach 70 mph. If a vehicle is 
equipped with a vehicle speed limiter that is set for a maximum speed 
below 70 mph, you must disable the vehicle speed limiter. Start the 
test at or above 70 mph or at the vehicle's maximum achievable speed if 
it cannot reach 70 mph. Collect data through a minimum speed at or 
below 15 mph. Data analysis for valid coastdown runs must include a 
maximum speed as described in this paragraph (b)(2) and a minimum speed 
of 15 mph.
    (3) Gather data regarding wind speed and direction, in coordination 
with time-of-day data, using at least one stationary electro-mechanical 
anemometer and suitable data loggers meeting the specifications of SAE 
J1263, as well as the following additional specifications for the 
anemometer placed adjacent to the test surface:
    (i) Calibrate the equipment by running the zero-wind and zero-angle 
calibrations within 24 hours before conducting the coastdown 
procedures. If the coastdown procedures are not complete 24 hours after 
calibrating the equipment, repeat the calibration for another 24 hours 
of data collection.
    (ii) Record the location of the anemometer using a GPS measurement 
device adjacent to the test surface (approximately) at the midway 
distance along the test surface used for coastdowns.
    (iii) Position the anemometer such that it will be at least 2.5 but 
not more than 3.0 vehicle widths from the test vehicle's centerline as 
the test vehicle passes the location of that anemometer.
    (iv) Mount the anemometer at a height that is within 6 inches of 
half the test vehicle's maximum height.
    (v) Place the anemometer at least 50 feet from the nearest tree and 
at least 25 feet from the nearest bush (or equivalent roadside 
features).
    (vi) The height of the grass surrounding the stationary anemometer 
may not exceed 10% of the anemometer's mounted height, within a radius 
equal to the anemometer's mounted height.
    (4) You may split runs as per Section 9.3.1 of SAE J2263, but we 
recommend whole runs. If you split a run, analyze each portion 
separately, but count the split runs as one run with respect to the 
minimum number of runs required.
    (5) You may perform consecutive runs in a single direction, 
followed by consecutive runs in the opposite direction, consistent with 
good engineering judgment. Harmonize starting and stopping points to 
the extent practicable to allow runs to be paired.
    (6) All valid coastdown run times in each direction must be within 
2.0 standard deviations of the mean of the valid coastdown run times 
(from 70 mph down to 15 mph) in that direction. Eliminate runs outside 
this range. After eliminating these runs you must have at least eight 
valid runs in each direction. You may use coastdown run times that do 
not meet these standard deviation requirements if we approve it in 
advance. In your request, describe why the vehicle is not able to meet 
the specified standard deviation requirements and propose an 
alternative set of requirements.
    (7) Analyze data for chassis and post-transmission powerpack 
testing or for use in the GEM simulation tool as follows:
    (i) Follow the procedures specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or 
Section 11 of SAE J2263 to calculate coefficients for chassis and post-
transmission powerpack testing.
    (ii) Determine drag area, CDA as follows instead of using the 
procedure specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263:
    (A) Measure vehicle speed at fixed intervals over the coastdown run 
(generally at 10 Hz), including speeds at or above 15 mph and at or 
below 70 mph. Establish the height or altitude corresponding to each 
interval as described in SAE J2263 if you need to incorporate the 
effects of road grade.
    (B) Calculate the vehicle's effective mass, Me, in kg by 
adding 56.7 kg to the measured vehicle mass for each tire making road 
contact. This accounts for the rotational inertia of the wheels and 
tires.
    (C) Calculate the road-load force for each measurement interval, 
Fi, for values of i >= 1 using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.066


Where:

Me = the vehicle's effective mass, expressed to at least 
the nearest 0.1 kg.
v = vehicle speed at the beginning and end of the measurement 
interval.
[Delta]t = elapsed time over the measurement interval, in seconds.

    (D) Plot the data from all the coastdown runs on a single plot of 
Fi vs. vi\2\ to determine the slope correlation, 
D, based on the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.067


Where:

g = gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s\2\.
[Delta]h = change in height or altitude over the measurement 
interval, in m. Assume [Delta]h = 0 if you are not correcting for 
grade.
[Delta]s = distance the vehicle travels down the road during the 
measurement interval, in m.
Am = the calculated value of the y-intercept based on the 
curve-fit.

    (E) Calculate drag area, CDA, in m\2\ using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.068


Where:

[rho] = air density at reference conditions = 1.17 kg/m\3\.


[[Page 30162]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.069


Tb,= average ambient absolute temperature during testing, 
in K.
Pb,= average ambient pressuring during the test, in kPa.

    (8) Determine the A, B, and C coefficients identified in Sec.  
1066.210 as follows:
    (i) For chassis and post-transmission powerpack testing, follow the 
procedures specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 12 of SAE 
J2263.
    (ii) For the GEM simulation tool, use the following values:

A = Am
B = 0
C = Dadj


Sec.  1066.320  Dynamometer road-load setting.

    Determine dynamometer road-load settings for chassis testing by 
following SAE J2264 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010).

Subpart E-- Preparing Vehicles and Running an Exhaust Emission Test


Sec.  1066.401  Overview.

    (a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart to measure vehicle 
emissions over a specified drive schedule. Different procedures may 
apply for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions as described 
in subpart I of this part or the standard-setting part. This subpart 
describes how to:
    (1) Determine road-load power, test weight, and inertia class.
    (2) Prepare the vehicle, equipment, and measurement instruments for 
an emission test.
    (3) Perform pre-test procedures to verify proper operation of 
certain equipment and analyzers and to prepare them for testing.
    (4) Record pre-test data.
    (5) Sample emissions.
    (6) Record post-test data.
    (7) Perform post-test procedures to verify proper operation of 
certain equipment and analyzers.
    (8) Weigh PM samples.
    (b) The overall test generally consists of prescribed sequences of 
fueling, parking, and driving at specified test conditions. An exhaust 
emission test generally consists of measuring emissions and other 
parameters while a vehicle follows the drive schedules specified in the 
standard-setting part. There are two general types of test cycles:
    (1) Transient cycles. Transient test cycles are typically specified 
in the standard-setting part as a second-by-second sequence of vehicle 
speed commands. Operate a vehicle over a transient cycle such that the 
speed follows the target values. Proportionally sample emissions and 
other parameters and use the calculations in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart 
G, or subpart G of this part to calculate emissions. The standard-
setting part may specify three types of transient testing based on the 
approach to starting the measurement, 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) Cruise cycles. Cruise test cycles are typically specified in 
the standard-setting part as a discrete operating point that has a 
single speed command.
    (i) Start a cruise cycle as a hot running test, where you start to 
measure emissions after the engine is started and warmed up and the 
vehicle is running at the target test speed.
    (ii) Sample emissions and other parameters for the cruise cycle in 
the same manner as a transient cycle, with the exception that the 
reference speed value is constant. Record instantaneous and mean speed 
values over the cycle.


Sec.  1066.407  Vehicle preparation and preconditioning.

    Prepare the vehicle for testing (including measurement of 
evaporative and refueling emissions, as required) as described in the 
standard-setting part.


Sec.  1066.410  Dynamometer test procedure.

    (a) Dynamometer testing may consist of multiple drive cycles with 
both cold-start and hot-start portions, including prescribed soak times 
before each test interval. The standard-setting part identifies the 
driving schedules and the associated sample intervals, soak periods, 
engine startup and shutdown procedures, and operation of accessories, 
as applicable. Not every test interval includes all these elements.
    (b) Place the vehicle onto the dynamometer without starting the 
engine (for cold-start test cycles) or drive the vehicle onto 
dynamometer (for hot-start and hot-running cycles only) and position a 
fan that directs cooling air to the vehicle during dynamometer 
operation as described in this paragraph (b). This generally requires 
squarely positioning the fan in front of the vehicle and directing the 
airflow to the vehicle's radiator. Use good engineering judgment to 
design and configure fans to cool the test vehicle in a way that 
properly simulates in-use operation, consistent with the specifications 
of Sec.  1066.105. Except for the following special cases, use a road-
speed modulated fan meeting the requirements of Sec.  1066.105(c)(2) or 
(d) that is placed within 90 cm of the front of the vehicle and ensure 
that the engine compartment cover is closed:
    (1) For SC03 and AC17 testing, use a road-speed modulated fan 
meeting the requirements of Sec.  1066.105(c)(3). Position the 
discharge nozzle such that its lowest point is not more than 16 cm 
above the floor of the test cell.
    (2) For FTP, LA-92, US06, or HFET testing of vehicles at or below 
14,000 pounds GVWR, you may use a fixed-speed fan meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  1066.105(c)(4) or (c)(5) as specified in the 
following table, with the engine compartment cover open:

    Table 1 of Sec.   1066.410--Fixed-Speed Fan Capacity and Position
                             Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Approximate distance from
    Test cycle        Maximum fan  capacity     the front of the vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP...............  Up to 2.50 m\3\/s........  0 to 30 cm
US06..............  2.50 m\3\/s to 7.10 m\3\/  0 to 60 cm
                     s.
LA-92.............  Up to 2.50 m\3\/s........  0 to 30 cm
HFET..............  Up to 2.50 m\3\/s........  0 to 30 cm
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Record the vehicle's speed trace based on the time and speed 
data from the dynamometer. Record speed to at least the nearest 0.01 
mph and time to at least the nearest 0.01 s.
    (d) You may perform practice runs for operating the vehicle and the 
dynamometer controls to meet the driving tolerances specified in Sec.  
1066.430 or adjust the emission sampling equipment. Verify that the 
accelerator pedal allows for enough control to closely follow the 
prescribed driving schedule. We recommend that you verify your ability 
to meet the minimum dilution factor requirements of Sec.  
1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B) during these practice runs.
    (e) Inflate tires on drive wheels according to the vehicle 
manufacturer's specifications. The tire pressure for drive wheels must 
be the same for dynamometer operation and for dynamometer coastdown 
procedures used for determining road-load

[[Page 30163]]

coefficients. Report these tire pressure values with the test results.
    (f) Tie down or load the test vehicle as needed to provide a normal 
force at the tire and dynamometer roll interface to prevent wheel slip. 
For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, report this force with the test 
results.
    (g) For vehicles which provide four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive 
operation, utilize the vehicle's normal (default) mode of operation. 
(For purposes of this paragraph (g), the term four-wheel drive includes 
other multiple drive axle configurations.) This may involve testing 
four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive on a dynamometer with a separate 
dynamometer roll for each drive axle. Alternatively, two drive axles 
may use a single roll, as described in Sec.  1066.210(d)(1). You may 
also test the vehicle on a single roll by deactivating the second set 
of drive wheels, but only if this mode of operation does not decrease 
emissions or energy consumption relative to normal in-use operation. We 
may test such vehicles in four-wheel or all-wheel mode on one or more 
rolls to confirm that the alternate dynamometer procedures did not 
decrease emissions.
    (h) Determine test weight as follows:
    (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine ETW as 
described in Sec.  1066.810. Set dynamometer vehicle inertia, I, based 
on dynamometer type, as follows:
    (i) For two-wheel drive dynamometers, set I = ETW.
    (ii) For four-wheel drive dynamometers, set I = 0.985[middot]ETW.
    (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine the vehicle's 
effective mass as described in 1066.310. This is the test weight.
    (i) Warm up the dynamometer as recommended by the dynamometer 
manufacturer.
    (j) Following the test, determine the actual driving distance by 
counting the number of dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions, or by 
integrating speed over the course of testing from a high-resolution 
encoder system.


Sec.  1066.420  Vehicle operation.

    This section describes how to test a conventionally configured 
vehicle (vehicles with transmission shifters, foot pedal accelerators, 
etc). You may ask us to modify these procedures for vehicles that do 
not have these control features.
    (a) Start the vehicle as follows:
    (1) At the beginning of the test cycle, start the vehicle according 
to the procedure described in the owners manual. In the case of hybrid 
vehicles, this would generally involve activating vehicle systems such 
that the engine will start when the vehicle's control algorithms 
determine that the engine should provide power instead of or in 
addition to power from the rechargeable energy storage system (RESS). 
Unless we specify otherwise, engine starting throughout this part 
generally refers to this step of activating the system on hybrid 
vehicles, whether or not that causes the engine to start running.
    (2) Place the transmission in gear as described by the test cycle 
in the standard-setting part. During idle operation, apply the brakes 
if necessary to keep the drive wheels from turning.
    (b) If the vehicle does not start after your recommended maximum 
cranking time, wait and restart cranking according to your recommended 
practice. If you do not recommend such a cranking procedure, stop 
cranking after 10 seconds, wait for 10 seconds, then start cranking 
again for up to 10 seconds. You may repeat this for up to three start 
attempts. If the vehicle does not start after three attempts, you must 
determine and record the reason for failure to start. Shut off sampling 
systems and either turn the CVS off or disconnect the exhaust tube from 
the tailpipe during the diagnostic period to prevent flow through the 
exhaust system. Reschedule the vehicle for testing. This may require 
performing vehicle preparation and preconditioning if the testing needs 
to be rerun from a cold start. If failure to start occurs during a hot-
start test, you may reschedule the hot-start test without repeating the 
cold-start test, as long as you bring the vehicle to a hot-start 
condition before starting the hot-start test.
    (c) Repeat the recommended starting procedure if the engine has a 
false start (i.e., an incomplete start).
    (d) Take the following steps if the engine stalls:
    (1) If the engine stalls during an idle period, restart the engine 
immediately and continue the test. If you cannot restart the engine 
soon enough to allow the vehicle to follow the next acceleration, stop 
the driving schedule indicator and reactivate it when the vehicle 
restarts.
    (2) Void the test if the vehicle stalls during vehicle operation. 
If this happens, remove the vehicle from the dynamometer, take 
corrective action, and reschedule the vehicle for testing. Record the 
reason for the malfunction (if determined) and any corrective action. 
See the standard-setting part for instructions about reporting these 
malfunctions.
    (e) Operate vehicles during testing as follows:
    (1) Where we do not give specific instructions, operate the vehicle 
according to the recommendations in the owners manual, unless those 
recommendations are unrepresentative of what may reasonably be expected 
for in-use operation.
    (2) If vehicles have features that preclude dynamometer testing, 
you may modify these features as necessary to allow testing, consistent 
with good engineering judgment, as long as it does not affect your 
ability to show that your vehicles comply with standards. Send us 
written notification describing these changes along with supporting 
rationale.
    (3) Operate vehicles during idle as follows:
    (i) For vehicles with automatic transmission, operate at idle with 
the transmission in ``Drive'' with the wheels braked, except that you 
may shift to ``Neutral'' for the first idle period and for any idle 
period longer than one minute. If you put the vehicle in ``Neutral'' 
during an idle, you must shift the vehicle into ``Drive'' with the 
wheels braked at least 5 seconds before the end of the idle period. 
Note that this does not preclude vehicle designs involving engine 
operation with stop-start functions where the engine stops when the 
brake is applied below a certain threshold speed and restarts upon 
release of the brake.
    (ii) For vehicles with manual transmission, operate at idle with 
the transmission in gear with the clutch disengaged, except that you 
may shift to ``Neutral'' with the clutch engaged for the first idle 
period and for any idle period longer than one minute. If you put the 
vehicle in ``Neutral'' during idle, you must shift to first gear with 
the clutch disengaged at least 5 seconds before the end of the idle 
period. Note that this does not preclude vehicle designs involving 
engine operation with stop-start functions where the engine stops when 
the clutch is disengaged below a certain threshold speed and restarts 
upon reengagement of the clutch.
    (4) Operate the vehicle with the appropriate accelerator pedal 
movement necessary to achieve the speed versus time relationship 
prescribed by the driving schedule. Avoid smoothing speed variations 
and excessive accelerator pedal perturbations.
    (5) Operate the vehicle smoothly, following representative shift 
speeds and procedures. For manual transmissions, the operator shall 
release the accelerator pedal during each shift and accomplish the 
shift with minimum time. If the vehicle cannot accelerate at the 
specified rate, operate it at

[[Page 30164]]

maximum available power until the vehicle speed reaches the value 
prescribed for that time in the driving schedule.
    (6) Decelerate as follows:
    (i) For vehicles with automatic transmission, use the brakes or 
accelerator pedal as necessary, without manually changing gears, to 
maintain the desired speed.
    (ii) For vehicles with manual transmission, shift gears in a way 
that represents reasonable shift patterns for in-use operation, 
considering vehicle speed, engine speed, and any other relevant 
variables. Disengage the clutch when the speed drops below 15 mph, when 
engine roughness is evident, or when good engineering judgment 
indicates the engine is likely to stall. Manufacturers may recommend 
shift guidance in the owners manual that differs from the shift 
schedule during testing as long as both shift schedules are included in 
the application for certification. In this case, we may use the shift 
schedule based on the shift pattern described in the owners manual.


Sec.  1066.425  Test preparation.

    (a) Follow the procedures for PM sample preconditioning and tare 
weighing as described in 40 CFR 1065.590 if you need to measure PM 
emissions.
    (b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR with compression-ignition 
engines, verify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination as 
described in 40 CFR 1065.520(g).
    (c) Unless the standard-setting part specifies different 
tolerances, verify at some point before the test that ambient 
conditions are within the tolerances specified in this paragraph (c). 
For purposes of this paragraph (c), ``before the test'' means any time 
from a point just prior to engine starting (excluding engine restarts) 
to the point at which emission sampling begins.
    (1) Ambient temperature must be (20 to 30) [deg]C. See Sec.  
1066.430(i) for circumstances under which ambient temperatures must 
remain within this range during the test.
    (2) Dilution air conditions must meet the specifications in Sec.  
1066.110(b)(2). We recommend verifying dilution air conditions just 
before starting each test interval.
    (d) Control test cell ambient air humidity as follows:
    (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow the 
humidity requirements in Table 1 of this section, unless the standard-
setting part specifies otherwise. When complying with humidity 
requirements in the table, where no tolerance is specified, use good 
engineering judgment to maintain the humidity level near the specified 
value within the limitations of your test facility.
    (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, you may test vehicles at 
any humidity.

                           Table 1 of Sec.   1066.425--Test Cell Humidity Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Humidity
                                             requirement
               Test cycle                  (grains H2O per        Tolerance  (grains H2O per pound dry air)
                                           pound dry air)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC17....................................                69  5 average, > 10
                                                             instantaneous.
FTP\1\ and LA-92........................                50  ....................................................
HFET....................................                50  ....................................................
SC03....................................               100  5.
US06....................................                50  ....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FTP humidity requirement does not apply for cold (-7 [deg]C), intermediate (10 [deg]C), and hot (35 [deg]C)
  temperature testing.

     (e) You may perform a final calibration of proportional-flow 
control systems, which may include performing practice runs.
    (f) You may perform the following procedure to precondition 
sampling systems:
    (1) Operate the vehicle over the test cycle.
    (2) Operate any dilution systems at their expected flow rates. 
Prevent aqueous condensation in the dilution systems as described in 40 
CFR 1065.140(c)(6), taking into account allowances given in Sec.  
1066.110(b)(2)(iv).
    (3) Operate any PM sampling systems at their expected flow rates.
    (4) Sample PM using any sample media. You may change sample media 
during preconditioning. You must discard preconditioning samples 
without weighing them.
    (5) You may purge any gaseous sampling systems during 
preconditioning.
    (6) You may conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle 
equipment or analyzers during preconditioning.
    (g) 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, and the data-collection 
system.
    (4) Pre-heat or pre-cool heat exchangers in the sampling system to 
within their operating temperature tolerances for a test.
    (5) Allow heated or cooled components such as sample lines, 
filters, chillers, and pumps to stabilize at their operating 
temperatures.
    (6) Adjust the sample flow rates to desired levels using bypass 
flow, if desired.
    (7) Zero or re-zero any electronic integrating devices before the 
start of any test interval.
    (8) Select gas analyzer ranges. You may not switch the gain of an 
analyzer's analog operational amplifier(s) during a test. However, you 
may switch (automatically or manually) gas analyzer ranges during a 
test if such switching changes only the range over which the digital 
resolution of the instrument is applied.
    (9) Zero and span all continuous gas analyzers using gases that 
meet the specifications of 40 CFR 1065.750. For FID analyzers, you may 
account for the carbon number of your span gas either during the 
calibration process or when calculating your final emission value. For 
example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of 
concentration 200 ppm ([mu]mol/mol), you may span the FID to respond 
with a value of 600 ppm ([mu]mol/mol) of carbon or 200 ppm of propane. 
However, if your FID response is equivalent to propane, include a 
factor of three to make the final calculated hydrocarbon mass 
consistent with a molar mass of 13.875389. When utilizing an NMC-FID, 
span the FID analyzer consistent with the determination of their 
respective response factors, RF, and penetration

[[Page 30165]]

fractions, PF, according to 40 CFR 1065.365.
    (10) 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, use good engineering judgment to decide whether or not to re-
zero, re-span, or re-calibrate a gas analyzer before starting a test.
    (11) If you correct for dilution air background concentrations of 
associated engine exhaust constituents, start sampling and recording 
background concentrations at the same time you start sampling exhaust 
gases.
    (12) Turn on cooling fans immediately before starting the test.
    (h) Proceed with the test sequence described in Sec.  1066.430.


Sec.  1066.430  Performing emission tests.

    (a) See the standard-setting part for drive schedules. These are 
defined by a smooth fit of a specified speed vs. time sequence.
    (b) The driver must attempt to follow the target schedule as 
closely as possible, consistent with the specifications in paragraph 
(b) of this section. Instantaneous speeds must stay within the 
following tolerances:
    (1) The upper limit is 2.0 mph higher than the highest point on the 
trace within 1.0 s of the given point in time.
    (2) The lower limit is 2.0 mph lower than the lowest point on the 
trace within 1.0 s of the given time.
    (3) The same limits apply for vehicle operation without exhaust 
measurements, such as vehicle preconditioning and warm-up, except that 
the upper and lower limits for speed values are 4.0 mph. In 
addition, up to three occurrences of speed variations greater than the 
tolerance are acceptable for vehicle operation without exhaust 
measurements, as long as they occur for less than 15 seconds on any 
occasion and are clearly documented as to the time and speed at that 
point of the driving schedule.
    (4) Void the test if you do not maintain speed values as specified 
in this paragraph (b), except as allowed by this paragraph (b)(4). 
Speed variations (such as may occur during gear changes or braking 
spikes) may occur as follows, provided that such variations are clearly 
documented, including the time and speed values and the reason for the 
deviation:
    (i) Speed variations greater than the specified limits are 
acceptable for up to 2.0 seconds on any occasion.
    (ii) For vehicles that are not able to maintain acceleration as 
specified in Sec.  1066.420(e)(5), do not count the insufficient 
acceleration as being outside the specified limits.
    (5) We may approve an alternate test cycle and cycle-validation 
criteria for vehicles that do not have enough power to follow the 
specified driving trace. The alternate driving specifications must be 
based on making best efforts to maintain acceleration and speed to 
follow the specified test cycle. We must approve these alternate 
driving specifications before you perform this testing.
    (c) Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this section show the range of 
acceptable speed tolerances for typical points during testing. Figure 1 
of this section is typical of portions of the speed curve that are 
increasing or decreasing throughout the 2-second time interval. Figure 
2 of this section is typical of portions of the speed curve that 
include a maximum or minimum value.

[[Page 30166]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.070

    (d) Start testing as follows:
    (1) If a vehicle is already running and warmed up, and starting is 
not part of the test cycle, operate the vehicle as follows:
    (i) For transient test cycles, control vehicle speeds to follow a 
drive schedule consisting of a series of idles, accelerations, cruises, 
and decelerations.
    (ii) For cruise test cycles, control the vehicle operation to match 
the speed of the first interval of the test cycle. Follow the 
instructions in the standard-setting part to determine how long to 
stabilize the vehicle during each interval, how long to sample 
emissions at each interval, and how to transition between intervals.
    (2) If engine starting is part of the test cycle, start recording 
continuous data,

[[Page 30167]]

any electronic integrating devices, and batch sampling before starting 
the engine. Initiate the driver's trace when the engine starts.
    (e) Perform the following at the end of each test interval, except 
as specified in subpart I of this part:
    (1) Shut down the vehicle if it is part of the test cycle or if 
testing is complete.
    (2) Continue to operate all sampling and dilution systems to allow 
the response times to elapse. Then stop all sampling and recording, 
including background sampling. Finally, stop any integrating devices 
and indicate the end of the duty cycle in the recorded data.
    (f) If testing involves engine shutdown followed by another test 
interval, start a timer for the vehicle soak when the engine shuts 
down. Turn off cooling fans, close the vehicle hood (if applicable), 
and turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the 
tailpipe(s) of the vehicle unless otherwise instructed in the standard-
setting part. If testing is complete, disconnect the exhaust tube from 
the vehicle tailpipe(s) and drive the vehicle from dynamometer.
    (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 
40 CFR 1065.545. Void any samples that did not maintain proportional 
sampling according to those specifications.
    (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 40 CFR 1065.595.
    (3) As soon as practical after the interval or test cycle is 
complete, or optionally during the soak period if practical, perform 
the following:
    (i) Begin drift check for all continuous gas analyzers as described 
in paragraph (g)(6) of this section and zero and span all batch gas 
analyzers as soon as practical prior to any batch sample analysis. You 
may perform this batch analyzer zero and span prior to the end of the 
test cycle or interval.
    (ii) Analyze any conventional gaseous batch samples (HC, 
CH4, CO, NOX, and CO2) no later than 
30 minutes after an interval or test cycle is complete, or during the 
soak period if practical. Analyze background samples no later than 60 
minutes after the test cycle is complete.
    (iii) Analyze nonconventional gaseous batch samples (including 
background), such as NMHCE, N2O, or NMOG sampling with 
ethanol, as soon as practicable using good engineering judgment.
    (4) Range validation. If an analyzer operated above 100% of its 
range at any time during the test, perform the following steps:
    (i) 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.
    (ii) For continuous sampling, repeat the entire test using the next 
higher analyzer range. If the analyzer again operates above 100% of its 
range, repeat the test using the next higher range. Continue to repeat 
the test until the analyzer consistently operates at less than 100% of 
its range. Keep records of any tests where the analyzer exceeds its 
range. We may consider these results to be failures, consistent with 
good engineering judgment.
    (5) After quantifying exhaust gases, verify drift as follows:
    (i) For batch and continuous gas analyzers, 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 that analyzer drift does not 
exceed 2.0% of the analyzer full scale.
    (h) [Reserved]
    (i) Measure and record ambient pressure. Measure and record ambient 
temperature continuously to verify that it remains within the 
temperature range specified in Sec.  1066.425(c)(1) throughout the 
test. Also measure humidity if required, such as for correcting 
NOX emissions, or meeting the requirements of Sec.  
1066.425(d).
    (j) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine overall 
driver accuracy as follows:
    (1) Compare the following drive cycle metrics, based on measured 
vehicle speeds, to a reference value based on the target cycle that 
would have been generated by driving exactly to the target trace as 
described in SAE J2951 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010).
    (i) Determine the Energy Economy Rating as described in Section 5.4 
of SAE J2951.
    (ii) Determine the Absolute Speed Change Rating as described in 
Section 6.1.2 of SAE J2951.
    (iii) Calculate the Inertia Work Rating, IR, using the both the 
sums of the incremental driven and the target inertia work as described 
in Eq. 1066.430-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.072


Where:

FIDi = the driven inertial force over an interval i, as 
described by Equation 18 of SAE J2951.
FIDj = the target inertial force over an interval j, as 
described by Equation 19 of SAE J2951.
DDi = the incremental driven distance over an interval i, 
as described by Equation 12 of SAE J2951.
DDj = the incremental target distance over an interval j, 
as described by Equation 13 of SAE J2951.

    (2) The standard-setting part may require you to provide to us 10 
Hz data to characterize both target and actual values for cycle energy. 
Calculate target values based on the vehicles speeds from the specified 
test cycle.

[[Page 30168]]

Subpart F--Hybrids and Electric Vehicles


Sec.  1066.501  Overview.

    For HEV, PHEV, and pure electric vehicle (EV), use the following 
procedures:
    (a) Correct the results for Net Energy Change of the RESS as 
follows:
    (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow SAE J1711 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010) except as noted in this 
paragraph (a). Use 1% of reading or 0.3% of 
full scale, whichever is greater, in place of the current measurement 
accuracy in Section 4.2a of SAE J1711.
    (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow SAE J2711 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010) for requirements related 
to charge-sustaining operation.
    (3) For pure EVs, irrespective of GVWR, follow SAE J1634 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010).
    (b) This paragraph (b) applies for vehicles that include an engine-
powered generator or other auxiliary power unit that provides motive 
power. For example, this would include a vehicle that has a small 
gasoline engine that generates electricity to charge batteries. Unless 
we approve otherwise, measure emissions for all test cycles when such 
an engine is operating. For each test cycle for which emissions are not 
measured, you must validate that such engines are not operating at any 
time during the test cycle.

Subpart G--Calculations


Sec.  1066.601  Overview.

    (a) This subpart describes calculations used to determine emission 
rates. See the standard setting part and the other provisions of this 
part to determine which equations apply for your testing. This subpart 
describes how to--
    (1) Use the signals recorded before, during, and after an emission 
test to calculate distance-specific emissions of each regulated 
pollutant.
    (2) Perform calculations for calibrations and performance checks.
    (3) Determine statistical values.
    (b) You may use data from multiple systems to calculate test 
results for a single emission test, consistent with good engineering 
judgment. You may also make multiple measurements from a single batch 
sample, such as multiple weighing of a PM filter or multiple readings 
from a bag sample. Although you may use an average of multiple 
measurements from a single test, you may not use test results from 
multiple emission tests to report emissions. We allow weighted means 
where appropriate, such as for sampling onto a PM filter over the FTP. 
You may discard statistical outliers, but you must report all results.


Sec.  1066.610  Mass-based and molar-based exhaust emission 
calculations.

    (a) Calculate your total mass of emissions over a test cycle as 
specified in paragraph (c) of this section or in 40 CFR part 1065, 
subpart G, as applicable.
    (b) For composite emission calculations over multiple test 
intervals and corresponding weighting factors, see the standard-setting 
part.
    (c) To calculate total mass emissions, multiply a concentration by 
its respective flow and density as specified in Eq. 1066.610-1. Before 
calculating mass emissions as specified in paragraph (d) and (e) of 
this section, perform the following sequence of preliminary 
calculations to correct recorded concentration measurements:
    (1) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, correct all THC and 
CH4 concentrations for initial contamination as described in 
40 CFR 1065.660(a), including continuous readings, sample bag readings, 
and dilution air background readings. This correction is optional for 
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
    (2) Correct all concentrations measured on a ``dry'' basis to a 
``wet'' basis, including dilution air background concentrations.
    (3) Calculate all NMHC and CH4 concentrations, including 
dilution air background concentrations, as described in 40 CFR 
1065.660.
    (4) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, calculate HC 
concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as 
described in this section and Sec.  1066.665 for NMOG. For emission 
testing of vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, with fuels that contain 
25% or more oxygenated compounds by volume, calculate HC 
concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as 
described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, for THCE and NMHCE.
    (5) Correct all NOX emission values for test cell 
ambient air humidity as described in Sec.  1066.630.
    (6) Correct all gaseous concentrations for dilution air background 
as described in Sec.  1066.620.
    (7) Correct all PM filter masses for sample media buoyancy as 
described in 40 CFR 1065.690.
    (d) Calculate the emission mass of each gaseous pollutant using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.073


    Where:
    m[emission] = emission mass over the test interval.
Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval 
at standard reference conditions, corrected for any volume removed 
for emission sampling and the addition of secondary dilution air (if 
applicable).
[rho][emission] = density of the appropriate chemical 
species as given in Sec.  1066.1005(f).
[khgr][emission] = measured emission concentration in the 
sample, after dry-to-wet and background corrections.
c = 10-\2\ for emission concentrations % and 10\-6\ for 
emission concentrations in ppm.

Example:

Vmix = 170.878 m\3\ (from paragraph (f) of this section)
[rho]NOx = 1913 g/m\3\
[khgr]NOx = 0.9721 ppm
c = 10-\6\
mNOx = 
170.878[middot]1913[middot]0.9721[middot]10-\6\ = 0.3177 g

    (e) The calculation of PM is dependent on how many PM filters are 
used (for example as described in Sec.  1066.822(b)), as follows:
    (1) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this 
section, calculate mPM using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.074



[[Page 30169]]


Where:
mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the test 
interval, as described in Sec.  1066.820(b)(1), (2), and (3).
Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval 
at standard reference conditions, corrected for any volume removed 
for emissions sampling and the addition of secondary dilution air 
(if applicable).
Vsdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air flow 
sampled through the filter over the test phase at standard 
temperature and pressure.
mPMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the 
filter over the test interval.
mPMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background 
filter.

Example:

Vmix = 170.878 m\3\ (from paragraph (f) of this section)
VPMstd = 0.925 m\3\ (from paragraph (f) of this section)
Vsdastd = 0.527 m\3\ (from paragraph (f) of this section)
mPMfil = 0.0000045 g
mPMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.075

    (2) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in Sec.  
1066.820(b)(4), calculate mPM using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.076

Eq. 1066.610-3

Where:

mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the 
entire FTP as sampled according to Sec.  1066.820(b)(4).
Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval 
at standard reference conditions, corrected for any volume removed 
for emissions sampling and the addition of secondary dilution air 
(if applicable).
V[interval]-PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust 
sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold 
transient, s = stabilized, ht = hot transient) at standard reference 
conditions.
V[interval]-sdastd = total volume of secondary dilution 
air sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold 
transient, s = stabilized, ht = hot transient) at standard reference 
conditions.
mPMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the 
filter over the test interval.
mPMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background 
filter.

Example:

Vmix = 633.691 m\3\
Vct-PMstd = 0.925 m\3\
Vct-sdastd = 0.527 m\3\
Vs-PMstd = 1.967 m\3\
Vs-sdastd = 1.121 m\3\
Vht-PMstd = 1.122 m\3\
Vht-sdastd = 0.639 m\3\
mPMfil = 0.0000106 g
mPMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.077

mpm = 0.00222 g
    (3) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in Sec.  
1066.820(b)(5), calculate mPM using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.078



[[Page 30170]]


Where:

mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the 
entire FTP as sampled according to Sec.  1066.820(b)(5).
Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval 
at standard reference conditions, corrected for any volume removed 
for emissions sampling and the addition of secondary dilution air 
(if applicable).
V[interval]-PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust 
sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold 
transient, cs = cold stabilized, ht = hot transient, hs = hot 
stabilized) at standard reference conditions.
V[interval]-sdastd = total volume of secondary dilution 
air sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold 
transient, cs = cold stabilized, ht = hot transient, hs = hot 
stabilized) at standard reference conditions.
mPMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the 
filter over the test interval.
mPMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background 
filter.

Example:

Vmix = 972.121 m\3\
Vct-PMstd = 0.925 m\3\
Vct-sdastd = 0.529 m\3\
Vcs-PMstd = 1.968 m\3\
Vcs-sdastd = 1.123 m\3\
Vht-PMstd = 1.122 m\3\
Vht-sdastd = 0.641 m\3\
Vhs-PMstd = 1.967 m\3\
Vhs-sdastd = 1.121 m\3\
mPMfil = 0.0000229 g
mPMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.079

MPM = 0.00155 g

    (f) This paragraph (f) describes how to correct flow and flow rates 
to standard reference conditions and provides an example for 
determining Vmix based on CVS total flow and the removal of 
sample flow from the dilute exhaust gas.
    (1) Correct flow and flow rates to standard reference conditions as 
needed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.080


Where:

V[flow]std = total volume of flow at the flow meter at 
standard reference conditions.
V[flow]act = total volume of flow at the flow meter at 
test conditions.
pin = absolute static pressure at the flow meter inlet, 
measured directly or calculated as the sum of atmospheric pressure 
plus a differential pressure referenced to atmospheric pressure.
Tstd = standard temperature.
pstd = standard pressure.
Tin = average temperature of the dilute exhaust sample at 
the flow meter inlet.

Example:

VPMact = 1.071 m\3\
pin = 101.7 kPa
Tstd = 293.15 K
pstd = 101.325 kPa
Tin = 340.5 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.081

    (2) The following example provides a determination of 
Vmix based on CVS total flow and the removal of sample flow 
from one dilute exhaust gas analyzer and one PM sampling system that is 
utilizing secondary dilution. Note that your Vmix 
determination may vary from Eq. 1066.610-6 based on the number of flows 
that are removed from your dilute exhaust gas and whether your PM 
sampling system is using secondary dilution. For this example, 
Vmix is governed by the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.082


Where:

VCVSstd = total dilute exhaust volume over the test 
interval at the flow meter at standard reference conditions.
Vgasstd = total volume of sample flow through the gaseous 
emission bench over the test interval at standard reference 
conditions.
VPMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust sampled through 
the filter over the test interval at standard reference conditions.
Vsdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air flow 
sampled through the filter over the test interval at standard 
reference conditions.

Example:

    Using Eq. 1066.610-5

VCVSstd = 170.451 m\3\, where VCVSact = 170.721 
m\3\, pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin = 294.7 K

    Using Eq. 1066.610-5

Vgasstd = 0.028 m\3\, where Vgasact = 0.033 m\3\, 
pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin = 340.5 K

    Using Eq. 1066.610-5

VPMstd = 0.925 m\3\, where VPMact = 1.071 m\3\, 
pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin = 340.5 K

    Using Eq. 1066.610-5

Vsdastd = 0.527 m\3\, where Vsdaact = 0.531 m\3\, 
pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin = 296.3 K
Vmix = 170.451 + 0.028 + 0.925 - 0.527 = 170.878 m\3\

    (g) Total sample volume over a test interval. Calculate total flow, 
V[flow], for a CVS or exhaust gas sampler as follows:
    (1) Varying versus constant flow rates. The calculation methods 
depend on differentiating varying and constant flow, as follows:
    (i) We consider the following to be examples of varying flows that 
require a continuous multiplication of concentration times volumetric 
flow rate: raw exhaust, exhaust diluted with a constant flow rate of 
dilution air, and CVS dilution with a CVS flow meter that does not have 
an upstream heat exchanger or electronic flow control.
    (ii) We consider the following to be examples of constant exhaust 
flows: CVS diluted exhaust with a CVS flow meter that has an upstream 
heat exchanger, an electronic flow control, or both.
    (2) Continuous sampling. For continuous sampling, you must 
frequently record a continuously updated flow signal. This recording 
requirement applies for both varying and constant flow rates.
    (i) Varying flow rate. If you continuously sample from a varying 
exhaust flow rate, calculate V[flow] using the following 
equation:


[[Page 30171]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.083

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.138

Example:

N = 505
QCVS1 = 0.276 m\3\/s
QCVS2 = 0.294 m\3\/s
[fnof]record = 1 Hz

    Using Eq. 1066.610-8,

[Delta]t = 1/1 = 1 s
VCVS = (0.276+0.294+...+QQCVS505) [middot] 1
VCVS = 170.721 m\3\

    (ii) Constant flow rate. If you continuously sample from a constant 
exhaust flow rate, use the same calculation described in paragraph 
(g)(2)(i) of this section or calculate the mean flow recorded over the 
test interval and treat the mean as a batch sample, as described in 
paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (3) Batch sampling. For batch sampling, calculate total flow by 
integrating a varying flow rate or by determining the mean of a 
constant flow rate, as follows:
    (i) Varying flow rate. If you proportionally collect a batch sample 
from a varying exhaust flow rate, integrate the flow rate over the test 
interval to determine the total flow from which you extracted the 
proportional sample, as described in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this 
section.
    (ii) Constant flow rate. If you batch sample from a constant 
exhaust flow rate, extract a sample at a proportional or constant flow 
rate and calculate V[flow] from the flow from which you 
extract the sample by multiplying the mean flow rate by the time of the 
test interval using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.084

    Example:

QCVS = 0.338 m\3\/s
[Delta]t = 505 s
VCVS = 0.338 [middot] 505
VCVS = 170.69 m\3\


Sec.  1066.620  Dilution air background correction.

    (a) Correct the emissions in a gaseous sample for background using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.139


Where:

[khgr][emission]dexh = measured emission concentration in 
dilute exhaust (after dry-to-wet correction for dry measurements).
[khgr][emission]bkgnd = measured emission concentration 
in the dilution air (after dry-to-wet correction for dry 
measurements).
DF = dilution factor determined in paragraph (b) of this section.

Example:

[khgr]NOxdexh = 1.08305 ppm
[khgr]NOxbkgnd = 0.12456 ppm
DF = 9.14506
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.085

    (b) Determine the dilution factor, DF, over the test interval using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.086

Where:

[khgr]CO2 = amount of CO2 measured in the 
sample over the test interval.
[khgr]NMHC = amount of C1-equivalent NMHC 
measured in the sample over the test interval.
[khgr]CH4 = amount of CH4 measured in the 
sample over the test interval.
[khgr]CO = amount of CO measured in the sample over the 
test interval.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the test. You may 
measure [alpha] or use default values from Table 1 of 40 CFR 
1065.655.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the test fuel. You may 
measure [beta] or use default values from Table 1 of 40 CFR 
1065.655.

Example:

[khgr]CO2 = 1.456% = 0.01456
[khgr]NMHC = 0.84 ppm = 0.00000084
[khgr]CH4 = 0.26 ppm = 0.00000026
[khgr]CO = 80.4 ppm = 0.0000804
[alpha] = 1.92
[beta] = 0.03

[[Page 30172]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.087

    (c) Determine the dilution factor, DF, over the test interval for 
partial-flow dilution sample systems that measure PM using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.088

Where:

VPMstd = total dilute exhaust volume sampled through the 
filter over the test interval at standard reference conditions.
Vexhstd = total exhaust volume sampled from the vehicle 
at standard reference conditions.

Example:

VPMstd = 170.9 m\3\
Vexhstd = 15.9 m\3\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.089

    (d) Determine the time-weighted dilution factor, DFw, 
over the duty cycle using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.090

Where:

N = number of test intervals.
i = test interval number
t = duration of the test interval.
DF = dilution factor over the test interval.

Example:

N = 3
DF1 = 14.40
t1 = 505 s
DF2 = 24.48
t2 = 867 s
DF3 = 17.28
t3 = 505 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.091

Sec.  1066.630  NOX intake-air humidity correction.

    See the standard-setting part to determine if you may correct 
NOX emissions for the effects of intake-air humidity. 
Correct NOX emissions for intake-air humidity as described 
in this section. See Sec.  1066.610(c)(1) for the proper sequence for 
applying the NOX intake-air humidity correction.
    (a) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, apply a correction 
for any reciprocating engines for the following test cycles:
    (1) Calculate a humidity correction using a time-weighted mean 
value for ambient humidity over the test interval. Calculate absolute 
ambient humidity in grams H2O vapor per kilogram of dry air 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.092

Where:

MH2O = molar mass of H2O, in g/mol.
pd = saturated vapor pressure at the ambient dry bulb 
temperature, in kPa.
RH% = relative humidity of ambient air, in %.
Mair = molar mass of air, in g/mol.
patmos = atmospheric pressure, in kPa.

    Example:
MH2O = 18.01528 g/mol
pd = 2.93 kPa
RH % = 37.5%
Mair = 28.96559 g/mol
patmos = 96.71 kPa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.093

    (2) Use the following equation to correct measured concentrations 
to a reference condition of 10.71 grams H2O vapor per 
kilogram of dry air for the FTP, US06, LA-92, SC03, and HFET test 
cycles:

[[Page 30173]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.094

Where:

[khgr]NOxdexh = measured dilute NOX emissions.
Hs = humidity scale. Set = 1 for FTP, US06, LA-92, and 
HFET test cycles. Set = 0.8825 for the SC03 test cycle.
H = absolute humidity, from paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

    Example:
H = 7.14741 g H2O vapor/kg dry air
[khgr]NOxdexh = 1.21 ppm
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.095

    (b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, apply correction factors 
as described in 40 CFR 1065.670.


Sec.  1066.640  Removed water correction.

    Correct for removed water if water removal occurs upstream of a 
concentration measurement and downstream of a flow meter used to 
determine mass emissions over a test interval. Perform this correction 
based on the amount of water at the concentration measurement and on 
the amount of water at the flow meter.


Sec.  1066.650  Flow meter calibration calculations.

    This section describes how to calibrate various flow meters based 
on mass flow rates. Calibrate your flow meter according to 40 CFR 
1065.640 instead if you calculate emissions based on molar flow rates.
    (a) PDP calibration calculations. Perform the following steps to 
calibrate a PDP flow meter:
    (1) Calculate PDP volume pumped per revolution, Vrev, 
for each restrictor position from the mean values determined in Sec.  
1066.140:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.096

Where:

Qref = mean flow rate of the reference flow meter.
Tin = mean temperature at the PDP inlet.
Pstd = standard pressure = 101.325 kPa.
fnPDP = mean PDP speed.
pin = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet.
Tstd = standard temperature = 293.15 K.

    Example:
Qref = 0.1651 m\3\/s
Tin = 299.5 K
pstd = 101.325 kPa

fnPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
pin = 98.290 kPa
Tstd = 293.15 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.097

Vrev = 0.00866 m\3\/r
    (2) Calculate a PDP slip correction factor, Ks for each 
restrictor position from the mean values determined in Sec.  1066.140:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.098

Where:

fnPDP = mean PDP speed.
pout = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet.
pin = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet.

    Example:
fnPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
pout = 100.103 kPa
pin = 98.290 kPa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.099

Ks = 0.006700 s/r

    (3) Perform a least-squares regression of Vrev, versus 
PDP Ks, by calculating slope, a1, and intercept, 
a0, as described in 40 CFR 1065.602.
    (4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 
section for every speed that you run your PDP.
    (5) The following example illustrates a range of typical values for 
different PDP speeds:

       Table 1 of Sec.   1066.650--Example of PDP Calibration Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 f8nPDP (r/s)                   a1 (m\3\/s)  a0 (m\3\/r)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.6..........................................        0.841        0.056
16.5..........................................        0.831       -0.013
20.9..........................................        0.809        0.028
23.4..........................................        0.788       -0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the 
appropriate regression equation from this paragraph (a) to calculate 
flow rate during emission testing as described in Sec.  1066.652.
    (b) SSV calibration. The equations governing SSV flow assume one-
dimensional isentropic inviscid flow of an ideal gas, except that the 
equations can account for compressible flow. Paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of 
this section describes other assumptions that may apply. If good 
engineering judgment dictates that you account for gas compressibility, 
you may either use an appropriate equation of state to determine values 
of Z as a function of measured pressure and temperature, or you may 
develop your own calibration equations based on good engineering 
judgment. Note that the equation for the flow coefficient, 
Cf, is based on the ideal gas assumption that the isentropic 
exponent, [gamma], is equal to the ratio of specific heats, 
Cp/Cv. If good engineering judgment dictates 
using a real gas isentropic exponent, you may either use an appropriate 
equation of state to determine values of [gamma] as a function of 
measured pressure and temperature, or you may develop your own 
calibration equations based on good engineering judgment.
    (1) Calculate volumetric flow rate, Q, as follows:

[[Page 30174]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.100

Where:

Cd = discharge coefficient, as determined in paragraph 
(b)(2)(i) of this section.
Cf = flow coefficient, as determined in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section.
At = cross-sectional area at the venturi throat.
R = molar gas constant.
pin = static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet.
Tstd = standard temperature.
pstd = standard pressure.
Z = compressibility factor.
Mmix = molar mass of gas mixture.
Tin = absolute temperature at the venturi inlet.

    (2) Perform the following steps to calibrate an SSV flow meter:
    (i) Using the data collected in Sec.  1066.140, calculate 
Cd for each flow rate using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.101

Where:

Qref = measured volumetric flow rate from the reference 
flow meter.

    (ii) Use the following equation to calculate Cf for each 
flow rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.102

Where:

[gamma] = isentropic exponent. For an ideal gas, this is the ratio 
of specific heats of the gas mixture, Cp/Cv.
r = pressure ratio, as determined in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this 
section.
[beta] = ratio of venturi throat diameter to inlet diameter.

    (iii) Calculate r using the following equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.103
    
Where:

    [Delta]p = differential static pressure, calculated as venturi 
inlet pressure minus venturi throat pressure.

    (iv) You may apply any of the following simplifying assumptions or 
develop other values as appropriate for your test configuration, 
consistent with good engineering judgment:
    (A) For raw exhaust, diluted exhaust, and dilution air, you may 
assume that the gas mixture is incompressible and therefore behaves as 
an ideal gas (Z = 1).
    (B) For raw exhaust, you may assume [ballot] = 1.385.
    (C) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume [ballot] = 
1.399.
    (D) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume 
Mmix is a function only of the amount of water in the 
dilution air or calibration air, xH2O, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.104

    Where:

Mair = 28.964 g/mol
xH2O = amount of H2O in the dilution air, 
determined as described in 40 CFR 1065.645.
MH20 = 18.015 g/mol

Example:
xH2O = 0.0169 mol/mol
Mmix =28.964[middot](1 - 0169) + 18.015[middot]0.0169
Mmix = 28.7789 g/mol

    (E) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume a constant 
molar mass of the mixture, Mmix, for all calibration and all 
testing if you control the amount of water in calibration air and in 
dilution air, as shown in the following table:

Table 2 of Sec.   1066.650--Examples of Dilution Air and Calibration Air
           Dewpoints at Which you May Assume a Constant Mmix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              for the
                                                             following
                                            assume the    ranges of Tdew
  If calibration Tdew ([deg]C) is . . .      following       ([deg]C)
                                           constant Mmix      during
                                           (g/mol) . . .     emission
                                                             tests\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<= 0....................................        28.96559           <= 18
0.......................................        28.89263           <= 21
5.......................................        28.86148           <= 22
10......................................        28.81911           <= 24
15......................................        28.76224           <= 26
20......................................        28.68685        -8 to 28
25......................................        28.58806        12 to 31
30......................................        28.46005        23 to 34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The specified ranges are valid for all calibration and emission
  testing over the atmospheric pressure range (80.000 to 103.325) kPa.

    (v) The following example illustrates the use of the governing 
equations to calculate Cd of an SSV flow meter at one 
reference flow meter value:

Example:
Q = 2.395 m\3\/s
Z = 1
Mmix = 28.7789 g/mol = 0.0287789 kg/mol
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[sdot]K) = 8.314472 (m\2\[sdot]kg)/
(s\2\[sdot]mol[sdot]K)
Tin = 298.15 K
At = 0.01824 m\2\
pin = 99.132 kPa = 99132 Pa = 99132 kg/(m[sdot]s\2\)
[gamma] = 1.399
[beta] = 0.8
[Delta]p = 2.312 kPa
[Delta]p = 2.312 kPa

[[Page 30175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.105

Cf = 0.274
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.106

Cd = 1.695
    (vi) Calculate the Reynolds number, Re#, for each reference 
volumetric flow rate Q \ref\, using the throat diameter of the venturi, 
dt, and the uncorrected air density, [rho]. Because the 
dynamic viscosity, [mu], is needed to compute Re#, you may use your own 
fluid viscosity model to determine [mu] for your calibration gas 
(usually air), using good engineering judgment. Alternatively, you may 
use the Sutherland three-coefficient viscosity model to approximate 
[mu], as shown in the following sample calculation for Re #:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.107

    Where, using the Sutherland three-coefficient viscosity model:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.108
    
    Where:

[mu]0 = Sutherland reference viscosity.
T0 = Sutherland reference temperature.
S = Sutherland constant.

               Table 3 of Sec.   1065.640--Sutherland Three-Coefficient Viscosity Model Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Temp range
                                                                                           within
               Gas\a\                         [mu]0                T0           S          2%    limit \b\
                                                                                         error \b\
                                               kg/(m[sdot]s)            K            K            K          kPa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air................................        1.716[sdot]10-\5\          273          111  170 to 1900      <= 1800
CO2................................        1.370[sdot]10-\5\          273          222  190 to 1700      <= 3600
H2O................................         1.12[sdot]10-\5\          350         1064  360 to 1500     <= 10000
O2.................................        1.919[sdot]10-\5\          273          139  190 to 2000      <= 2500
N2.................................        1.663[sdot]10-\5\          273          107  100 to 1500      <= 1600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Use tabulated parameters only for the pure gases, as listed. Do not combine parameters in calculations to
  calculate viscosities of gas mixtures.
\b\ The model results are valid only for ambient conditions in the specified ranges.

Example:
[mu]0 = 1.716[sdot]10-5 kg/(m[sdot]s)
T0 = 273 K
S = 111 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.109

[mu] = 1.838[sdot]10-5 kg/(m[sdot]s)
Tin = 298.15 K
dt = 152.4 mm = 0.1524 m
[rho] = 1.1508 kg/m\3\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.110

    Re = 1.2531[sdot]10\6\

    (vii) Calculate [rho] using the following equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.111
    

Example:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.112

[rho] = 1.1508 kg/m\3\

    (vii) Create an equation for Cd as a function of 
Re, using paired values of the two quantitites. The 
equation may involve any mathematical expression, including a 
polynomial or a power series. The following equation is an example of a 
commonly used mathematical expression for relating Cd and 
Re:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.113


[[Page 30176]]


    (viii) Perform a least-squares regression analysis to determine the 
best-fit coefficients for the equation and calculate the equation's 
regression statistics, SEE and r\2\, according to Sec.  1065.602.
    (ix) If the equation meets the criteria of SEE <= (0.5% [sdot] 
Qrefmax) and r\2\ >= 0.995, you may use the equation to 
determine Cd for emission tests, as described in Sec.  
1065.642.
    (x) If the equation does not meet the specified statistical 
criteria, you may use good engineering judgment to omit calibration 
data points; however, you must use at least seven calibration data 
points to demonstrate that you meet the criteria. For example, this may 
involve narrowing the range of flow rates for a better curve fit.
    (xi) Take corrective action if the equation does not meet the 
specified statistical criteria even after omitting calibration data 
points. For example, select another mathematical expression for the 
Cd versus Re equation, check for leaks, 
or repeat the calibration process. If you must repeat the calibration 
process, we recommend applying tighter tolerances to measurements and 
allowing more time for flows to stabilize.
    (xii) Once you have an equation that meets the specified 
statistical criteria, you may use the equation only for the 
corresponding range of flow rates.
    (c) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single 
venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different 
combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. For 
CFV flow meters that consist of multiple venturis, either calibrate 
each venturi independently to determine a separate calibration 
coefficient, Kv, for each venturi, or calibrate each 
combination of venturis as one venturi by determining Kv for 
the system.
    (1) To determine Kv for a single venturi or a 
combination of venturis, perform the following steps:
    (i) Calculate an individual Kv for each calibration set 
point for each restrictor position using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.114

Where:
Q&refstd> = mean flow rate from the reference 
flow meter, at standard reference conditions.
Tin> = mean temperature at the venturi inlet.
Pin> = mean static absolute pressure at the venturi 
inlet.

    (ii) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the 
Kv values (see 40 CFR 1065.602). Verify choked flow by 
plotting Kv as a function of Pin.Kv 
will have a relatively constant value for choked flow; as vacuum 
pressure increases, the venturi will become unchoked and Kv 
will decrease. Paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) through (viii) of this section 
describe how to verify your range of choked flow.
    (iii) If the standard deviation of all the Kv values is 
less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean Kv, use the mean 
Kv in Eq. 1066.652-7, and use the CFV only up to the highest 
venturi pressure ratio, r, measured during calibration using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.115

Where:

[Delta]pCFV = differential static pressure; venturi inlet 
minus venturi outlet.
    (iv) If the standard deviation of all the Kv values 
exceeds 0.3% of the mean Kv, omit the Kv value 
corresponding to the data point collected at the highest r measured 
during calibration.
    (v) If the number of remaining data points is less than seven, take 
corrective action by checking your calibration data or repeating the 
calibration process. If you repeat the calibration process, we 
recommend checking for leaks, applying tighter tolerances to 
measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize.
    (vi) If the number of remaining Kv values is seven or 
greater, recalculate the mean and standard deviation of the remaining 
Kv values.
    (vii) If the standard deviation of the remaining Kv 
values is less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean of the remaining 
Kv, use that mean Kv in Eq 1066.652-7, and use 
the CFV values only up to the highest r associated with the remaining 
Kv.
    (viii) If the standard deviation of the remaining Kv 
still exceeds 0.3% of the mean of the remaining Kv values, 
repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) through (vii) of this section.
    (2) During exhaust emission tests, monitor sonic flow in the CFV by 
monitoring the CFV pressure ratio. Based on the calibration data 
selected to meet the criteria for paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (vii) of 
this section, in which Kv is constant, select the data 
values associated with the calibration point with the lowest absolute 
venturi inlet pressure to determine the r limit. Calculate r during the 
exhaust emission test using Eq. 1066.650-8 to demonstrate that the 
value of r during all emission tests is less than or equal to the r 
limit derived from the CFV calibration data.


Sec.  1066.652  PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations.

    This section describes the equations for calculating flow rates 
from various flow meters. After you calibrate a flow meter according to 
Sec.  1066.650, use the calculations described in this section to 
calculate flow during an emission test. Calculate flow according to 40 
CFR 1065.642 instead if you calculate emissions based on molar flow 
rates.
    (a) PDP volumetric flow rate. Based upon the speed at which you 
operate the PDP for a test interval, select the corresponding slope, 
a1, and intercept, a0, as calculated in Sec.  
1066.650(a), to calculate volumetric flow rate, Q as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.116

Where:

fnPDP = pump speed.
Vrev = PDP volume pumped per revolution.
Tstd = standard temperature = 293.15 K.
pin = static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet.
Tin = pump inlet absolute temperature.
pstd = standard pressure = 101.325 kPa.
P\out\ = static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.117


Example:

a1 = 50.43 m\3\/min = 0.8405 m\3\/s
[fnof]nPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s
p\out\ = 99.950 kPa
p\in\ = 98.575 kPa
a0 = 0.056 m\3\/r
T\in\ = 323.5 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.118

    Vrev = 0.063 m\3\/r
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.119
    
Q = 0.7079 m\3\/s

    (b) SSV volumetric flow rate. Calculate SSV volumetric flow rate 
during an emission test, Q, as follows:

[[Page 30177]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.120

Where:

Cd = discharge coefficient, as determined based on the 
Cd versus Re equation in Sec.  
1066.650(b)(2)(viii).
Cf = flow coefficient, as determined in Sec.  1066.650 
(b)(2)(ii).
At = venturi throat cross-sectional area.
R = molar gas constant.
pin = static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet.
Tstd = standard temperature.
pstd = standard pressure.
Z = compressibility factor.
Mmix = molar mass of gas mixture.
Tin = absolute temperature at the venturi inlet.

Example:

Cd = 0.890
Cf = 0.274
At = 0.01824 m\2\
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[middot]K) = 8.314472 (m\2\[middot]kg)/
(s\2\[middot]mol[middot]K)
pin = 98.496 kPa
Tstd = 293.15 K
pstd = 101.325 kPa
Z = 1
Mmix = 28.7789 g/mol = 0.0287789 kg/mol
Tin = 296.85 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.121

Q = 1.252 m\3\/s

    (c) CFV volumetric flow rate. Some CFV flow meters consist of a 
single venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different 
combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. If you 
use multiple venturis and you calibrated each venturi independently to 
determine a separate calibration coefficient, Kv, for each 
venturi, calculate the individual volumetric flow rates through each 
venturi and sum all their flow rates to determine Q. If you use 
multiple venturis and you calibrated each combination of venturis, 
calculate Q using the Kv that was determined for that 
combination of venturis.
    (1) To calculate volumetric flow rate through one venturi or a 
combination of venturis, use the mean Kv you determined 
according to Sec.  1066.650(c) and calculate the appropriate volumetric 
flow rate, Q, during an emission test as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.122

Where:

Q = air flow rate of flow meter, in m\3\/s.
Kv = flow meter calibration coefficient, in 
m\3\[middot]K1/2/(kPa[middot]s).
Tin = temperature at the venturi inlet, in K.
pin = absolute static pressure at the venturi inlet, in 
kPa.

Example:

Kv = 0.074954 m\3\[middot]K1/2/(kPa[middot]s)
pin = 99.654 kPa
Tin = 353.15 K
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.123

Q = 0.39748 m\3\/s

    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  1066.665  NMOG determination.

    For vehicles subject to an NMOG standard, determine NMOG as 
described in paragraph (a) of this section. Except as specified in the 
standard-setting part, you may alternatively calculate NMOG results 
based on measured NMHC emissions as described in paragraphs (c) through 
(f) of this section.
    (a) Determine NMOG by independently measuring alcohols and 
carbonyls as described in 40 CFR 1065.805 and 1065.845. Use good 
engineering judgment to determine which alcohols and carbonyls you need 
to measure. This would typically require you to measure all alcohols 
and carbonyls that you expect to contribute 1% or more of total NMOG 
emissions. Calculate NMOG with the following equation, using density 
values specified in Sec.  1066.1005(f):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.124

Where:

mNMOG = the sum of the mass of NMOG in the exhaust.
mNMHC = the mass of NMHC and all oxygenated hydrocarbons 
(OHCs) in the exhaust, as determined using Eq. 1066.610-1. Calculate 
NMHC mass based on [rho]NMHC.
[rho]NMHC = the effective C1-equivalent 
density of NMHC as specified in Sec.  1066.1005(f):.
mOHCi = the mass of oxygenated species i in the exhaust 
calculated using Eq. 1066.610-1.
[rho]OCHi = the C1-equivalent density of 
oxygenated species i.
RFOHCi[THC-FID] = The response factor of a THC-FID to 
oxygenated species i relative to propane on a C1-
equivalent basis as determined in 40 CFR 1065.665.

    (b) The following example shows how to determine NMOG emissions as 
described in paragraph (a) of this section for (OHC) compounds 
including ethanol (C2H5OH), methanol 
(CH3OH), acetaldehyde (C2H4O), and 
formaldehyde (C2HO) as C1-equivalent 
concentrations:

mNMHC = 0.0125 g
mCH3OH = 0.0002 g
mC2H5OH = 0.0009 g
mHCHO = 0.0001 g
mC2H4O = 0.00005 g
RFCH3OH[THC-FID] = 0.63
RFC2H5OH[THC-FID] = 0.75
RFHCHO[THC-FID] = 0.00
RFC2H4O[THC-FID] = 0.50
[rho]NMHC-liq = 576.816 g/m\3\
[rho]CH3OH = 1332.02 g/m\3\
[rho]C2H5OH = 957.559 g/m\3\
[rho]HCHO = 1248.21 g/m\3\
[rho]C2H4O = 915.658 g/m\3\

[[Page 30178]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.125

0.0002 + 0.0009 + 0.0001 + 0.00005
mNMOG = 0.013273

    (c) For ethanol-gasoline blends less than 25% ethanol by volume, 
you may calculate NMOG emissions from measured NMHC emissions as 
follows:
    (1) For hot-start and hot running test cycles or intervals other 
than the FTP, you may determine NMOG based on the test cycle NMHC 
emission rate using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.126

Where:
eNMOGhot = mass emission rate of NMOG over the hot running 
test cycle.
eNMHChot = mass emission rate of NMHC over the hot running 
test cycle, calculated using [rho]NMHC-liq.

Example:

eNMHChot = 0.025 g/mi
eNMOGhot = 0.025 [middot] 1.03 = 0.026 g/mi

    (2) You may determine weighted composite NMOG for FTP testing based 
on the weighted composite NMHC emission rate and the volume percent of 
ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.127

Where:

eNMOGcomp = weighted composite mass emission rate of 
NMOG.
eNMHCcomp = weighted composite mass emission rate of 
NMHC, calculated using [rho]NMHC-liq.
VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. 
Use good engineering judgment to determine this value either as 
specified in 40 CFR 1065.710 or based on blending volumes, taking 
into account any denaturant.


Example:
eNMHCcomp = 0.025 g/mi

eNMOGcomp = 0.025 [middot] (1.0302 + 0.0071 [middot] 15.1) = 
0.0284 g/mi

VPEtOH = 15.1%
    (3) You may determine NMOG for the complete FTP cold-start test 
interval for use in fuel economy and CREE calculations based on the 
NMHC emission rate for the test interval and the volume percent of 
ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.128

Where:

eNMOG-FTPct = mass emission rate of NMOG over the FTP 
cold start test interval.
eNMHC-FTPct = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP 
cold-start test interval, calculated using [rho]NMHC-liq.
VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel.


Example:
eNMHC-FTPct = 0.052 g/mi
VPEtOH = 15.1%
eNMOG-FTPct = 0.052[middot]1.0246 + 0.0079[middot]15.1) = 
0.0595 g/mi

    (4) You may determine NMOG for the FTP stabilized test interval for 
either the cold-start or hot-start test for use in fuel economy and 
CREE calculations based on the NMHC emission rate for the test interval 
and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.129

Where:

eNMOG-FTPcs-hs = mass emission rate of NMOG over the FTP 
stabilized test interval.
eNMHC-FTPcs-hs = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP 
stabilized test interval, calculated using [rho]NMHC-liq.
VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel.

    (5) You may determine NMOG for the complete FTP hot-start test 
interval for use in fuel economy and CREE calculations based on the 
NMHC emission rate for the test interval and the volume percent of 
ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:

[[Page 30179]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.130

Where:

eNMOG-FTPht = mass emission rate of NMOG over the FTP 
hot-start test interval.
eNMHC-FTPht = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP 
hot-start test interval, calculated using [rho]NMHC-liq.
VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel.

    (d) You may take the following additional steps when determining 
fuel economy and CREE under 40 CFR part 600:
    (1) Calculate NMOG by interval using Eq. 1066.665-3 for individual 
bag measurements from the FTP.
    (2) Calculate NMOG for two-bag FTPs using Eq. 1066.665-3 for 
hybrid-electric vehicles as described in 40 CFR 600.114.
    (e) We consider NMOG emission values for diesel-fueled vehicles, 
CNG-fueled vehicles, and LPG-fueled vehicles to be equivalent to NMHC 
emission values for all test cycles.
    (f) For all fuels not covered by paragraphs (c) and (e) of this 
section, manufacturers may propose a methodology to calculate NMOG 
results from measured NMHC emissions. We will approve adjustments based 
on comparative testing that demonstrates how to properly represent NMOG 
based on measured NMHC emissions.


Sec.  1066.695  Data requirements.

    Record the following information for each test:
    (a) Test number.
    (b) A brief description of the test vehicle (or other system/device 
tested).
    (c) Date and time of day for each part of the test sequence.
    (d) Test results. Also include a validation of driver accuracy as 
described in Sec.  1066.430(j).
    (e) Driver and equipment operators.
    (f) Vehicle information as applicable, including identification 
number, model year, applicable emission standards, vehicle model, 
vehicle class, carline, test group, durability group, engine family, 
evaporative/refueling emission family, basic engine description 
(including displacement, number of cylinders, turbocharger/supercharger 
used, and catalyst type), fuel system (type of fuel injection and fuel 
tank capacity and location), engine code, gross vehicle weight rating, 
equivalent test weight, inertia weight class, actual curb weight at 
zero miles, actual road load at 50 mph, transmission class and 
configuration, axle ratio, odometer reading, idle rpm, and drive wheel 
tire pressure.
    (g) Dynamometer identification, inertia weight setting, indicated 
power absorption setting, and records to verify compliance with the 
driving distance and cycle-validation criteria as calculated from 
measured roll or shaft revolutions.
    (h) Analyzer bench identification, analyzer ranges, recordings of 
analyzer output during zero, span, and sample readings.
    (i) Associate the following information with the test record: Test 
number, date, vehicle identification, vehicle and equipment operators, 
and identification of the measurements recorded.
    (j) Test cell barometric pressure and humidity. You may use a 
central laboratory barometer if the barometric pressure in each test 
cell is shown to be within 0.1% of the barometric pressure 
at the central barometer location.
    (k) Records to verify compliance with the ambient temperature 
requirements throughout the test procedure and records of fuel 
temperatures during the running loss test.
    (l) [Reserved]
    (m) For CVS systems record, dilution factor for each interval of 
the exhaust test and the following additional information:
    (1) CFV and SSV Vmix for each interval of the exhaust 
test.
    (2) PDP. Test measurements required to calculate Vmix 
for each interval of the exhaust test.
    (n) The humidity of the dilution air if you remove H2O 
from an emission sample before measurement.
    (o) Temperature of the dilute exhaust mixture and secondary 
dilution air (in the case of a double-dilution system) at the inlet to 
the respective gas meter or flow instrumentation used for particulate 
sampling.
    (p) The maximum gas temperature over the course of the test within 
20 cm upstream or downstream of the sample media (e.g., filter).
    (q) If applicable, the temperature of the heated FID, the gas in 
the heated sample line, and the heated filter.
    (r) Gas meter or flow measurement instrumentation readings at the 
start and end of each test interval.
    (s) The stabilized pre-test weight and post-test weight of each 
particulate sample media (e.g., filter).
    (t) Continuous temperature and humidity of the ambient air in which 
the particulate sample media (e.g., filter) are stabilized.
    (u) For vehicles fueled by natural gas, the test fuel composition, 
including all carbon-containing compounds (except CO); e.g. 
CO2, of the natural gas-fuel used during the test. Record 
C1 and C2 compounds individually. You may record 
C3 through C5 hydrocarbons together, and you may 
record C6 and heavier hydrocarbon compounds together.
    (v) Additional required records for liquefied petroleum gas-fueled 
vehicles. For vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas, the test fuel 
composition, including all carbon-containing compounds (except CO); 
e.g. CO2. Each hydrocarbon compound present, through 
C4 compounds, shall be individually reported. C5 
and heavier hydrocarbons may be reported as a group. Record 
C1 and C4 compounds individually. You may record 
C5 and heavier hydrocarbon compounds together.

Subpart H--Cold-Temperature Test Procedures


Sec.  1066.701  Applicability and general provisions.

    (a) The procedures of this part 1066 may be used for testing at any 
ambient temperature. Section 1066.710 describes the provisions that 
apply for testing testing motor vehicles at a nominal temperature of 20 
[deg]C (68[emsp14][deg]F); these procedures apply for motor vehicles as 
described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and 40 CFR part 600. For other 
vehicles, see the standard-setting part to determine if your vehicle is 
required to meet emission standards outside the normal (20 to 30) 
[deg]C (68 to 86[emsp14][deg]F) temperature range.
    (b) Do not apply the humidity correction factor in Sec.  
1066.630(a) for cold-temperature testing.


Sec.  1066.710  Cold-testing procedures for measuring CO and NMHC 
emissions and determining fuel economy.

    This section describes procedures for measuring carbon monoxide 
(CO) and nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions and determining fuel 
economy on a cold day using the FTP driving schedule (see Sec.  
1066.801).
    (a) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in 
Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.430 and

[[Page 30180]]

Sec.  1066.820(d), subject to the following exceptions and additional 
provisions:
    (1) Measure and control ambient conditions as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Precondition and stabilize the vehicle as specified in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Ensure that there is no 
precipitation or dew on the vehicle before the emission test.
    (3) For dynamometers that have independently heated bearings, start 
the emission test within 20 minutes after the end of dynamometer warm 
up; for other dynamometers, start the emission test within 10 minutes 
after the end of dynamometer warm up.
    (4) Analyze samples for NMHC, CO, and CO2. You do not 
need to analyze samples for other pollutants.
    (b) Maintain ambient conditions as follows instead of following the 
specifications in subpart E of this part:
    (1) Ambient temperature for emission tests. Measure and record 
ambient temperature in the test cell at least once every 60 seconds 
during the sampling period. The average temperature during the sampling 
period must be (-7.0 1.7) [deg]C. Instantaneous temperature 
values may be above -4.0 [deg]C or below -9.0 [deg]C, but not for more 
than 3 minutes at a time.
    (2) Ambient temperature for preconditioning. Ambient temperatures 
must be between (-14.0 and -1.0) [deg]C throughout the preconditioning 
period. The average ambient temperature during preconditioning must be 
(-7.0 2.8) [deg]C. You may precondition vehicles at 
temperatures above -7.0 [deg]C or with a temperature tolerance greater 
than that described in this section (or both) if you determine that 
this will not cause NMHC, CO, or CO2 emissions to decrease; 
if you modify the temperature specifications for vehicle 
preconditioning, adjust the procedures described in this section 
appropriately for your testing. Use good engineering judgment to 
demonstrate that you meet the specified temperature tolerances 
specified in this paragraph (b)(2).
    (3) Ambient humidity. Maintain humidity low enough to prevent 
condensation on the dynamometer rolls during testing.
    (c) Take the following steps to prepare and precondition vehicles 
for testing under this section:
    (1) Prepare the vehicle as described in Sec.  1066.814(a).
    (2) Fill the fuel tank to approximately 40% of the manufacturer's 
nominal fuel tank capacity with the appropriate test fuel for low-
temperature testing specified 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H. If the 
leftover fuel in the fuel tank before the refueling event does not meet 
these specifications, drain the fuel tank before refueling. The 
temperature of the dispensed test fuel must be at or below 15.5 [deg]C.
    (3) You may start the preconditioning drive once the fuel in the 
fuel tank reaches (-7.0 [deg]C 5.6) [deg]C. Precondition 
the vehicle as follows:
    (i) Push or drive the vehicle onto the dynamometer.
    (ii) Operate the vehicle over one UDDS. You may perform additional 
vehicle preconditioning with repeated driving over the UDDS, subject to 
our advance approval.
    (iii) Turn off the test vehicle and any cooling fans within 5 
minutes after completing the preconditioning drive. Ambient temperature 
must be between (-12.0 to -1.0) [deg]C in the 5 minutes following the 
preconditioning drive.
    (iv) Do not manually purge or load the evaporative canister.
    (d) Soak the vehicle for (12 to 36) hours to stabilize it at test 
temperatures before starting the emission test as described in this 
paragraph (d). If you move a stabilized vehicle through a warm area 
when transporting it to the dynamometer for testing, you must 
restabilize the vehicle by holding it at an ambient temperature within 
the range specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for at least 
six times as long as the vehicle was exposed to warmer temperatures. 
Use one of the following methods to reach a stabilized condition:
    (1) Cold storage. Measure and record ambient temperature in the 
test cell at least once every 60 seconds during the soak period; use 
these measured values to calculate an hourly average temperature. Each 
hourly average temperature must be (-7.0 [deg]C 2.8) 
[deg]C. Instantaneous ambient temperatures during the soak period may 
be above -1.0 [deg]C or below -12.0, but not for more than 3 minutes at 
a time.
    (2) Forced-cooling or warming. Position fans to blow temperature-
controlled air onto the vehicle to stabilize the vehicle at the 
specified temperatures for emission testing. Position fans to target 
the vehicle's drive train, engine block, and radiator rather than the 
oil pan. You may not place fans under the vehicle. You may consider the 
vehicle to be stabilized at the test temperature when the bulk oil 
temperature reaches (-7 1.7) [deg]C; measure oil 
temperature at one or more points away from the side or bottom surfaces 
of the oil pan. Each oil temperature measurement must be within the 
specified range before stabilization is complete. Once the vehicle 
reaches this stabilized condition, hold the vehicle within the 
stabilized temperature range for at least one hour before starting the 
emission test. During this time, keep the ambient temperature within 
the range specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

Subpart I--Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles


Sec.  1066.801  Applicability and general provisions.

    This subpart I specifies how to apply the test procedures of this 
part for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, including 
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles at or 
below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are subject to chassis testing for 
exhaust emissions. For these vehicles, references in this part 1066 to 
the standard-setting part include this subpart I.
    (a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart to measure vehicle 
emissions over a specified drive schedule in conjunction with subpart E 
of this part. Where the procedures of subpart E of this part differ 
from this subpart I, the provisions in this subpart I take precedence.
    (b) Collect samples of every pollutant for which an emission 
standard applies, unless specified otherwise.
    (c) This subpart covers the following test procedures:
    (1) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP), which includes the general 
driving cycle. This procedure is also used for measuring evaporative 
emissions. This may be called the conventional test since it was 
adopted with the earliest emission standards.
    (i) The FTP consists of one Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 
(UDDS) as specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, 
followed by a 10-minute soak with the engine off and repeat driving 
through the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. Note that the UDDS 
represents about 7.5 miles of driving in an urban area. Engine startup 
(with all accessories turned off), operation over the initial UDDS, and 
engine shutdown make a complete cold-start test. The hot-start test 
consists of the first 505 seconds of the UDDS following the 10-minute 
soak and a hot-running portion of the UDDS after the first 505 seconds. 
The first 505 seconds of the UDDS is considered the transient portion; 
the remainder of the UDDS is considered the stabilized (or hot-
stabilized) portion. The hot-stabilized portion for the hot-start test 
is generally measured during the cold-start test; however, in certain 
cases, the hot-start test may involve a second full UDDS following the 
10-minute soak, rather than repeating only the first 505 seconds. See 
Sec. Sec.  1066.820 and 1066.822.

[[Page 30181]]

    (ii) Evaporative emission testing includes a preconditioning drive 
with the UDDS and a full FTP cycle, including exhaust measurement, 
followed by evaporative emission measurements. In the three-day diurnal 
test sequence, the exhaust test is followed by a running loss test 
consisting of a UDDS, then two New York City Cycles as specified in 
paragraph (f) of Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, followed by another 
UDDS; see 40 CFR 86.134-96. Note that the New York City Cycle 
represents about 1.7 miles of driving in a city center. The running 
loss test is followed by a high-temperature hot soak test as described 
in 40 CFR 86.138-96 and a three-day diurnal emission test as described 
in 40 CFR 86.133-96. In the two-day diurnal test sequence, the exhaust 
test is followed by a low-temperature hot soak test as described in 40 
CFR 86.138-96(k) and a two-day diurnal emission test as described in 40 
CFR 86.133-96(p).
    (iii) Refueling emission tests for vehicles that rely on integrated 
control of diurnal and refueling emissions includes vehicle operation 
over the full FTP test cycle corresponding to the three-day diurnal 
test sequence to precondition and purge the evaporative canister. For 
non-integrated systems, there is a preconditioning drive over the UDDS 
and a refueling event, followed by repeated UDDS driving purge the 
evaporative canister. The refueling emission test procedures are 
described in 40 CFR 86.150 through 86.157.
    (2) The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) measures the 
emission effects from aggressive driving and operation with the 
vehicle's air conditioner. The SFTP is based on a composite of three 
different test elements. In addition to the FTP, vehicles generally 
operate over the US06 and SC03 driving schedules as specified in 
paragraphs (g) and (h) of Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, respectively. 
In the case of heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or 
below 14,000 pounds GVWR, SFTP testing involves additional driving over 
the LA-92 driving schedule specified in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR part 
86, Appendix I, instead of the US06 driving schedule. Note that the 
US06 driving schedule represents about 8.0 miles of relatively 
aggressive driving; the SC03 driving schedule represents about 3.6 
miles of urban driving with the air conditioner operating; and the LA-
92 driving schedule represents about 9.8 miles of relatively aggressive 
driving for commercial trucks. See Sec. Sec.  1066.820 and 1066.822.
    (3) The Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). The HFET is specified in 
Appendix I of 40 CFR part 600. Note that the HFET represents about 10.2 
miles of rural and freeway driving with an average speed of 48.6 mph 
and a maximum speed of 60.0 mph. See Sec.  1066.839.
    (4) Cold-temperature testing. Cold-temperature standards apply for 
CO and NMHC emissions when vehicles operate over the FTP at a nominal 
temperature of -7 [deg]C. See 40 CFR part 86, subpart C.
    (5) Emission measurement to determine air conditioning credits for 
greenhouse gas standards. In this optional procedure, manufacturers 
operate vehicles over repeat runs of the AC17 test sequence to allow 
for calculating credits as part of demonstrating compliance with 
CO2 emission standards. The AC17 test sequence consists of a 
UDDS preconditioning drive, followed by emission measurements over the 
SC03 and HFET driving schedules. See Sec.  1066.835.
    (d) The following provisions apply for all testing:
    (1) Ambient temperatures encountered by the test vehicle must be 
(20 to 30) [deg]C, unless otherwise specified. Where ambient 
temperature specifications apply before or between test measurements, 
the vehicle may be exposed to temperatures outside of the specified 
range for up to 10 minutes to account for vehicle transport or other 
actions to prepare for testing. The temperatures monitored during 
testing must be representative of those experienced by the test 
vehicle. For example, do not measure ambient temperatures near a heat 
source.
    (2) Do not operate or store the vehicle at an incline if good 
engineering judgment indicates that it would affect emissions.
    (3) If a test is void after collecting emission data from previous 
test segments, the test may be repeated to collect only those data 
points needed to complete emission measurements. You may combine 
emission measurements from different test runs to demonstrate 
compliance with emission standards.
    (4) Prepare vehicles for testing as described in Sec.  1066.814.
    (e) The following figure illustrates the FTP test sequence for 
measuring exhaust and evaporative emissions:

[[Page 30182]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.131

Sec.  1066.810  Road load power, test weight, and inertia weight class 
determination.

    (a) Simulate a vehicle's test weight on the dynamometer using the 
appropriate equivalent test weight shown in Table 1 of this section. 
Equivalent test weights are established according to each vehicle's 
test weight basis, as described in paragraph (b) of this section. Table 
1 also specifies the inertia weight class corresponding to each 
equivalent test weight; the inertia weight class allows for grouping 
vehicles with a range of equivalent test weights. Table 1 follows:

           Table 1 of Sec.   1066.810--Equivalent Test Weights
                                [pounds]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Inertia
               Test weight basis                 Equivalent     weight
                                                test weight     class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 1062....................................         1000         1000
1063 to 1187..................................         1125         1000
1188 to 1312..................................         1250         1250
1313 to 1437..................................         1375         1250
1438 to 1562..................................         1500         1500
1563 to 1687..................................         1625         1500
1688 to 1812..................................         1750         1750
1813 to 1937..................................         1875         1750
1938 to 2062..................................         2000         2000
2063 to 2187..................................         2125         2000
2188 to 2312..................................         2250         2250
2313 to 2437..................................         2375         2250
2438 to 2562..................................         2500         2500
2563 to 2687..................................         2625         2500
2688 to 2812..................................         2750         2750
2813 to 2937..................................         2875         2750
2938 to 3062..................................         3000         3000
3063 to 3187..................................         3125         3000
3188 to 3312..................................         3250         3000
3313 to 3437..................................         3375         3500
3438 to 3562..................................         3500         3500
3563 to 3687..................................         3625         3500
3688 to 3812..................................         3750         3500
3813 to 3937..................................         3875         4000
3938 to 4125..................................         4000         4000
4126 to 4375..................................         4250         4000
4376 to 4625..................................         4500         4500
4626 to 4875..................................         4750         4500
4876 to 5125..................................         5000         5000
5126 to 5375..................................         5250         5000
5376 to 5750..................................         5500         5500
5751 to 6250..................................         6000         6000
6251 to 6750..................................         6500         6500
6751 to 7250..................................         7000         7000
7251 to 7750..................................         7500         7500
7751 to 8250..................................         8000         8000
8251 to 8750..................................         8500         8500
8751 to 9250..................................         9000         9000
9251 to 9750..................................         9500         9500
9751 to 10250.................................        10000        10000
10251 to 10750................................        10500        10500
10751 to 11250................................        11000        11000
11251 to 11750................................        11500        11500
11751 to 12250................................        12000        12000
12251 to 12750................................        12500        12500
12751 to 13250................................        13000        13000
13251 to 13750................................        13500        13500
13751 to 14000................................        14000        14000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) The test weight basis for non-MDPV heavy-duty vehicles is 
``adjusted loaded vehicle weight''. For all other vehicles, the test 
weight basis for establishing equivalent test weight is ``loaded 
vehicle weight''. These load terms are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803.
    (c) For FTP and SFTP testing, determine road load forces for each 
test vehicle at speeds between 10 and 70 miles per hour. The road load 
force must represent vehicle operation on a smooth, level road with no 
wind or calm winds, no precipitation, an ambient temperature of 
approximately 20 [deg]C, and atmospheric pressure of

[[Page 30183]]

98.21 kPa. You may extrapolate road load force for speeds below 10 mph.


Sec.  1066.814  Vehicle preparation.

    (a) Include additional fittings and adapters, as required, to 
accommodate a fuel drain at the lowest point possible in the tank(s) as 
installed on the vehicle.
    (b) For preconditioning that involves loading an evaporative 
emission canister with butane, provide valving or other means as 
necessary to allow purging and loading of the canister.
    (c) For vehicles to be tested for running loss emissions (40 CFR 
86.134), prepare the fuel tank for measuring temperature and pressure 
as specified in 40 CFR 86.107-98(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 86.134. Vapor 
temperature measurement is optional during the running loss test.
    (d) For vehicles to be tested for running loss emissions, prepare 
the exhaust system by sealing or plugging all detectable sources of 
exhaust gas leaks. Inspect or test the exhaust system to ensure that 
there are no leaks that would cause exhaust hydrocarbon emissions to be 
detected as running losses.
    (e) The following provisions apply for preconditioning steps to 
reduce nonfuel emissions to normal vehicle background levels for 
vehicles subject to Tier 3 evaporative emission standards under 40 CFR 
86.1813:
    (1) You must notify us in advance if you plan to perform such 
preconditioning. This notice must include a detailed description of the 
intended procedures and any measurements or thresholds for determining 
when stabilization is complete. You need not repeat this notification 
for additional vehicle testing in the same or later model years as long 
as your preconditioning practice conforms to these procedures.
    (2) You may precondition a vehicle as described in paragraph (e)(1) 
of this section only within 12 months after the vehicle's original date 
of manufacture, except that you may remove the spare tire for any 
testing.


Sec.  1066.820  Exhaust emission test procedures for FTP testing.

    (a) General. The FTP exhaust emission test sequence consists of a 
cold-start test and a hot-start test as described in Sec.  1066.801.
    (b) PM sampling options. Collect PM using any of the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section and use the 
corresponding equation in Sec.  1066.822 to calculate FTP composite 
emissions. Testing must meet the requirements related to filter face 
velocity as described in 40 CFR 1065.170(c)(1)(vi), except as specified 
in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section. For procedures involving 
flow weighting, set the filter face velocity to a weighting target of 
1.0 to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065.170(c)(1)(vi). Allow filter 
face velocity to decrease as a percentage of the weighting factor if 
the weighting factor is less than 1.0. Use the appropriate equations in 
Sec.  1066.620 to show that you meet the dilution factor requirements 
of Sec.  1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B).
    (1) You may collect a separate PM sample for transient and 
stabilized portions of the cold-start UDDS and the hot-start UDDS. This 
may either be done by sampling with 3 bags or 4 bags. You may omit the 
stabilized portion of the hot-start test (bag 4) and use the stabilized 
portion of the cold-start test (bag 2) in its place.
    (2) You may collect PM on one filter over the cold-start UDDS and 
on a separate filter over the hot-start UDDS.
    (3) You may collect PM on one filter over the cold-start UDDS (bag 
1 and bag 2) and on a separate filter over the 867 seconds of the 
stabilized portion of the cold-start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of 
the hot-start UDDS (bag 2 and bag 3). Note that this option involves 
duplicate measurements during the stabilized portion of the cold-start 
UDDS.
    (4) You may collect PM on a single filter over the cold-start UDDS 
and the first 505 seconds of the hot-start UDDS. If you use this 
method, adjust your sampling system flow rate to weight the filter face 
velocity over the three intervals of the FTP based on weighting targets 
of 0.43 for bag 1, 1.0 for bag 2, and 0.57 for bag 3.
    (5) You may collect PM on a single filter over the cold-start UDDS 
and the full hot-start UDDS. If you use this method, adjust your 
sampling system flow rate to weight the filter face velocity based on 
weighting targets of 0.75 for the cold-start UDDS and 1.0 for the hot-
start UDDS.
    (c) Gaseous sampling options. Collect gaseous samples using any of 
the following procedures:
    (1) You may collect a single sample for a full UDDS (cold-start or 
hot-start).
    (2) You may sample emissions separately for transient and 
stabilized portions of any UDDS.
    (3) You may omit the stabilized portion of the hot-start test (bag 
4) and use the stabilized portion of the cold-start test (bag 2) in its 
place.
    (4) You may apply the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section 
for any gaseous batch measurement, consistent with good engineering 
judgment.
    (d) Test sequence. Follow the exhaust emission measurement 
procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.430, subject 
to the following exceptions and additional provisions:
    (1) Take the following steps for the cold-start test:
    (i) Precondition the vehicle as described in 40 CFR 86.132. 
Initiate the cold-start test following the 12 to 36 hour soak period.
    (ii) Start sampling and recording simultaneously with starting the 
vehicle. Fifteen seconds after the engine starts, place the 
transmission in gear. Twenty seconds after the engine starts, begin the 
initial vehicle acceleration of the driving schedule.
    (iii) At the end of the deceleration scheduled to occur 505 seconds 
into the cold-start UDDS, simultaneously switch all the sample flows 
from the cold-start transient interval to the stabilized interval, 
stopping all cold-start transient interval sampling and recording, 
including background sampling. Reset integrating devices for the 
stabilized interval and indicate the end of the cold-start interval in 
the recorded data. Operate the vehicle over the remainder of the UDDS. 
Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last deceleration in 
the stabilized interval (1,369 seconds after the start of the driving 
schedule).
    (iv) Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all 
stabilized interval sampling and recording, including background 
sampling. Stop any integrating devices for the stabilized interval and 
indicate the end of the stabilized interval in the recorded data. Note 
that the 5 second delay is intended to account for sampling system 
transport.
    (2) Take the following steps for the hot-start test:
    (i) Initiate the hot-start test (9 to 11) minutes after the end of 
the sample period for the cold-start UDDS.
    (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section. 
Operate the vehicle over the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. At the end 
of the deceleration scheduled to occur 505 seconds into the hot-start 
UDDS, turn off the engine and simultaneously stop all hot-start 
sampling and recording, including background sampling, and any 
integrating devices.
    (iii) For tests that do not include bag 4 operation, turn the 
engine off. To include bag 4 measurement, operate the vehicles over the 
remainder of the UDDS and conclude the testing as described in 
paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
    (3) This completes the procedure for measuring FTP exhaust 
emissions. See 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, and

[[Page 30184]]

Sec.  1066.801 for continuing to evaporative or refueling tests.


Sec.  1066.822  Composite calculations for FTP exhaust emissions.

    (a) Determine the mass of exhaust emissions of each pollutant for 
each FTP test interval as described in Sec.  1066.610.
    (b) Calculate the final composite gaseous test results as a mass-
weighted value, e[emission]-FTPcomp, in grams per mile using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.132

Where:

mc = the combined mass emissions determined from the 
cold-start UDDS test interval (generally known as bag 1 and bag 2), 
in grams.
Dct = the measured driving distance from the transient 
portion of the cold-start test (bag 1), in miles.
Dcs = the measured driving distance from the stabilized 
portion of the cold-start test (bag 2), in miles.
mh = the combined mass emissions determined from the hot-
start UDDS test interval in grams. This is the hot-stabilized 
portion from either the first or second UDDS (bag 2, unless you 
measure bag 4), in addition to the hot transient portion (bag 3).
Dht = the measured driving distance from the transient 
portion of the hot-start test (bag 3), in miles.
Dhs = the measured driving distance from the stabilized 
portion of the hot-start test (bag 4), in miles. Set Dhs 
= Dcs for testing where the hot-stabilized portion of the 
UDDS is not run.

    (c) Calculate the final composite PM test results as a mass-
weighted value, ePM-FTPcomp, in grams per mile as follows:
    (1) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in 
Sec.  1066.820(b)(1), (2), or (3):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.133

Where:
mPM-cUDDS = the combined PM mass emissions determined 
from the cold-start UDDS test interval (bag 1 and bag 2), in grams, 
as calculated using Eq. 1066.610-2.
mPM-hUDDS = the combined PM mass emissions determined 
from the hot-start UDDS test interval (bag 3 and bag 4), in grams, 
as calculated using Eq. 1066.610-2. This is the hot-stabilized 
portion from either the first or second UDDS (bag 2, unless you 
measure bag 4), in addition to the hot transient portion (bag 3).

    (2) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in 
Sec.  1066.820(b)(4):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.134

Where:
mPM = the combined PM mass emissions determined from the 
cold-start UDDS test interval and the first 505 seconds of the hot-
start UDDS test interval (bag 1, bag 2, and bag 3), in grams, as 
calculated using Eq. 1066.610-3.

    (3) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in 
Sec.  1066.820(b)(5):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.135

Where:
mPM = the combined PM mass emissions determined from the 
cold-start UDDS test interval and the hot-start UDDS test interval 
(bag 1, bag 2, bag 3, and bag 4), in grams, as calculated using Eq. 
1066.610-4.


Sec.  1066.830  Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.

    Sections 1066.831 and 1066.832 describe the detailed procedures for 
the

[[Page 30185]]

Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). This testing applies for 
all vehicles subject to the SFTP standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart 
S. The SFTP test procedure consists of FTP testing and two additional 
test elements--a sequence of vehicle operation with more aggressive 
driving and a sequence of vehicle operation that accounts for the 
impact of the vehicle's air conditioner.
    (a) The SFTP standard applies as a composite representing the three 
test elements. The emission results from the aggressive driving test 
element (Sec.  1066.831), the air conditioning test element (Sec.  
1066.832), and the FTP test element (Sec.  1066. 820) are analyzed 
according to the calculation methodology and compared to the applicable 
SFTP emission standards as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
    (b) The test elements of the SFTP may be run in any sequence that 
includes the specified preconditioning steps.


Sec.  1066.831  Exhaust emission test procedures for aggressive 
driving.

    (a) This section describes how to test using the US06 or LA-92 
driving schedule. The US06 driving schedule can be divided into two 
test intervals--the US06 City cycle comprises the combined portions of 
the cycle from 1 to 130 seconds and from 495 to 596 seconds, and the 
US06 Highway cycle comprises the portion of the cycle between 130 and 
495 seconds. See Sec.  1066.801 for further information on the driving 
schedules.
    (b) Take the following steps to precondition vehicles for testing 
under this section:
    (1) Drain and refill the vehicle's fuel tank(s) in any of the 
following cases:
    (i) For aggressive-driving tests that do not follow FTP or HFET 
testing.
    (ii) For a test element that starts more than 72 hours after the 
most recent FTP or HFET measurement (with or without evaporative 
emission measurements).
    (iii) For testing in which the test vehicle has not remained in an 
area where ambient temperatures were within the range specified for 
testing since the previous FTP or HFET.
    (2) Keep ambient temperatures within the ranges specified for test 
measurements throughout the preconditioning sequence.
    (3) Warm up the vehicle to a stabilized condition as follows:
    (i) Push or drive the vehicle onto the dynamometer.
    (ii) Operate the vehicle one time over one of the driving schedules 
specified in this paragraph (b)(3)(ii). You may ask us to use a 
particular preconditioning driving schedule if that is related to fuel 
effects on adaptive memory systems. For our testing, we will generally 
operate the vehicle over the same preconditioning cycle that will be 
used for testing in this section. You may exercise your sampling 
equipment, but you may not determine emissions results during 
preconditioning. Choose from the following driving schedules:
    (A) The first 505 seconds of the UDDS (bag 1).
    (B) The last 866 seconds of the UDDS (bag 2).
    (C) The HFET driving schedule.
    (D) US06 driving schedule or, for heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 
pounds GVWR, just the highway portion of the US06 driving schedule.
    (E) The SC03 driving schedule.
    (F) The LA-92 driving schedule.
    (4) Allow the vehicle to idle for (1 to 2) minutes. This leads 
directly into the test measurements described in paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (c) For testing involving the full US06 driving schedule, you may 
collect emissions from separate city and highway test intervals (see 40 
CFR part 600), or you may collect emissions over the full US06 driving 
schedule as a single test interval. Take the following steps for to 
measure emissions over separate city and highway test intervals:
    (1) At 130 seconds, simultaneously stop all US06 City, and start 
all US06 Highway sampling, recording, and integrating (including 
background sampling). At 136 seconds (before the acceleration), record 
the measured dynamometer roll revolutions.
    (2) At 495 seconds, simultaneously stop all US06 Highway, and start 
all US06 City sampling, recording, and integrating (including 
background sampling). At 500 seconds (before the acceleration), record 
the measured dynamometer roll revolutions.
    (3) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, treat 
the emissions from the first and second portions of the US06 City test 
interval as a single sample.
    (4) If you collect gaseous emissions over separate city and highway 
test intervals, you may still collect PM over the full US06 driving 
schedule as a single test interval. If you do this, calculate a 
composite dilution factor based on city and highway emissions using Eq. 
1066.620-4 to show that you meet the dilution factor requirements of 
Sec.  1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B).
    (d) For diesel-fueled vehicles, measure THC emissions on a 
continuous basis as described in 40 CFR part 1065. For separate 
measurement of the city and highway test intervals as described in 
paragraph (c) of this section, perform separate calculations for each 
portion of the test cycle.
    (e) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in 
Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.430, subject to the following 
exceptions and additional provisions:
    (1) Following the preconditioning specified in Sec.  1066.830, 
place the vehicle in gear and simultaneously start sampling and 
recording. Begin the first acceleration 5 seconds after placing the 
vehicle in gear.
    (2) Operate the vehicle over the full US06 driving schedule, except 
as follows:
    (i) For heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR, operate the 
vehicle over the LA-92 driving schedule.
    (ii) Heavy-duty vehicles at or below 10,000 pounds GVWR may be 
certified using only the highway portion of the US06 driving schedule. 
See 40 CFR 86.1816.
    (3) Turn the engine off 2 seconds before the end of the driving 
schedule. Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all 
sampling and recording, including background sampling. Stop any 
integrating devices and indicate the end of the test cycle in the 
recorded data.
    (4) Correct calculated NOX emissions as described in 
Sec.  1066.630(a)(1).


Sec.  1066.832  Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.

    This section describes how to test using the SC03 driving schedule 
(see Sec.  1066.801). This procedure is designed to determine gaseous 
exhaust emissions while simulating an urban trip on a hot summer day. 
The provisions of 40 CFR part 86 and 40 CFR part 600 waive SC03 testing 
for some vehicles; in those cases, calculate SFTP composite emissions 
by adjusting the weighting calculation as specified in 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart S.
    (a) Keep the vehicle in an environment meeting the conditions 
described in paragraph (e) of this section throughout the 
preconditioning sequence.
    (b) Warm up the vehicle to a stabilized condition as follows:
    (1) Push or drive the test vehicle onto the dynamometer.
    (2) Operate the test vehicle one time over the first 505 seconds of 
the UDDS (bag 1), the last 867 seconds of the UDDS (bag 2), or the SC03 
driving schedule. If the air conditioning test sequence starts more 
than 2 hours after a different exhaust emission test, you may instead 
operate the vehicle one time over the full UDDS.
    (3) Following the preconditioning drive, turn off the test vehicle 
and the vehicle cooling fan(s) and allow the vehicle to soak for (9 to 
11) minutes.

[[Page 30186]]

    (c) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in 
Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.430, subject to the following 
exceptions and additional provisions:
    (1) Close the vehicle's windows before testing.
    (2) The test cell and equipment must meet the specifications in 
paragraph (d) of this section. Measure and control ambient conditions 
as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (3) Set the vehicle's air conditioning controls by selecting A/C 
mode and ``maximum'', setting airflow to ``recirculate'' (if so 
equipped), selecting the highest fan setting, and turning the A/C 
temperature to full cool (or 72[emsp14][deg]F for automatic systems). 
Turn the control to the ``on'' position before testing so the air 
conditioning system is active whenever the engine is running.
    (4) Place the vehicle in gear 15 seconds after engine starting. 
Follow the SC03 driving schedule.
    (5) Turn the engine off 2 seconds before the end of the driving 
schedule. Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all 
sampling and recording, including background sampling. Stop any 
integrating devices any indicate the end of the test cycle in the 
recorded data. Note that the 5 second delay is intended to account for 
sampling system transport.
    (6) Correct calculated NOX emissions as described in 
Sec.  1066.630(a)(2).
    (d) The following requirement apply for the test cell and cooling 
fan configuration:
    (1) Minimum test cell size. The test cell must be at least 20 feet 
wide, 40 feet long, and 10 feet high, unless we approve the use of a 
smaller test cell. We will approve this only if you demonstrate that 
the smaller test cell is capable of meeting all the requirements of 
this section.
    (2) Vehicle frontal air flow. Verify that the fan configuration 
meets the requirements of Sec.  1066.105(c)(3) before each test.
    (e) Maintain ambient conditions as follows:
    (1) Ambient temperature. Measure and record ambient temperature in 
the test cell at least once every 30 seconds during the sampling 
period. Control ambient temperature during emission sampling to 35.0 
3.0 [deg]C throughout the test and (33.6 to 36.4) [deg]C on 
average.
    (2) Ambient humidity. Measure and record ambient humidity in the 
test cell at least once every 30 seconds during the sampling period. 
Control ambient humidity during emission sampling as described in Sec.  
1066.425(d).
    (3) Conditions before and after testing. Use good engineering 
judgment to demonstrate that you meet the specified instantaneous 
temperature and humidity tolerances in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 
this section at all times before and between emission measurements.
    (4) Solar heat load. Simulate solar heating as follows:
    (i) You may use a metal halide lamp, a sodium lamp, or a quartz 
halogen lamp with dichroic mirrors as a radiant energy emitter. We may 
also approve the use of a different type of radiant energy emitter if 
you demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section.
    (ii) We recommend achieving radiant heating with spectral 
distribution characteristics as described in the following table:

      Table 1 of Sec.   1066.832--Recommended Spectral Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Percent of total
                                                        spectrum
               Band width  (nm)                -------------------------
                                                Lower limit  Upper limit
                                                    (%)          (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<320 \a\......................................  ...........            0
320-400.......................................            0            7
400-780.......................................           45           55
>780..........................................           35           53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note that you may need to filter the UV region between 280 and 320
  nm.

    (iii) Determine radiant energy intensity experienced by the vehicle 
as the average value between two measurements along the vehicle's 
centerline, one at the base of the windshield and the other at the 
bottom of the rear window (or equivalent location for vehicles without 
a rear window). This value must be 850 45 W/m \2\. 
Instruments for measuring radiant energy intensity must meet the 
following minimum specifications:
    (A) Sensitivity of 9 microvolts per W/m\2\.
    (B) Response time of 5 seconds. For purposes of this requirement, 
``response time'' means the time for the instrument to reach 95 percent 
of its equilibrium response after a step change in radiant intensity.
    (C) Linearity of 0.5%.
    (D) Cosine response error of no more than 1% for 0-70 
degree zenith angles. The cosine response error is the percentage 
difference between the intensity measured at a given angle and the 
intensity predicted from the zero-degree intensity and the cosine of 
the incident angle.
    (iv) Check the uniformity of radiant energy intensity at least 
every 500 hours of emitter usage or every 6 months, whichever is 
sooner, and after any major modifications affecting the solar 
simulation. Determine uniformity by measuring radiant energy intensity 
as described in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section at each point of 
a 0.5 m grid over the vehicle's full footprint, including the edges of 
the footprint, at an elevation 1 m above the floor. Measured values of 
radiant energy intensity must be between (722 and 978) W/m\2\ at all 
points.


Sec.  1066.835  AC17 air conditioning efficiency test procedure.

    (a) Overview. This section describes a voluntary procedure for 
measuring the net impact of air conditioner operation on CO2 
emissions. See 40 CFR 86.1868 for provisions describing how to use 
these procedures to calculate credits and otherwise comply with 
emission standards.
    (b) Test cell. Operate the vehicle in a test cell meeting the 
specifications described in Sec.  86.832(d). You may add airflow up to 
at a maximum of 4 miles per hour during engine idling and when the 
engine is off if that is needed to meet ambient temperature or humidity 
requirements.
    (c) Ambient conditions. Measure and control ambient conditions as 
specified in Sec.  86.832(e), except that you must control ambient 
temperature during emission sampling to 25.0 3.0 [deg]C 
throughout the test and (23.6 to 26.4) [deg]C on average. Note that 
solar heating is disabled for certain test intervals as described in 
this section.
    (d) Interior air temperature measurement. Measure and record the 
vehicle's interior air temperature at least once every 5 seconds during 
the sampling period. Measure temperature at the outlet of the center-
most duct on the dashboard and approximately 30 mm behind the driver 
and passenger's headrests.
    (e) Air conditioning system settings. For testing that requires the 
air conditioning to be operating, set the vehicle's air conditioning 
controls as follows:
    (1) For automatic systems, set the temperature control to 
72[emsp14][deg]F.
    (2) For manual systems, select A/C mode and ``maximum'', set 
airflow to ``recirculate'' (if so equipped), and select the highest fan 
setting. During the first idle period of the SC03 driving schedule 
(between 186 and 204 seconds), reduce the fan speed to nominally 50% of 
maximum fan speed, set airflow to ``fresh air'' (if so equipped), and 
adjust the temperature setting to target a temperature of 
55[emsp14][deg]F at the dashboard air outlet.
    (f) Test procedure. Follow the exhaust emission measurement 
procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.430, subject 
to the following exceptions and additional provisions:

[[Page 30187]]

    (1) Prepare the vehicle for testing according to 40 CFR 86.132-00 
(a) through (g).
    (2) Open the vehicle's windows and operate the vehicle over a 
preconditioning UDDS with no solar heating and with the air 
conditioning off. At the end of the preconditioning drive, turn off the 
test vehicle and all cooling fans.
    (3) Turn on solar heating within one minute after turning off the 
engine. Once the solar energy intensity reaches 805 W/m\2\, let the 
vehicle soak for 30 1 minutes. You may alternatively rely 
on prior measurements to start the soak period after a defined period 
of warming up to the specified solar heat load. Close the vehicle's 
windows at the start of the soak period; ensure that the windows are 
adequately closed where instrumentation and wiring pass through to the 
interior.
    (4) Turn the air conditioning control to the ``on'' position before 
testing so the air conditioning system is active whenever the engine is 
running. Follow the SC03 driving schedule. Place the vehicle in gear 15 
seconds after engine starting. At the end of the driving schedule, 
simultaneously switch all the sampling, recording, and integrating from 
SC03 to HFET, including background sampling. Indicate the end of the 
test cycle in the recorded data. Record the measured dynamometer roll 
revolutions corresponding to the SC03 driving schedule.
    (5) Directly following the SC03 driving schedule, operate the 
vehicle over the HFET driving schedule. Turn the vehicle off at the end 
of the driving schedule and simultaneously stop all sampling, 
recording, and integrating, including background sampling. Indicate the 
end of the test cycle in the recorded data. Record the measured 
dynamometer roll revolutions corresponding to the HFET drive schedule. 
Turn off the solar heating.
    (6) Allow the vehicle to remain on the dynamometer for (10 to 15) 
minutes after emission sampling has concluded. Repeat the testing 
described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section, but leave 
the vehicle's windows open and turn off the vehicle's air conditioner 
and the solar heating throughout the test run.
    (g) Calculations. (1) Determine the mass of CO2 
emissions for each of the two test intervals as described in Sec.  
1066.610.
    (2) Calculate the composite mass-weighted emissions of 
CO2, e[CO2]-AC17comp, representing the average of 
the SC03 and HFET emissions, in grams per mile using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.136

Where:
mSC03 = mass emissions from the SC03 test interval, in 
grams.
mHFET = mass emissions from the HFET test interval, in 
grams.
DSC03 = measured driving distance during the SC03 test 
interval, in miles.
DHFET = measured driving distance during the HFET test 
interval, in miles.

    (h) Recordkeeping. In addition to the information specified in 
Sec.  1066.695, you must record the following information for each 
vehicle tested: interior volume, climate control system type and 
characteristics, refrigerant used, compressor type, and evaporator/
condenser characteristics.


Sec.  1066.839  Highway fuel economy test procedure.

    This section describes the procedure for the highway fuel economy 
test (HFET). This test involves emission sampling and fuel economy 
measurement for certain vehicles as described in 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart S, and in 40 CFR part 600. See Sec.  1066.801 for further 
information on the driving schedules. Follow the exhaust emission 
measurement procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 
1066.430, subject to the following exceptions and additional 
provisions:
    (a) Perform the HFET immediately following the FTP when this is 
practical. If the HFET procedure starts more than 3 hours after an FTP 
(including evaporative emission measurements, if applicable), operate 
it over one UDDS to precondition the vehicle. We may approve additional 
preconditioning in unusual circumstances.
    (b) Operate the vehicle over the HFET driving schedule for 
preconditioning. Allow the vehicle to idle for 15 seconds (with the 
vehicle in gear), then start a repeat run of the HFET driving schedule 
and simultaneously start sampling and recording.
    (c) Turn the engine off at the end of the HFET driving schedule and 
stop all sampling and recording, including background. Stop any 
integrating devices and indicate the end of the test cycle in the 
recorded data.


Sec.  1066.840  Fuel storage system leak test procedure.

    (a) Scope. Perform this test as required in the standard-setting 
part to verify that there are no significant leaks in your fuel storage 
system.
    (b) Measurement principles. Leaks are detected by measuring 
pressure, temperature, and flow to calculate an equivalent orifice 
diameter for the system. Use good engineering judgment to develop and 
implement leak test equipment. Your leak test equipment must meet the 
following requirements:
    (1) Pressure, temperature, and flow sensors must be calibrated with 
NIST-traceable standards.
    (2) Correct flow measurements to standard reference conditions.
    (3) Leak test equipment must have the ability to pressurize fuel 
storage systems to at least 4.1 kPa and have an internal leak rate of 
less than 0.20 standard liters per minute.
    (4) You must be able to attach the test equipment to the vehicle 
without permanent alteration of the fuel storage or evaporative 
emission control systems.
    (5) The point of attachment to the fuel storage system must allow 
pressurization to test system integrity of the fuel tank and of fuel 
lines and vapor lines reaching up to and including the gas cap and the 
evaporative canister. The evaporative system test port available on 
some vehicles is an example of an effective attachment point.
    (c) Leak test procedure. Test a vehicle's fuel storage system for 
leaks as follows:
    (1) Refuel vehicle to 40% of its nominal fuel tank capacity.
    (2) Soak the vehicle for 6 to 24 hours at a temperature between (20 
and 30) [deg]C; record this setpoint temperature and maintain 
temperatures throughout the leak test at this setpoint temperature 
within a tolerance  2 [deg]C.

[[Page 30188]]

    (3) Before performing the test, purge the fuel storage system of 
any residual pressure, bringing the system into equilibrium with 
ambient pressure.
    (4) Seal the evaporative canister's vent to atmosphere and ensure 
that the vehicle's purge valve is closed.
    (5) Attach the leak test equipment to the vehicle.
    (6) Pressurize the fuel storage system with N2 or 
another inert gas to at least 2.4 kPa. Use good engineering judgment to 
avoid overpressurizing the system.
    (7) Maintain gas flow through the system for at least 180 seconds, 
ensuring that the flow reading is stable for an effective leak diameter 
of  0.002 inches.
    (8) Use the following equation, or a different equation you develop 
based on good engineering judgment, to calculate the effective leak 
diameter, Deff:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21MY13.137

Where:
Deff = effective leak diameter, in inches.
Vgas = volumetric flow of gas, in m\3\/s.
p1 = inlet pressure to orifice, in kPa.
p2 = atmospheric pressure, in kPa.
G = specific gravity of N2 at atmospheric pressure and 
15.5 [deg]C
T = temperature of flowing medium, in K.

    (9) You may perform any number of replicate tests, but all the 
tests for a vehicle must use the same attachment point. The average 
value of replicate tests is the official result for a given vehicle.
    (10) You may use special or alternative test procedures as 
described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c).
    (d) Equipment calibration. Use good engineering judgment to 
calibrate the leak check device.

Subpart J--[Reserved]

Subpart K--Definitions and Other Reference Material


Sec.  1066.1001  Definitions.

    The definitions in this section apply to this part. The definitions 
apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. Other terms have the 
meaning given in 40 CFR part 1065. The definitions follow:
    Bag 1 means relating to the first 505 s of the FTP cold-start test 
interval. Note that the term bag 1 may also apply to measurement of 
constituents that are not collected in a bag, such as PM and 
continuously measured THC.
    Bag 2 means relating to the last 867 s of the FTP cold-start test 
interval.
    Bag 3 means relating to the first 505 s of the FTP hot-start test 
interval.
    Bag 4 means relating to the last 867 s of the FTP hot-start test 
interval, if run. Note that bag 2 is generally used in place of bag 4.
    Base inertia means a value expressed in mass units to represent the 
rotational inertia of the rotating dynamometer components between the 
vehicle driving tires and the dynamometer torque-measuring device, as 
specified in Sec.  1066.250.
    C1-equivalent means a convention of expressing HC 
concentrations based on the total number of carbon atoms present, such 
that the C1-equivalent of an HC concentration equals the 
concentration multiplied by the mean number of carbon atoms in each HC 
molecule. For example, the C1-equivalent of 10 ppm of 
propane (C3H8) is 30 ppm. C1-
equivalent concentration values may be denoted as ``ppmC'' in the 
standard-setting part. Densities may also be expressed on a 
C1 basis. Note that calculating HC masses from 
concentrations and densities is only valid where they are each 
expressed on the same carbon basis.
    Driving schedule means a series of vehicle speeds that a vehicle 
must follow during a test. Driving schedules are specified in the 
standard-setting part. A driving schedule may consist of multiple test 
intervals.
    Duty cycle means a set of weighting factors and the corresponding 
test cycles, where the weighting factors are used to combine the 
results of multiple test intervals into a composite result.
    FTP means one of the following:
    (1) The test cycle consisting of one UDDS as specified in paragraph 
(a) of Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, followed by a 10-minute soak with 
the engine off and repeat driving through the first 505 seconds of the 
UDDS. See Sec.  1066.801(c)(1).
    (2) The entire test procedure for measuring exhaust and/or 
evaporative emissions as described in Sec.  1066.801(c).
    Footprint has the meaning given in the standard-setting part.
    HFET means the test cycle specified in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 
600.
    LA-92 means the test cycle specified in Appendix I, paragraph (c), 
of 40 CFR part 86.
    Nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) means the combination of organic 
gases other than methane as calculated in Sec.  1066.665. Note that for 
this part, the organic gases are summed on a mass basis without any 
adjustment for photochemical reactivity.
    Parts-per-million (ppm) means ppm on a molar basis. For hydrocarbon 
concentrations including HC, THC, NMHC, and NMOG, ppm means ppm on a 
C1-equivalent molar basis.
    Road-load coefficients means sets of A, B, and C road-load force 
coefficients that are used in the dynamometer road-load simulation, 
where road-load force at speed v equals A + B[middot]v + C[middot]v\2\.
    SC03 means the test cycle specified in Appendix I, paragraph (h), 
of 40 CFR part 86.
    SFTP means the collection of test cycles as given in 
1066.801(c)(2).
    Standard reference conditions means the following:
    (1) Pressure at 101.325 kPa.
    (2) Temperature at 293.15 K.
    Test interval means a period over which a vehicle's emission rates 
are determined separately. For many standards, compliance with the 
standard is based on a weighted average of the mass emissions from 
multiple test intervals. For example, the standard-setting part may 
specify a complete duty cycle as a cold-start test interval and a hot-
start test interval. In cases where multiple test intervals occur over 
a duty cycle, the standard-setting part may specify additional 
calculations that weight and combine results to arrive at composite 
values for comparison against the applicable standards.
    Test weight has the meaning given in Sec.  1066.810.
    UDDS means the test cycle specified in Appendix I, paragraph (a), 
of 40 CFR part 86.
    US06 means the test cycle specified in Appendix I, paragraph (g), 
of 40 CFR part 86.
    Unloaded coastdown means a dynamometer coastdown run with the

[[Page 30189]]

vehicle wheels removed from the roll surface.
    We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.


Sec.  1066.1005  Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of 
measure.

    The procedures in this part generally follow either the 
International System of Units (SI) or the United States customary 
units, as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811, which we 
incorporate by reference in Sec.  1066.1010. See 40 CFR 1065.20 for 
specific provisions related to these conventions. This section 
summarizes the way we use symbols, units of measure, and other 
abbreviations.
    (a) Symbols for quantities. This part uses the following symbols 
and units of measure for various quantities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Unit in terms of SI base
      Symbol            Quantity            Unit                Unit symbol                     units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[alpha]...........  atomic hydrogen   mole per mole...  mol/mol....................  1
                     to carbon ratio.
a.................  acceleration....  feet per second   ft/s \2\ or m/s \2\........  m[middot]s -\2\
                                       squared or
                                       meters per
                                       second squared.
[beta]............  atomic oxygen to  mole per mole...  mol/mol....................  1
                     carbon ratio.
c.................  conversion
                     factor.
Cd................  discharge
                     coefficient.
d.................  diameter........  meters..........  m..........................  m
DF................  dilution factor.  ................  ...........................  1
e.................  mass weighted     grams/mile......  g/mi.......................  ...........................
                     emission result.
F.................  force...........  pound force or    lbf or N...................  kg[middot]s -\2\
                                       newton.
[fnof]............  frequency.......  hertz...........  Hz.........................  s -\1\
I.................  inertia.........  pound mass or     lbm or kg..................  kg
                                       kilogram.
I.................  current.........  ampere..........  A..........................  A
i.................  indexing
                     variable.
m.................  mass............  pound mass or     lbm or kg..................  kg
                                       kilogram.
N.................  total number in
                     series.
n.................  total number of
                     pulses in a
                     series.
[rho].............  mass density....  kilogram per      kg/m \3\...................  kg[middot]m -\3\
                                       cubic meter.
R.................  dynamometer roll  revolutions per   rpm........................  2[middot][pi][middot]60 -
                     revolutions.      minute.                                        \1\
Re #..............  Reynolds number.
Q.................  flow............  cubic feet or
                                       cubic meter.
Q.................  flow rate.......  cubic feet per
                                       minute or cubic
                                       meter per
                                       second.
p.................  pressure........  pascal..........  Pa.........................  m-\1\[middot]kg[middot]s -
                                                                                      \2\
T.................  Celsius           degree Celsius..  [deg]C.....................  K-273.15
                     temperature.
T.................  torque (moment    newton meter....  N[middot]m.................  m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-\2\
                     of force).
t.................  time............  second..........  s..........................  s
[Delta]t..........  time interval,    second..........  s..........................  s
                     period, 1/
                     frequency.
U.................  voltage.........  volt............  V..........................  m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-
                                                                                      \3\[middot]A -\1\
v.................  speed...........  miles per hour    mph or m/s.................  m[middot]s-\1\
                                       or meters per
                                       second.
VP................  volume percent..
x.................  mass of emission  kilogram........  kg.........................  kg
                     over a test
                     interval.
y.................  generic variable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Symbols for chemical species. This part uses the following 
symbols for chemical species and exhaust constituents:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Symbol                               Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CH4...............................  methane.
CO................................  carbon monoxide.
CO2...............................  carbon dioxide.
NMHC..............................  nonmethane hydrocarbon.
NMHCE.............................  nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent.
NMOG..............................  nonmethane organic gas.
NO................................  nitric oxide.
NO2...............................  nitrogen dioxide.
NOX...............................  oxides of nitrogen.
N2O...............................  nitrous oxide.
O2................................  molecular oxygen.
OHC...............................  oxygenated hydrocarbon.
PM................................  particulate matter.
THC...............................  total hydrocarbon.
THCE..............................  total hydrocarbon equivalent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Superscripts. This part uses the following superscripts to 
define a quantity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Superscript                           Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
overbar (such as y)...............  arithmetic mean.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Subscripts. This part uses the following subscripts to define a 
quantity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subscript                            Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
abs...............................  absolute quantity.
act...............................  actual or measured condition.
actint............................  actual or measured condition over
                                     the speed interval.
atmos.............................  atmospheric.
b.................................  base.
c.................................  coastdown.
comp..............................  composite.
cor...............................  corrected.
dexh..............................  dilute exhaust quantity.
dil...............................  dilute.
e.................................  effective.
emission..........................  emission specie.
error.............................  error.
exh...............................  raw exhaust quantity.
exp...............................  expected quantity.
fil...............................  filter.
final.............................  final.
flow..............................  flow measurement device type.
i.................................  an individual of a series.
int...............................  intake.
init..............................  initial quantity, typically before
                                     an emission test.
max...............................  the maximum (i.e. peak) value
                                     expected at the standard over a
                                     test interval; not the maximum of
                                     an instrument range.
meas..............................  measured quantity.
ref...............................  reference quantity.
rev...............................  revolution.
roll..............................  dynamometer roll.
s.................................  settling.
sat...............................  saturated condition.
span..............................  span quantity.
std...............................  standard conditions.
test..............................  test quantity.
uncor.............................  uncorrected quantity.
w.................................  weighted.

[[Page 30190]]

 
zero..............................  zero quantity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Other acronyms and abbreviations. This part uses the following 
additional abbreviations and acronyms:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/C...............................  air conditioning.
ALVW..............................  adjusted loaded vehicle weight.
CFR...............................  Code of Federal Regulations.
CFV...............................  critical-flow venturi.
CVS...............................  constant-volume sampler.
EPA...............................  Environmental Protection Agency.
ETW...............................  equivalent test weight.
EV................................  electric vehicle.
FID...............................  flame-ionization detector.
FTP...............................  Federal test procedure.
GC................................  gas chromatograph.
GHG...............................  greenhouse gas (including CO2, N2O,
                                     and CH4).
GVWR..............................  gross vehicle weight rating.
HEV...............................  hybrid electric vehicle.
HFET..............................  highway fuel economy test.
HLDT..............................  heavy light-duty truck.
HPLC..............................  high pressure liquid chromatography.
IBR...............................  incorporated by reference.
MDPV..............................  medium-duty passenger vehicle.
NIST..............................  National Institute for Standards and
                                     Technology.
PDP...............................  positive-displacement pump.
PHEV..............................  plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.
PM................................  particulate matter.
RESS..............................  rechargeable energy storage system.
SAE...............................  Society of Automotive Engineers.
SC03..............................  air conditioning driving schedule.
SEA...............................  selective enforcement audit.
SFTP..............................  supplemental federal test procedure.
SSV...............................  subsonic venturi.
UDDS..............................  urban dynamometer driving cycle.
US06..............................  aggressive driving schedule.
U.S.C.............................  United States Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (f) This part uses the following densities of chemical species:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Symbol                             Quantity\1\ \2\                  g/m\3\            g/ft\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[rho]CH4............................  density of methane....................           666.905           18.8847
[rho]CH3OH..........................  density of methanol...................           1332.02           37.7185
[rho]C2H5OH.........................  C1-equivalent density of ethanol......           957.559           27.1151
[rho]C2H4O..........................  C1-equivalent density of acetaldehyde.           915.658           25.9285
[rho]C3H8...........................  density of propane....................           611.035           17.3026
[rho]C3H7OH.........................  C1-equivalent density of propanol.....            832.74           23.5806
[rho]CO.............................  density of carbon monoxide............           1164.41           32.9725
[rho]CO2............................  density of carbon dioxide.............           1829.53           51.8064
[rho]HC-gas.........................  effective density of hydrocarbon--               (see 3)           (see 3)
                                       gaseous fuel \3\.
[rho]HCHO...........................  density of formaldehyde...............           1248.21           35.3455
[rho]HC-liq.........................  effective density of hydrocarbon--               576.816           16.3336
                                       liquid fuel \4\.
[rho]NMHC-gas.......................  effective density of nonmethane                  (see 3)           (see 3)
                                       hydrocarbon--gaseous fuel \3\.
[rho]NMHC-liq.......................  effective density of nonmethane                  576.816           16.3336
                                       hydrocarbon--liquid fuel \4\.
[rho]NMHCE-gas......................  effective density of nonmethane                  (see 3)           (see 3)
                                       equivalent hydrocarbon--gaseous fuel
                                       \3\.
[rho]NMHCE-liq......................  effective density of nonmethane                  576.816           16.3336
                                       equivalent hydrocarbon--liquid fuel
                                       \4\.
[rho]NOx............................  effective density of oxides of                    1912.5            54.156
                                       nitrogen \5\.
[rho]N2O............................  density of nitrous oxide..............           1829.66           51.8103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Densities are given at 20 [deg]C and 101.325 kPa.
\2\ Densities for all hydrocarbon containing quantities are given in kg/m\3\-carbon atom and g/ft\3\-carbon
  atom.
\3\ The effective density for natural gas fuel and liquefied petroleum gas fuel are defined by an atomic
  hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, [alpha], of the hydrocarbon components of the test fuel. [rho]HCgas =
  0.04157[middot](12.011 + ([alpha][middot]1.008)).
\4\ The effective density for gasoline and diesel fuel are defined by an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio,
  [alpha], of 1.85.
\5\ The effective density of NOX is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO2.

     (g) Constants. (1) This part uses the following constants for the 
composition of dry air:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Symbol                    Quantity               mol/mol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
xArair......................  amount of argon in dry             0.00934
                               air.
xCO2air.....................  amount of carbon                  0.000375
                               dioxide in dry air.
xN2air......................  amount of nitrogen in              0.78084
                               dry air.
xO2air......................  amount of oxygen in               0.209445
                               dry air.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar 
masses of chemical species:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        g/mol (10-
          Symbol                 Quantity        3[middot]kg[middot]mol-
                                                            1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mair.....................  molar mass of dry                  28.96559
                            air \1\.
MH2O.....................  molar mass of water.               18.01528
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See paragraph (g)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air.


[[Page 30191]]

     (h) Prefixes. This part uses the following prefixes to define a 
quantity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Symbol                         Quantity           Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mu].................................  micro...................     10-6
m....................................  milli...................     10-3
c....................................  centi...................     10-2
k....................................  kilo....................    10\3\
M....................................  mega....................    10\6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1066.1010  Reference materials.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that 
specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must 
publish a notice of the change in the Federal Register and the material 
must be available to the public. All approved material is available for 
inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Room B102, EPA West Building, 
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202-1744, and is available from the sources 
listed below. It is also available for inspection 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.
    (b) Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Dr., 
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, (877) 606-7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 
776-4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada), https://www.sae.org.
    (1) SAE J1263, Road Load Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation 
Using Coastdown Techniques, Revised March 2010, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  1066.301(b) and 1066.310(b).
    (2) SAE J1634, Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test 
Procedure, Revised October 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  1066.501.
    (3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust 
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-
In Hybrid Vehicles, Revised June 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
1066.122 and 1066.501.
    (4) SAE J2263, Road Load Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry and 
Coastdown Techniques, Revised December 2008, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  1066.301(b) and 1066.310(b).
    (5) SAE J2264, Chassis Dynamometer Simulation of Road Load Using 
Coastdown Techniques, Issued April 1995, IBR approved for Sec.  
1066.320.
    (6) SAE J2711, Recommended Practice for Measuring Fuel Economy and 
Emissions of Hybrid-Electric and Conventional Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 
Issued September 2002, IBR approved for Sec.  1066.501.
    (7) SAE J2951, Drive Quality Evaluation for Chassis Dynamometer 
Testing, Revised November 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  1066.430.
    (c) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau 
Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, (301) 975-6478, 
www.nist.gov, or inquiries@nist.gov.
    (1) NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition, Guide for the Use 
of the International System of Units (SI), March 2008, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  1066.20(a) and 1066.1005.
    (2) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2013-08500 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE P