Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, 23413-23886 [2014-06954]
Download as PDF
Vol. 79
Monday,
No. 81
April 28, 2014
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85, et al.
Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel Standards; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23414
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036,
1037, 1039, 1042, 1048, 1054, 1065, and
1066
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135; FRL 9906–86–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AQ86
Control of Air Pollution From Motor
Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action establishes more
stringent vehicle emissions standards
and will 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
gasoline sulfur standard will make
emission control systems more effective
for both existing and new vehicles, and
will enable more stringent vehicle
emissions standards. The vehicle
standards will reduce both tailpipe and
evaporative emissions from passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty
passenger vehicles, and some heavyduty vehicles. This will 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
SUMMARY:
Standards. Motor vehicles are an
important source of exposure to air
pollution both regionally and near
roads. These vehicle standards are
intended to harmonize with California’s
Low Emission Vehicle program, thus
creating a federal vehicle emissions
program that will allow automakers to
sell the same vehicles in all 50 states.
The vehicle standards will be
implemented over the same timeframe
as the greenhouse gas/fuel efficiency
standards for light-duty vehicles
(promulgated by EPA and the National
Highway Safety Administration in
2012), as part of a comprehensive
approach toward regulating emissions
from motor vehicles.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
June 27, 2014. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in this regulation is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
June 27, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
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, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
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
rule include gasoline refiners and
importers, ethanol producers, ethanol
denaturant producers, butane and
pentane producers, gasoline additive
manufacturers, transmix processors,
terminals and fuel distributors, lightduty 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:
NAICSa Code
Category
SICb Code
Examples of potentially affected entities
Petroleum refineries (including importers).
Butane and pentane manufacturers.
Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Ethanol denaturant manufacturers.
Natural gas liquids extraction and fractionation.
Other basic organic chemical manufacturing.
Natural gas liquids pipelines, refined petroleum products
pipelines.
Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers.
Manufacturers of gasoline additives.
Petroleum bulk stations and terminals.
Other warehousing and storage-bulk petroleum storage.
Light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck manufacturers.
Independent commercial importers.
Alternative fuel converters.
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
324110 ...................................
325110 ...................................
325193 ...................................
324110, 211112 .....................
211112 ...................................
325199 ...................................
486910 ...................................
2911 .......................................
2869 .......................................
2869 .......................................
2911, 1321 .............................
1321 .......................................
2869 .......................................
4613 .......................................
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
424690 ...................................
325199 ...................................
424710 ...................................
493190 ...................................
336111, 336112 .....................
811111, 811112, 811198 .......
335312, 336312, 336322,
336399, 811198.
333618, 336120, 336211,
336312.
5169 .......................................
2869 .......................................
5171 .......................................
4226 .......................................
3711 .......................................
7538, 7533, 7534 ...................
3621, 3714, 3519, 3599, 7534
Industry ..............
a North
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.
3699, 3711, 3713, 3714 ........
On-highway heavy-duty engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs
GVWR) manufacturers.
American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
Industrial Classification (SIC).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
b Standard
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
regulated. To determine whether your
activities are regulated by this action,
you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 79,
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1065, and 1066
and the referenced regulations. If you
have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Did EPA conduct a peer review before
issuing this action?
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. EPA conducted several peer
reviews in connection with data
supporting the 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary and Program Overview
A. Introduction
B. Overview of the Tier 3 Program
1. Major Public Comments and Key
Changes From the Proposal
2. Key Components of the Tier 3 Program
C. What will the impacts of the standards
be?
II. Why is EPA taking this action?
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. Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur
4. Carbon Monoxide
5. Mobile Source Air Toxics
6. Near-Roadway Pollution
7. Environmental Impacts of Motor
Vehicles and Fuels
III. How would this rule reduce emissions
and air pollution?
A. Effects of the Vehicle and Fuel Changes
on Mobile Source Emissions
1. How do vehicles produce the emissions
addressed in this action?
2. How will the changes to gasoline sulfur
content affect vehicle emissions?
B. How will emissions be reduced?
1. NOX
2. VOC
3. CO
4. Direct PM2.5
5. Air Toxics
6. SO2
7. Greenhouse Gases
C. How will air pollution be reduced?
1. Ozone
2. Particulate Matter
3. Nitrogen Dioxide
4. Air Toxics
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
5. Visibility
6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
7. Environmental Justice
IV. Vehicle Emissions Program
A. Tier 3 Tailpipe Emission Standards for
Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks,
and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
1. How the Tier 3 Program is harmonized
with the California LEV III Program
2. Summary of the Tier 3 FTP and SFTP
Tailpipe Standards
3. FTP Standards
4. SFTP Standards
5. Feasibility of the NMOG+NOX and PM
Standards
6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the
Effectiveness of the Vehicle Emission
Standards
7. Other Provisions
B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for HeavyDuty Vehicles
1. Overview and Scope of Vehicles
Regulated
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
1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
2. Program Structure and Implementation
Flexibilities
3. Technological Feasibility
4. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV)
Requirements
5. Evaporative Emission Requirements for
FFVs
6. Test Procedures and Certification Test
Fuel
D. Improvements to In-Use Performance of
Fuel Vapor Control Systems
1. Reasons for Adding a Leak Test Standard
2. Nature, Scope and Timing of Leak
Standard
3. Leak Standard Test Procedure
4. Certification and Compliance
a. In-Use Verification Program (IUVP)
Requirements for the Leak Standard
E. Onboard Diagnostic System
Requirements
1. Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System
Regulation Changes—Timing
2. Revisions to EPA OBD Regulatory
Requirements
3. Provisions for Emergency Vehicles
4. Future Considerations
F. Emissions Test Fuel
1. Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel: Ethanol
Content and Volatility
2. Other Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel
Specifications
3. Flexible Fuel Vehicle Exhaust Emissions
Test Fuel
4. Implementation Schedule
5. Implications of Emission Test Fuel
Changes on CAFE Standards, GHG
Standards, and Fuel Economy Labels
6. Consideration of Test Fuel for Nonroad
Engines and Highway Motorcycles
7. CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel
Specifications
G. Small Business Provisions
1. Lead Time and Relaxed Interim
Standards
2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23415
3. Reduced Testing Burden and OBD
Requirements
4. Hardship Relief
5. Eligibility for the Flexibilities
H. Compliance Provisions
1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures
2. Reduced Test Burden
3. Miscellaneous Provisions
4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification
Program (IUVP) Requirements
V. Fuel Program
A. Overview
1. Background
2. Summary of Final Tier 3 Fuel Program
Standards
B. Annual Average Sulfur Standard
C. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
1. Standards
2. Requirements for Gasoline Additives
D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
Program
1. How will the ABT Program assist with
compliance?
2. ABT Modeling
3. Eligibility
4. Credit Generation and Use
5. Credit Trading Provisions
6. ABT Provisions for Small Refiners and
Small Volume Refineries
7. Deficit Carryforward
E. Additional Program Flexibilities
1. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
2. 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. Standards for Oxygenates (Including
Denatured Fuel Ethanol) and Certified
Ethanol Denaturants
H. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible
Fueled Vehicles
I. Sulfur Standards for Purity Butane and
Purity Pentane Streams Blended into
Gasoline
J. Standards for CNG and LPG
K. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions
1. Proposal
2. Updated Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery
Changes and Permitting Implications
3. Comments and Responses
L. Refinery Feasibility
1. Comments Received
2. Is it feasible for refiners to comply with
a 10 ppm average sulfur standard?
3. Can refiners meet the January 1, 2017
start date?
M. Statutory Authority for Tier 3 Fuel
Controls
1. Section 211(c)(1)(A)
2. Section 211(c)(1)(B)
3. Section 211(c)(2)(B)
4. Section 211(c)(2)(C)
VI. Technical Amendments and Regulatory
Streamlining
A. Fuel Program Amendments
1. Fuels Program Regulatory Streamlining
2. Performance-Based Measurement
Systems (PBMS)
3. Downstream Pentane Blending
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23416
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
4. Acceptance of Top Tier Deposit Control
Test Data
5. Potential Broader Regulatory
Streamlining Through Program
Restructuring
B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment
Programs Amendments
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 rule?
A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle
Standards
1. What changes have been made to vehicle
program costs since proposal?
2. Summary of Vehicle Program Costs
B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program
1. Overview
2. Methodology
3. Fuel Program Costs
4. Other Cost Estimates
C. Summary of Program Costs
VIII. What are the estimated benefits of the
rule?
A. Overview
B. Quantified Human Health Impacts
C. Monetized Benefits
D. What are the limitations of the benefits
analysis?
E. Illustrative Analysis of Estimated
Monetized Impacts Associated With the
Rule in 2018
IX. Alternatives Analysis
A. Vehicle Emission Standards
1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phase-in
2. NMOG+NOX Standards Phase-in and
Early Tier 3 Credits
3. NMOG+NOX Standards
4. PM Standards
5. Higher Ethanol Content of Emissions
Test Fuel
B. Fuel Sulfur Standards
1. Annual Average Sulfur Standard
2. Refinery Gate Sulfur Cap
C. Program Start Date
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
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 Rule
4. Legal Basis for Agency Action
5. Summary of Potentially Affected Small
Entities
6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and
Compliance
7. Related Federal Rules
8. Steps Taken To Minimize the Economic
Impact on Small Entities
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
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
K. Congressional Review Act
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal
Authority
I. Executive Summary and Program
Overview
A. Introduction
In this action, EPA is finalizing 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
program as the ‘‘Tier 3’’ vehicle and fuel
standards.
This rule is part of a comprehensive
approach to address the impacts of
motor vehicles on air quality and public
health. Over 149 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 2018, we project that in
many areas that are not attaining healthbased ambient air quality standards (i.e.,
‘‘nonattainment areas’’), passenger cars
and light trucks will contribute 10–25
percent of total nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions, 15–30 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,
1 The 149 million represents people living in O ,
3
PM2.5, PM10, and SO2 nonattainment areas. Data
come from Summary Nonattainment Area
Population Exposure Report, current as of
December 5, 2013 at: http://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 this rule. For more
information on these inventories see the Emissions
Inventory Technical Support Document (TSD) for
the final Tier 3 Rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2011–0135.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 Over 80 percent of daily
trips use personal vehicles.6
The standards set forth in this rule
will 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 benefits from the gasoline
sulfur control standards starting in
2017. These reductions will 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 will deliver the same
magnitude of multi-pollutant reductions
and associated public health protection
that is projected to result from the Tier
3 standards. Without this action to
reduce nationwide motor vehicle
emissions, areas would have to adopt
other, less cost-effective measures to
reduce emissions from other sources
under their state or local authority. In
the absence of additional controls,
certain areas would 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
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 VehicleDominated Environments. Health Effects Institute
Research Report 156. Available at http://
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
http://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
http://www.bls.gov.
6 Santos, A.; McGuckin, N, Yukiko Nakamoto, H.;
Gray, D.; Liss, S. (2011) Summary of Travel Trends:
2009 National Household Travel Survey. Federal
Highway Administration report no FHWA–PL–11–
022. Available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/
publications.shtml.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(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 finalizing represent a
‘‘systems approach’’ to reducing vehicle
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 costeffective 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 Tier 3
standards is a cost-effective way to
achieve substantial additional emissions
reductions.
The 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 new evaporative emissions standards.
The fully phased-in standards for lightduty 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 fully phased-in Tier 3 heavy-duty
vehicle tailpipe emissions standards for
NMOG+NOX and PM are on the order of
60 percent lower than current standards.
Finally, the fully phased-in evaporative
emissions standards represent a 50
percent reduction from current
standards.
The vehicle emission standards,
combined with the reduction of gasoline
sulfur content from the current 30 parts
per million (ppm) average down to a 10
ppm average, will 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 will make up the
majority of the fleet as well as vehicle
miles traveled, NOX and VOC emissions
from on-highway vehicles will be
reduced by about 21 percent, and CO
emissions will be reduced by about 24
percent. National emissions of many air
toxics from on-highway vehicles will
also be reduced by 10 to nearly 30
percent. Reductions will continue
beyond 2030 as more of the fleet is
composed of vehicles meeting the fully
phased-in Tier 3 standards. For
example, the Tier 3 program will reduce
on-highway emissions of NOX and VOC
7 65
FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
nearly 31 percent by 2050, when
vehicles meeting the fully phased-in
Tier 3 standards will 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 exposed
to sulfur. 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 Tier 3
standards. Thus, the 10 ppm average
sulfur standard for Tier 3 is significant
in two ways: it enables vehicles
designed to the 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 fuel sulfur controls
are implemented. EPA is 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 action is one aspect of a
comprehensive national program
regulating emissions from motor
vehicles. EPA’s 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 program 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
8 EPA’s GHG standards are part of a joint National
Program with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, which also set coordinated
standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE). 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23417
the GHG standards, they will be able to
design them for compliance with the
Tier 3 standards at the same time. The
Tier 3 standards are also closely
coordinated with California’s Low
Emission Vehicle (LEV) III program to
create a vehicle emissions program that
will 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. Twelve states 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 will provide significant
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 program 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
As part of the systems approach to
this program, we have considered the
types of fuels on which vehicles will be
operating in the future. 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 is
resulting in the use of significant
amounts of ethanol-blended gasoline.
We are updating the specifications of
the emissions test fuel with which
vehicles demonstrate compliance with
emissions standards, in order to better
reflect the ethanol content and other
properties of gasoline that is in use
today and is expected in future years.
Section I provides an overview of the
vehicle and fuel standards we are
finalizing as well as the impacts of the
standards. The public health issues and
statutory requirements that have
prompted this action are described in
Section II, and our discussion of how
9 These states include Connecticut, Delaware,
Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Washington, and Vermont.
10 The Presidential Memorandum is found at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuelefficiency-standards.
11 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23418
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the Tier 3 standards will reduce
emissions and air pollution is presented
in Section III. Details of the standards
and how they will be implemented can
be found in Sections IV through VI.
Sections VII through X contain our
discussion of the standards’
technological feasibility and costs,
benefits, and economic impacts.
Sections XI through XIII address public
participation, statutory and executive
orders, and statutory provisions and
legal authority under the Clean Air Act
covered in this rulemaking.
This final rule is based on extensive
public input received in response to
EPA’s Tier 3 proposal. The proposal was
signed and posted on the EPA Web site
on March 29, 2013, and published in the
Federal Register on May 21, 2013. EPA
held two public hearings in
Philadelphia and Chicago in April 2013.
In response to stakeholder requests, EPA
extended the public comment period to
July 1, 2013. We received more than
200,000 public comments. A broad
range of stakeholders provided
comments, including state and local
governments, auto manufacturers,
emissions control suppliers, refiners,
fuel distributors and others in the
petroleum industry, renewable fuels
providers, environmental organizations,
consumer groups, labor groups, private
citizens, and others. Some of the issues
raised in comments included lead time
and the program’s start date, the vehicle
manufacturers’ support for a 50-state
program harmonized with California,
the need for and degree of gasoline
sulfur control (including the level of the
sulfur cap), the ethanol content of
vehicle certification test fuel, and
various details on the flexibilities and
other program design features of both
the vehicle and fuels standards.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Overview of the Tier 3 Program
In the 14 years since EPA established
the Tier 2 Vehicle Program,
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles and
automotive technology suppliers have
continued to develop a wide range of
improved technologies capable of
reducing vehicle emissions. 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
technological progress has made it
possible for manufacturers to achieve
emission reductions well beyond the
requirements of the Tier 2 program if
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
gasoline sulfur levels are lowered
further.
As a result, in conjunction with lower
gasoline sulfur standards, we are
establishing new Tier 3 standards for
exhaust emissions of NMOG, NOX, and
PM, as well as for evaporative
hydrocarbon emissions. These vehicle
emissions standards will phase in
beginning with MY 2017. The structure
of the Tier 3 standards is very similar
to that of the existing Tier 2 program. As
with the Tier 2 program, the standards
will apply to all light-duty vehicles
(LDVs, or passenger cars), light-duty
trucks (LDT1s, LDT2s, LDT3s, and
LDT4s) and Medium-Duty Passenger
Vehicles (MDPVs). We also are
establishing separate but closely related
standards for heavy-duty vehicles up to
14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR).12 We have concluded that the
vehicle emissions standards, in
conjunction with the reductions in fuel
sulfur also required by this action, are
feasible across the fleet in the timeframe
provided.
Auto manufacturers have stressed the
importance of being able to design,
produce, and sell a single fleet of
vehicles in all 50 states that complies
with both the Tier 3 and California LEV
III programs, as well as the greenhouse
gas (GHG)/Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) programs in the same
timeframe. To that end, we worked
closely with the California Air
Resources Board and vehicle
manufacturers to align the two programs
as closely as possible. This consistency
among the federal and California
programs means that manufacturers do
not need to design unique versions of
vehicles with different emission control
hardware and calibrations for different
geographic areas. This allows
manufacturers to avoid the additional
costs of parallel design, development,
calibration, and manufacturing. We also
have designed the Tier 3 program to be
implemented in the same timeframe as
the 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 will phase in over the same
timeframe, manufacturers are in a better
position to simultaneously respond to
all of these requirements.
Overall, the final Tier 3 program is
very similar to the program we
proposed. As discussed below and
12 These heavy-duty vehicles were not included
in the Tier 2 program but were subject to standards
in a subsequent rule covering the heavy-duty sector
(66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
throughout this preamble, the program
phases in over several years—with the
primary vehicle emission standards
starting in Model Year (MY) 2017 (2018
for heavier vehicles) and the gasoline
sulfur control provisions beginning in
2017.
As discussed above, we received a
large number and wide range of
comments on the proposed rule. Several
comments raise particularly significant
issues concerning some fundamental
components of the Tier 3 program,
including when the vehicle-related and
fuel-related requirements begin. We
briefly discuss these key issues in this
section, and in more detail later in this
preamble. The Summary and Analysis
of Comments document provides our
responses to the comments we received;
it is located in the docket for this
rulemaking and also on EPA’s Web site
at www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm.
1. Major Public Comments and Key
Changes From the Proposal
a. Start Date and Lead Time Issues
(1) Gasoline Sulfur Control Program
Many stakeholders commented on the
proposed 2017 start date of the Tier 3
program, with state and NGO
organizations supporting finalizing the
standards as proposed. Conversely,
refiners, importers, and others in the
fuel industry commented that they
believed the proposed start date would
not provide a sufficient amount of lead
time to meet the requirements of the
Tier 3 program, and that EPA has
historically provided at least four years
of lead time in previous fuels
rulemakings. These commenters noted
that five years of lead time is needed to
allow for necessary refinery changes to
be made during a refinery’s normal
turnaround/shutdown schedule (these
occur every four years, on average) and
to allow adequate time for the
permitting process. These commenters
also stated that, given the proposed
flexibility provisions for vehicles, that a
2017 fuel program start date was not
truly needed to enable the vehicle
technology. Further, these commenters
stated that they believed insufficient
lead time would drive up the costs for
regulated entities as they would need to
do unscheduled shutdowns to install
and/or revamp equipment to meet the
proposed standards. Lastly, they stated
that the uncertainty regarding the
potential availability of credits would
make meeting a 2017 start date more
challenging.
As discussed in greater detail in
Section V below, we are finalizing the
proposed start date of January 1, 2017.
We understand refiners’ concerns,
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
including their concerns over the
necessary capital investments and
potential off-cycle turnarounds/
shutdowns to make refinery
modifications for Tier 3. In light of these
concerns, we are finalizing additional
flexibilities beyond those already in the
proposal and we are confident that the
program being finalized today addresses
these concerns. Considering all the
flexibilities offered to regulated parties,
there is, in effect, nearly 6 years of time
to comply provided for those refineries
that may need it. As discussed in
Section V.D, we are finalizing a credit
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
program that will allow for a smooth
transition from the Tier 2 to Tier 3 ABT
programs (including provisions for early
credit generation beginning in 2014).
These early credit provisions, coupled
with the ability to carry over credits
from Tier 2 into Tier 3 (an additional
flexibility being finalized today that was
not part of the proposal), will allow for
early actions to reduce sulfur levels by
some refineries to be used to delay the
need for actions at other refineries until
2020. This structure of the ABT program
allows refiners and importers the
flexibility to choose the most
economical compliance strategy—
investment in technology, use of credits,
or both—for meeting the Tier 3 average
gasoline sulfur standard. In addition,
approved small refiners and small
volume refineries are given an
additional three years from the January
1, 2017, Tier 3 program start date to
comply (January 1, 2020).
We proposed that the Tier 2 ABT
program would not only be separate
from the Tier 3 ABT program, but that
it would also end at the start of the Tier
3 program in 2017. The implications of
this meant that any Tier 2 credits
generated after 2012 would run the risk
of expiring before the end of their full
five-year life if they were not used
before January 1, 2017. Commenters
requested that EPA consider allowing
such Tier 2 ‘‘banked’’ credits to receive
their full five-year life. This would
eliminate any incentive refiners may
have to use these credits prior to the end
of the Tier 2 program to raise their inuse sulfur levels. The ABT program that
we are finalizing today enables a
seamless transition from Tier 2 to Tier
3, including an allowance for Tier 2
banked credits to be used for their full
five-year life or through December 31,
2019, whichever is earlier. Not only
does this provision effectively provide
more lead time and flexibility for
refiners and importers, but we believe
these banked credits will help to
provide certainty of the availability of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
credits for refiners and importers who
may want to rely on them for
compliance.
Finally, as discussed in Section V.E.2,
we are also finalizing hardship
provisions that allow refiners to petition
for delayed compliance, on a case-bycase basis, for situations of extreme
hardship or extreme unforeseen
circumstances. These provisions,
similar to those implemented in past
fuel rulemakings, provide a safety valve
should all the other flexibilities
provided prove insufficient. As part of
these hardship provisions, we are
finalizing the ability for refiners to carry
a deficit for up to 3 years, providing
them with yet additional flexibility
during the transition to Tier 3 should it
prove necessary.
(2) Vehicle Emission Control Program
There were no major concerns raised
for the proposed MY 2017 start date for
lighter light-duty vehicles, although
commenters from the auto
manufacturing industry raised concerns
about the lead time we proposed for
heavier light-duty vehicles. Specifically,
commenters pointed to Clean Air Act
section 202(a)(3)(C) that, for vehicles
over 6,000 lbs GVWR, requires that EPA
emission standards provide at least four
years of lead time and three years of
regulatory stability.
In light of this statutory requirement,
in addition to the primary declining
fleet average standards starting in MY
2018 for heavier vehicles, EPA proposed
an alternative phase-in schedule for any
manufacturer that prefers a longer lead
time and annual stability for these
vehicles in lieu of the declining fleet
average standards option. The
commenters stated that the proposed
alternative pathway would be too
difficult to take advantage of in
comparison to the primary program and
thereby failed to comply with the Clean
Air Act.
In considering these comments, EPA
also considered that during the
development of the Tier 3 program and
in their comments, the same auto
industry commenters consistently urged
EPA to design the Tier 3 program to
harmonize with the California LEV III
standards as closely and as early as
possible. As discussed in detail below
in Section IV.A, extensive data that EPA
has generated or received continue to
support the conclusion that the primary
fleet-average standards provide a
compliance path that is feasible across
the industry and that closely
harmonizes with LEV III. EPA believes
that we have reasonably resolved these
somewhat competing concerns—early
harmonization vs. additional lead
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23419
time—by finalizing the primary
declining fleet average standards as
proposed while also finalizing revised
alternative phase-in compliance
schedules (see Section IV.A.2.c). In
response to the comments on this topic,
we have revised the alternative phase-in
schedules to reduce their associated
burden for manufacturers, while still
maintaining environmental benefits that
are equivalent to the primary program.
We also include provisions in the
percent-of-sales phase-in alternatives
that allow manufacturers to exclude
vehicle models that begin their 2019
model year production early in 2018, in
order to provide four years of lead time.
b. Emissions Test Fuel
In-use gasoline has changed
considerably since EPA last revised
specifications for the test gasoline used
in emissions testing of light- and heavyduty vehicles. Perhaps most
importantly, gasoline containing 10
percent ethanol by volume (E10) has
replaced non-oxygenated gasoline (E0)
across the country. As a result, we are
updating federal emissions test fuel
specifications to better match in-use
fuel.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed that the
specified gasoline for emissions testing
be changed from E0 to E15 as a forwardlooking approach. Since then, several
factors have led EPA to reconsider that
approach, including minimal
proliferation on a national scale of
stations offering E15 and the
complexities that E15 would introduce
for long-term harmonization with
California’s use of E10 in their LEVIII
program. We received comments from a
broad set of stakeholders including the
auto and oil industries, states, and
NGOs with a general consensus that E15
would not be appropriate as the official
test fuel at this time. Ethanol industry
commenters supported E15 certification
fuel, but provided no timeline by which
this blend level would be representative
of in-use fuel. In light of the comments
received and EPA’s assessment of the
current and projected levels of ethanol
in gasoline in use, we are finalizing E10
as the new emissions test fuel.
In deciding to finalize E10 test fuel,
EPA considered whether to change the
volatility of the test fuel, typically
expressed as pounds per square inch
(psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). As
discussed in detail in Section IV.F, after
considering technical and policy
implications as well as stakeholder
comments, we have concluded that the
most appropriate approach is to
maintain an RVP of 9 psi for the E10
emissions test fuel at this time. EPA
considered raising test fuel RVP to 10
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23420
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
psi, but decided to leave it unchanged
at 9 psi based on what would have been
the associated increase in stringency of
the Tier 3 evaporative standard with 10
psi and the loss of regulatory harmony
on evaporative emissions with
California’s LEV III program.
As a result, after reassessing market
trends and considering comments, EPA
concludes that the most appropriate
approach is to finalize an ethanol
content of 10 percent and an RVP of 9
psi for emissions test gasoline. We will
continue to monitor ethanol trends in
the gasoline market, as discussed later
in this preamble.
c. Gasoline Sulfur Caps
As described in more detail in Section
V.C. we proposed two options for the
Tier 3 per-gallon sulfur caps—
maintaining the Tier 2 refinery gate
sulfur cap of 80 ppm (with a 95 ppm
downstream sulfur cap), and lowering to
a 50 ppm refinery gate sulfur cap
beginning January 1, 2020 (with a 65
ppm downstream cap). We received
comments supporting lower per-gallon
caps which noted potential
environmental benefits, greater certainty
that vehicles would see lower and more
uniform gasoline sulfur levels, and the
ability to enable new vehicle
technologies requiring very low sulfur
levels. Conversely, comments received
in support of maintaining the Tier 2 pergallon caps cited concerns on cost,
flexibility for turnarounds/unplanned
shutdowns (due to refinery fires, natural
disasters, etc.), and gasoline supply and/
or price impacts.
Analysis performed since the time of
the proposal found that a lower refinery
gate cap would likely result in higher
costs to the fuels industry and a
decreased ability to handle off-spec
product (potentially impacting gasoline
supply and pricing), without any
significant increase in the nationwide
emissions reductions provided by the
Tier 3 program. Thus, in today’s action
we are retaining the Tier 2 per-gallon
sulfur caps. The 80 ppm refinery gate
cap will provide refiners needed
flexibility in allowing for naturallyoccurring fuel batch variability, as well
as more certainty that they will be able
to continue producing and distributing
gasoline during turnarounds/upsets to
avoid a total shutdown. It will also
provide more certainty for transmix
processors, additive manufacturers, and
other downstream parties in producing
gasoline.
However, we do understand
commenters’ concerns that retaining the
Tier 2 sulfur caps might create regional
differences in the benefits of the Tier 3
program. Therefore we will continue to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
monitor in-use sulfur levels and their
impact on vehicle emissions to ascertain
whether a future reduction in the pergallon cap may be necessary.
d. Effect of Gasoline Sulfur on Tier 3
Vehicle Emissions
The need for and level of gasoline
sulfur control was a key issue raised in
public comments. The petroleum
industry raised concerns that there was
insufficient basis for the proposed 10
ppm average sulfur level, while auto
manufacturers and emissions control
equipment manufacturers stressed that
the feasibility of the Tier 3 vehicle
standards was dependent on near-zero
gasoline sulfur levels. This issue is
discussed in detail below in Section
IV.A.6. In sum, EPA believes that the
range of studies conducted by EPA and
others in recent years, along with the
comments submitted by the auto
industry and emissions control
manufacturers during the comment
period and more recently, strongly
reinforce our conclusion that the impact
of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust
catalyst performance is significant.
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 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. In fact, due to the
variation in actual vehicle operation,
any amount of gasoline sulfur will
deteriorate catalyst efficiency. Vehicle
manufacturers and suppliers, both
individually and through their trade
associations, stressed the need for
gasoline sulfur to be reduced to near
zero levels in order for them to meet the
proposed standards. However, we
believe that a 10 ppm average sulfur
level is sufficiently low to enable
compliance with the Tier 3 vehicle
standards, and as described below and
in Section V, reducing sulfur levels
further would cause sulfur control costs
to quickly escalate.
Taken together, this information
provides a compelling argument that the
fleetwide Tier 3 vehicle standards are
achievable only with a reduction of
gasoline sulfur content from the current
30 ppm average down to a 10 ppm
average.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
e. SFTP (US06) PM Standard for LightDuty Vehicles
The final Tier 3 vehicle standards are
largely unchanged from their proposed
levels. One change from the proposal is
the PM emissions standards as
measured on the US06 test cycle. The
US06 cycle is part of the composite
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure
(SFTP) and simulates aggressive driving.
The US06 PM standards are part of the
suite of Tier 3 tailpipe standards that
limit emissions under a wide range of
common vehicle driving conditions.
Newer emissions test data presented in
the NPRM, as well as more recent
additional test data submitted in public
comments, show that a numerically
lower US06 PM standard is feasible and
appropriately reflects the actual
emissions performance achieved by
many vehicles in the fleet today while
preventing increased emissions in the
future.
Taken together, the test results clearly
show that most current light-duty
vehicles—regardless of engine
technology, emission control strategy, or
vehicle size—are performing at much
lower US06 emission levels than
previously documented. Based on these
newer data, we believe that it is
appropriate to finalize a numerically
lower US06 PM emission standard for
LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, and to set a
single standard for both lighter and
heavier vehicles in this vehicle segment.
In general, the final US06 PM standard
for these vehicles begins to phase in at
a level of 10 mg/mi in MYs 2017 and
2018, stepping down to a level of 6 mg/
mi in MY2019. See Section IV.A.4.b for
additional discussion of the US06
standards and how they will phase in.
2. Key Components of the Tier 3
Program
a. Tailpipe Standards for Light-Duty
Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, and
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
Tailpipe Emissions
We are establishing a comprehensive
program that includes new fleet-average
standards for the sum of NMOG and
NOX tailpipe emissions (presented as
NMOG+NOX) as well as new per-vehicle
standards for PM.13 These standards,
when applied in conjunction with
reduced gasoline sulfur content, will
result in very significant improvements
in vehicle emissions from the levels of
the Tier 2 program. For these pollutants,
the standards are measured on test
procedures that represent a range of
13 A discussion of the reasons for combining
NMOG and NOX for this purpose is in Section
IV.A.3.a below.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23421
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
ambient temperatures, higher vehicle
speeds, and quicker accelerations). In
addition to the standards, we are
extending the regulatory useful life
period during which the standards
apply (see Section IV.A.7.b below) and
making test fuel more representative of
expected real-world fuel (see Section
I.B.2.e below). The final standards are in
most cases identical to those of
California’s LEVIII program, which
provides the 50-state harmonization
strongly supported by the auto industry.
As proposed, the new Tier 3 FTP and
SFTP NMOG+NOX standards are fleetaverage standards, meaning that a
manufacturer calculates the average
emissions of the vehicles it sells in each
model year and compares that average
to the applicable standard for that
model year. The manufacturer certifies
each of its vehicles to a per-vehicle
‘‘bin’’ standard (see Section IV.A.2) and
sales-weights these values to calculate
its fleet-average NMOG+NOX emissions
for each model year. Table I–1
summarizes the fleet average standards
for NMOG+NOX evaluated over the FTP.
The standards for light-duty vehicles
begin in MY 2017 at a level representing
a 46 percent reduction from the Tier 2
requirements. For the light-duty fleet
over 6000 lbs GVWR, and MDPVs, the
standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
As shown, these fleet-average standards
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 FTP NMOG+NOX
program includes two separate sets of
declining fleet-average standards, with
LDVs and small light trucks in one
grouping and heavier light trucks and
MDPVs in a second grouping, that
converge at 30 milligrams per mile (mg/
mi) in MY 2025 and later. As mentioned
above, we are also providing alternative
percent phase-in schedules for this and
the other light-duty standards.
TABLE I–1—TIER 3 LDV, LDT, AND MDPV FLEET AVERAGE FTP NMOG+NOX STANDARDS
[mg/mi]
Model year
2017 a
LDV/LDT1 b ..................................
LDT2,3,4 and MDPV ....................
2018
86
101
2019
79
92
2020
72
83
2021
65
74
2022
58
65
2023
51
56
2025 and
later
2024
44
47
37
38
30
30
a For
LDV and LDTs above 6000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the fleet average standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers can choose to certify some or all of their LDVs and LDT1s to a useful life
of 120,000 miles. If a vehicle model is certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet-average standard applies, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg. See Section IV.A.7.c.
b These
Similarly, as proposed, the
NMOG+NOX standards measured over
the SFTP are fleet-average standards,
declining from MY 2017 until MY 2025,
as shown in Table I–2. In this case, the
same standards apply to both lighter
and heavier vehicles in the light-duty
fleet. In MY 2025, the SFTP
NMOG+NOX standard reaches its final
fleet average level of 50 mg/mi.
TABLE I–2—TIER 3 LDV, LDT, AND MDPV FLEET AVERAGE SFTP NMOG+NOX STANDARDS
[mg/mi]
Model year
2017 a
NMOG + NOX ..............................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a For
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025 and
later
103
97
90
83
77
70
63
57
50
LDVs and LDTs above 6000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the fleet average standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
As proposed, manufacturers can also
earn credits if their fleet average
NMOG+NOX performance is better than
the applicable standard in any model
year. Credits that have been previously
banked or obtained from other
manufacturers can be used, or credits
can be traded to other manufacturers.
Manufacturers would also be allowed to
carry forward deficits in their credit
balance. (See Sections IV.A.7.a and
IV.A.7.m).
We are also establishing PM standards
as part of the Tier 3 program, for both
the FTP and US06 cycles (as described
above, US06 is a component of the SFTP
test). Research has demonstrated that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
the level of PM from gasoline light-duty
vehicles is more significant than
previously thought.14 Although many
vehicles today are performing at or near
the levels of the new standards, the data
indicate that improvements, especially
in high-load fuel control and in the
durability of engine components, are
possible.
14 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 PM standards. At
the same time we see considerable
variation in PM emissions among
vehicles of various makes, models, and
designs. As a result, as proposed, we are
setting the new FTP PM standard at a
level that will ensure that all new
vehicles perform at the level already
being achieved by well-designed Tier 2
vehicles. The PM standards apply to
each vehicle separately (i.e., not as a
fleet average). Also, in contrast to the
declining NMOG+NOX standards, the
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23422
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 applies beginning in MY 2018.
Manufacturers can 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
standard is to bring all light-duty
vehicles to the typical level of PM
performance being demonstrated by
many of today’s vehicles.
As proposed, the Tier 3 program also
includes a temporary in-use FTP PM
standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in-
use vehicles that applies during the
percent phase-in period only. This inuse standard will address the in-use
variability and durability uncertainties
that accompany the introduction of new
technologies. Table I–3 presents the FTP
certification and in-use PM standards
and the phase-in percentages.
TABLE I–3—PHASE-IN FOR TIER 3 FTP PM STANDARDS
2017 a
2018
b 20
Phase-In (percent of U.S. sales) .............................................................
Certification Standard (mg/mi) .................................................................
In-Use Standard (mg/mi) .........................................................................
2019
20
3
6
3
6
2020
40
3
6
2021
70
3
6
2022 and
later
100
3
6
100
3
3
a For
LDVs and LDTs above 6000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the FTP PM standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
comply in MY 2017 with 20 percent of their LDV and LDT fleet under 6,000 lbs GVWR, or alternatively with 10 percent of their
total LDV, LDT, and MDPV fleet.
b Manufacturers
Finally, as discussed in Section I.B.1.e
above, the Tier 3 program includes PM
standards evaluated over the US06
driving cycle (the US06 is one part of
the SFTP procedure) of 10 mg/mi
through MY 2018 and of 6 mg/mi for
2019 and later model years, for lightduty vehicles. As in the case of the FTP
PM standards, the intent of the US06
PM standard is to bring the emission
performance of all vehicles to that
already being demonstrated by many
vehicles in the current light-duty fleet.
b. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tailpipe
Emissions Standards
As discussed in detail in Section IV.B,
we are setting Tier 3 exhaust emissions
standards for complete heavy-duty
vehicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and
14,000 lbs GVWR. 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 heavy-duty pickup trucks and
work or shuttle vans. Most are built by
companies with even larger light-duty
truck markets, and as such they
frequently share major design
characteristics and emissions control
technologies with their LDT
counterparts. However, in contrast to
the largely gasoline-fueled LDT fleet,
roughly half of the heavy-duty pickup
and van fleet in the U.S. is diesel-fueled.
This is an important consideration in
setting emissions standards, as diesel
engine emissions control strategies
differ from those of gasoline engines.
As proposed, the key elements of the
Tier 3 program for HDVs parallel those
being adopted for passenger cars and
LDTs, with adjustments in standard
levels, emission test requirements, and
implementation schedules appropriate
to this sector. These key elements
include combined NMOG+NOX
declining fleet average standards, a
phase-in of PM standards, adoption of a
new emissions test fuel for gasolinefueled vehicles, extension of the
regulatory useful life to 150,000 miles or
15 years (whichever occurs first), and a
first-ever requirement for HDVs to meet
standards over an SFTP drive cycle that
addresses real-world driving modes not
well-represented by the FTP cycles.
We are adopting the Class 2b and
Class 3 fleet average NMOG+NOX
standards shown in Table I–4, as
proposed. The standards become more
stringent in successive model years from
2018 to 2022, with voluntary standards
made available in 2016 and 2017, all of
which are 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 contributes to this fleet average
based on the mg/mi NMOG+NOX
standard level of the ‘‘bin’’ declared for
it by the manufacturer, who chooses
from a set of seven discrete Tier 3 bins
specified in the regulations. These bin
standards then become the compliance
standards for the vehicle over its useful
life, with some adjustment provided for
in-use testing in the early model years
of the program.
As proposed, manufacturers can 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
can be used to help demonstrate
compliance. Unused credits expire after
5 model years. Manufacturers will also
be allowed to carry forward deficits in
their credit balance for up to 3 model
years.
TABLE I–4—TIER 3 HDV FLEET AVERAGE FTP NMOG+NOX STANDARDS
[mg/mi]
Voluntary
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Model Year ................................................................
Class 2b ....................................................................
Class 3 ......................................................................
We are adopting the proposed FTP
PM standards of 8 mg/mi and 10 mg/mi
for Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs,
respectively, phasing in as an increasing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
2016
333
548
Required program
2017
310
508
2018
278
451
percentage of a manufacturer’s sales per
year. We are adopting the same phasein schedule as for the light-duty sector
during model years 2018–2019–2020–
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2019
253
400
2020
228
349
2021
203
298
2022 and later.
178.
247.
2021: 20–40–70–100 percent,
respectively, and a more flexible but
equivalent alternative PM phase-in is
also being adopted. Tier 3 HDVs will
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
also be subject to CO and formaldehyde
exhaust emissions standards that are
more stringent than the existing
standards.
Finally, we are setting first-ever
nationwide 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 requiring 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 SFTP
standards are the same as those adopted
for California LEV III vehicles, and
apply to NMOG+NOX, PM, and CO
emissions.
The HDV program outlined above and
described in detail in Section IV.B is
substantially what we proposed.
Commenters generally supported the
scope, stringency, and implementation
phase-in of this program. However,
some industry commenters requested
changes to some specific provisions of
the proposal, and the program we are
adopting reflects improvements we have
made in response. These are: (1) A
limited allowance for engine
certification of Class 3 complete diesel
vehicles to avoid a potential need for
dual chassis- and engine-based
certification and to better harmonize
with LEV III, (2) relaxed interim in-use
testing standards to facilitate a smooth
transition to the Tier 3 standards and to
better harmonize with LEV III, (3)
adoption of combined NMOG+NOX
standards for the two highest (interim)
bins, with a restriction placed on NOX
levels in certification testing, to enhance
the utility of these bins and to better
harmonize with LEV III, and (4) a
provision in the percent-of-sales phasein alternative to allow manufacturers to
exclude vehicle models that begin their
2019 model year production early in
2018, in order to provide four years of
lead time. Commenters also requested
relaxed standards for testing at high
altitudes and changes to the credits
program structure for generation of early
credits and use of LEV III-based
‘‘vehicle emission credits’’, but we did
not adopt these for reasons explained in
Section IV.B.
Overall, we expect the Tier 3 program
we are adopting for HDVs to result in
substantial reductions in harmful
emissions from this large fleet of work
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
trucks and vans. The fully-phased in
Tier 3 standards levels for NMOG+NOX
and PM are on the order of 60 percent
lower than the current standards that
took full effect in the 2009 model year.
c. 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 gasolinepowered 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. Evaporative and
refueling emission control systems have
been in place for most of these vehicles
for many years. These controls have led
to significant reductions, but
evaporative and refueling emissions still
constitute 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 establishing more stringent
standards that will 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 all complete heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles (HDGVs) over 10,000 lbs
GVWR. EPA is including phase-in
flexibilities as well as credit and
allowance programs. The standards,
harmonized with California’s ‘‘zero
evap’’ standards, are designed to 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.
Requirements to meet the Tier 3
evaporative emission regulations phase
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23423
in over a six model year period. We are
finalizing three 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 Tier 3
evaporative hot soak plus diurnal
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 finalizing
provisions that 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 making 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.2 below.
TABLE I–5—TIER 3 EVAPORATIVE
EMISSION STANDARDS
[g/test]
Vehicle class
LDV, LDT1 ............
LDT2 .....................
LDT3, LDT4,
MDPV ................
HDGVs ..................
Highest hot soak +
diurnal level
(over both 2-day and
3-day diurnal tests)
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) must
meet the same evaporative emission
standards as non-FFVs using Tier 3
emissions certification test fuel.
However, FFVs must meet the refueling
emission standards using 10 psi RVP
fuel to account for emissions resulting
from commingling with non-E85 blends
that may be in the vehicle’s fuel tank.
EPA is establishing the canister bleed
emission test procedure and emission
standard to help ensure fuel vapor
emissions are eliminated. Under this
provision, manufacturers are required to
measure diurnal emissions over the 2day 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 is 0.030 g/test. The
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards
will be phased in over a period of six
model years between MY 2017 and MY
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23424
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 significant contributions to the
mobile source VOC inventory. To help
address this issue, we are also adding a
new standard and test procedure to
control vapor leaks from vehicle fuel
and vapor control systems. The standard
will prohibit leaks with a cumulative
equivalent diameter of 0.02 inches or
greater. We are adding 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 Tier 3 evaporative
emission regulations are also required to
meet the leak standard beginning in the
2018 model year. Manufacturers must
comply with the leak standard phase-in
on the same percentage of sales
schedule as that for the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards.
Manufacturers will comply with the
leak emission standard during
certification and in use. The leak
emission standard does not apply to
HDGVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR.
EPA is also establishing new refueling
emission control requirements for all
complete HDGVs equal to or less than
14,000 lbs GVWR (i.e., Class 2b/3
HDGVs), starting in the 2018 model
year, and for all larger complete HDGVs
by the 2022 model year. The existing
refueling emission control requirements
apply to complete Class 2b HDGVs, and
EPA is extending those requirements to
other complete HDGVs, since the fuel
and evaporative control systems on
these vehicles are very similar to those
on their lighter-weight Class 2b
counterparts.
d. Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD)
EPA and CARB both have OBD
regulations applicable to the vehicle
classes covered by the 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
help to improve in-use emissions
performance, while at the same time
harmonizing with the CARB program.
Toward that end, we are adopting and
incorporating by reference the current
CARB OBD regulations, effective for the
2017 MY, with a few minor differences
including phase-in flexibility provisions
and specific additions to enhance the
implementation of the leak standard.
EPA is retaining the provision that
certifying with CARB’s program would
permit manufacturers to seek a separate
EPA certificate on that basis.
e. Emissions Test Fuel
As described above, after reassessing
market trends and considering
comments, EPA is finalizing E10 as the
ethanol blend level in emissions test
gasoline for Tier 3 light-duty and heavyduty gasoline vehicles. We will
continue to monitor the in-use gasoline
supply and based on such review may
initiate rulemaking action to revise the
specifications for emissions test fuel to
include a higher ethanol blend level.
EPA is also making additional changes
that are consistent with CARB’s LEV III
emissions test fuel specifications,
including new specifications for octane,
distillation temperatures, aromatics,
olefins, sulfur and benzene. (See Section
IV.F below for a detailed discussion of
all the revised emission test fuel
parameters.)
As discussed in Sections IV.A.7.d
(tailpipe emission testing) and IV.C.5.b
(evaporative emission testing), we are
requiring certification of all Tier 3 lightduty and chassis-certified heavy-duty
gasoline vehicles on federal E10 test
fuel. The new test fuel specifications
will apply to new vehicle certification,
assembly line, and in-use testing.
With a change in the ethanol content
of the test fuel, EPA also needed to
consider whether a change is warranted
in the volatility of the test fuel, typically
expressed as pounds per square inch
(psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). As
discussed in detail in Section IV.F
below, after considering several
technical and policy implications as
well as stakeholder comments, EPA has
concluded that the most appropriate
approach is to maintain an RVP of 9 psi
for the E10 certification fuel at this time.
In addition to finalizing a new E10
emissions test fuel, we are also
finalizing detailed specifications for the
E85 emissions test fuel used for flexible
fuel vehicle (FFV) certification, as
discussed in Section IV.F.3.15 This will
15 Flexible fuel vehicles are currently required to
meet emissions certification requirements using
both E0 and E85 test fuels. However, there were no
detailed regulatory specifications regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
resolve uncertainty and confusion in the
certification of FFVs designed to operate
on ethanol levels up to 83 percent.
Furthermore, we allow vehicle
manufacturers to request approval for an
alternative certification fuel such as a
high-octane 30 percent ethanol by
volume blend (E30) for vehicles that
may be optimized for such fuel.
f. Fuel Standards
Under the Tier 3 fuel program,
gasoline must contain no more than 10
ppm sulfur on an annual average basis
beginning January 1, 2017. Similar to
the Tier 2 gasoline program, the Tier 3
program will apply to gasoline in the
U.S. and the U.S. territories of Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands, excluding
California. The program will result in
gasoline that contains, on average, twothirds 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, etc.), the Tier 3
fuel program contains considerable
flexibility to ease both initial and longterm implementation of the program.
The program that we are finalizing
today includes an averaging, banking,
and trading (ABT) program that allows
refiners and importers to spread out
their investments over nearly a 6-year
period through the use of an early credit
program and then rely on ongoing
nationwide averaging to meet the 10
ppm sulfur standard. In addition there
is a three-year delay for small refiners
and ‘‘small volume refineries’’. As a
result of the early credit program, we
anticipate considerable reductions in
gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with
a complete transition to the 10 ppm
average occurring by January 1, 2020.
For more information on the gasoline
sulfur program flexibilities, refer to
Section V.E.
Under today’s Tier 3 gasoline sulfur
program, we are maintaining the current
80 ppm refinery gate and 95 ppm
downstream per-gallon caps. We also
evaluated and sought comment on the
potential of lowering the per-gallon
caps. While there are advantages and
disadvantages with each of the sulfur
cap options that we proposed, we
believe that retaining the current Tier 2
sulfur caps is prudent at this time, as
explained in more detail in Section V.C.
Further, the stringency of the 10 ppm
annual average standard will result in
reduced gasoline sulfur levels
nationwide. Today’s program requires
composition of E85 test fuels before those finalized
today.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 (see Section V.C.2). This
requirement will preclude the
unnecessary use of high sulfur content
additives in gasoline.
The vehicle emissions standards
finalized today are fuel-neutral (i.e.,
they are applicable regardless of the
type of fuel that the vehicle is designed
to use). There currently are no sulfur
standards for the fuel used in
compressed natural gas (CNG) and
liquid propane gas (LPG) vehicles. We
requested comment on whether it is
necessary for EPA to establish sulfur
standards for CNG and LPG to enable
them meeting more stringent vehicle
emissions standards. EPA is deferring
finalizing in-use sulfur requirements for
CNG/LPG in this final rule to provide
additional time to work with
stakeholders to collect data on current
CNG/LPG sulfur content, to determine
whether additional control of in-use
CNG/LPG sulfur content is needed, and
to evaluate the feasibility and costs
associated with potential additional
sulfur controls (see Section V.J). Given
that the information provided suggests
that CNG/LPG sulfur levels tend to be
low already, the vehicle emissions
standards finalized today will apply to
CNG/LPG vehicles in addition to
vehicles fueled on gasoline, diesel fuel,
or any other fuel. The sulfur content of
highway diesel fuel is already required
to meet a 15 ppm sulfur cap, which is
sufficient for diesel fuel vehicles to meet
the Tier 3 emissions standards.
As the number of flex-fuel vehicles
(FFVs) in the in-use fleet increases, 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 also
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.
Hence, we sought comment on
appropriate regulatory mechanisms to
implement in-use quality standards for
E51–83 and E16–50 in the Tier 3
proposal. Additional work is needed on
some issues that could not be
accommodated within the timeline for
this Tier 3 final rule. Therefore, we are
choosing not to finalize these provisions
at this time. We intend to finalize in-use
fuel quality standards for E51–83 and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
perhaps E16–50 as well in a follow-up
final rule.
23425
2030 levels without the Tier 3 program.
Emissions of CO are projected to
decrease by almost 3.5 million tons, or
g. Regulatory Streamlining and
24 percent of emissions from onTechnical Amendments
highway vehicles. Emissions of many
This action also includes a number of air toxics will also be reduced,
items to help streamline the in-use fuels including benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
regulations at 40 CFR parts 79 and 80.
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrolein
The majority of these items involve
and ethanol, with reductions projected
clarifying vague or inconsistent
to range from 10 to nearly 30 percent of
language, removal or updating of
national emissions from on-highway
outdated provisions, and decreasing in
vehicles. We expect these reductions to
frequency and/or volume of reporting
continue beyond 2030 as more of the
burden where data are no longer needed fleet continues to turn over to Tier 3
or are redundant with other EPA fuels
vehicles; for example, by 2050, when
programs. In general, we believe that
nearly all of the fleet will have turned
these changes will reduce the burden on over to vehicles meeting the fully
industry and allow the standards and
phased-in Tier 3 standards, we estimate
resulting environmental benefits to be
the Tier 3 program will reduce onachieved as early as possible with no
highway emissions of NOX and VOC
expected loss in environmental control. nearly 31 percent from the level of
In some cases, these regulatory
emissions projected without Tier 3
streamlining items are non-substantive
controls.16
amendments that correct minor errors or
These reductions in emissions of
inconsistencies in the regulations.
NOX, VOC, PM2.5 and air toxics from the
The regulatory streamlining items that Tier 3 standards are projected to lead to
we are finalizing for the in-use fuels
significant decreases in ambient
regulations are changes that we believe
concentrations of ozone, PM2.5 and air
are straightforward and should be made toxics (including notable nationwide
quickly.
reductions in benzene concentrations)
This action also includes a variety of
by 2030, and will immediately reduce
technical amendments to certificationozone in 2017 when the sulfur controls
related requirements for engine and
take effect. Additional information on
vehicle emission standards; adjusting
the emission and air quality impacts of
the fuel economy label provisions to
the final Tier 3 program is presented in
correspond to the new Tier 3 standards, Sections III.B and C.
removing obsolete regulatory text, and
Exposure to ambient concentrations of
making several minor corrections and
ozone, PM2.5, and air toxics is linked to
clarifications.
adverse human health impacts such as
Please refer to Section VI for a
premature deaths as well as other
complete discussion of technical
important public health and
amendments and regulatory
environmental effects (see Section II.B).
streamlining provisions and issues.
The final Tier 3 standards are expected
to reduce these adverse impacts and
C. What will the impacts of the
yield significant benefits, including
standards be?
those we can monetize and those we are
The final Tier 3 vehicle and fuel
unable to quantify. We estimate that by
standards together will reduce
2030, the emission reductions of the
dramatically emissions of NOX, VOC,
Tier 3 standards will annually prevent
PM2.5, and air toxics. The gasoline sulfur between 660 and 1,500 PM-related
standards, which will take effect in
premature deaths, between 110 and 500
2017, will provide large immediate
ozone-related premature deaths, 81,000
reductions in emissions from existing
work days lost, 210,000 school absence
gasoline vehicles and engines. NOX
days, and approximately 1.1 million
emissions are projected to be reduced by minor restricted-activity days. The
about 260,000 tons, or about 10 percent
estimated annual monetized health
of emissions from on-highway vehicles, benefits of the Tier 3 standards in 2030
in 2018, and these emission reductions
(2011$) is between $7.4 and $19 billion,
will increase over time as newer
assuming a 3-percent discount rate (or
vehicles become a larger percentage of
between $6.7 billion and $18 billion
the fleet. In 2030, when 70 percent of
assuming a 7-percent discount rate). We
the miles travelled are projected to be
project the final fuel standards to cost
from vehicles that meet the fully
on average 0.65 cent (i.e., less than a
phased-in Tier 3 standards, we expect
penny) per gallon of gasoline, and the
the NOX and VOC emissions to be
final vehicle standards to have an
reduced by about 330,000 tons and
170,000 tons, respectively, or 25 percent
16 To estimate the benefits of the final Tier 3 rule,
and 16 percent of emissions from onwe performed air quality modeling for the year
2030.
highway vehicles compared to their
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23426
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
average cost that increases in proportion
to the increase in stringency during the
phase-in period, from $28 per vehicle in
2017 to $72 per vehicle in 2025, when
the standards are fully phased in. We
estimate the annual cost of the overall
program in 2030 will be approximately
$1.5 billion, and the 2030 benefits will
be between 4.5 and 13 times the costs
of the program.
The estimated benefits in Table I–6
include all of the human health impacts
we are able to quantify and monetize at
this time. However, the full complement
of human health and welfare effects
associated with PM, ozone and air
toxics remain unquantified because of
current limitations in methods and/or
available data. As a result, the health
benefits quantified in this section are
likely underestimates of the total
benefits attributable to the final
standards. See Sections VII and VIII for
detailed descriptions of the costs and
benefits of this action.
TABLE I–6—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED
ANNUAL BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL TIER 3
PROGRAM
[Billions, 2011$] a
Description
2030
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Vehicle Program Costs .................
Fuels Program Costs ....................
Total Estimated Costs b ................
Total Estimated Health Benefits: c d e f
3 percent discount rate .........
7 percent discount rate .........
Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits¥Total Costs):
3 percent discount rate .........
7 percent discount rate .........
$0.76
$0.70
$1.5
$7.4–$19
$6.7–$18
$5.9–$18
$5.2–$17
Notes:
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).
c Total includes ozone and PM
2.5 estimated
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 (Krewski et al.,
2009) 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 (Lepeule et
al., 2012) study for the high estimate.
d 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
e 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 2012 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (December, 2012).
f 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 taking this action?
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 149 million people
currently live in areas designated
nonattainment for one or more of the
current NAAQS for ozone, PM2.5, PM10,
and SO2.17
Motor vehicles also emit air toxics,
and the most recent available data
indicate that 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.18 A more detailed
discussion of the health and
environmental effects of these
pollutants is included in Section II.B.
Cars and light trucks also continue to
be a significant contributor to air
17 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area
Population Exposure Report, current as of
December 5, 2013 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/
oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135.
18 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the
2005 National-Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/
atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
pollution directly near roads, with
gasoline vehicles accounting for more
than 50 percent of near-road
concentrations of some criteria and
toxic pollutants.19 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
over 80 percent of daily trips occurring
by personal vehicle.20 21 22 23 24
Exposure to traffic-related pollutants
has been linked with adverse health
impacts such as respiratory problems
(particularly in asthmatic children) and
cardiovascular problems.
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 Tier 3 standards
will be a critical part of many areas’
strategies to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. Maintaining the NAAQS has
been challenging for some areas in the
past, particularly those where high
population growth rates lead to
significant annual increases in vehicle
trips and vehicle miles traveled. Our air
quality modeling for this final rule,
which is described in more detail in
Section III.C, projects that in 2018 a
significant number of counties outside
19 For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.;
Zielinska, B.; Arnott, W.P.; Chow, J.C. (2011)
Concentrations of Air Toxics in Motor VehicleDominated Environments. Health Effects Institute
Research Report 156. Available at http://www.
healtheffects.org.
20 Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the US
near-roadway population: public health and
environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D 25: 59–67.
21 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
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/
ahs09/ahs09.html.
22 Drago, R.(2011). Secondary activities in the
2006 American Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. Available at
http://www.bls.gov.
23 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. (2003) National
Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights Report.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/
highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_
survey/.
24 Santos, A.; McGuckin, N, Yukiko Nakamoto,
H.; Gray, D.; Liss, S. (2011) Summary of Travel
Trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey.
Federal Highway Administration report no FHWA–
PL–11–022. Available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/
publications.shtml.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
CA will be within 10 percent of the
2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of
additional controls. These counties in
particular will benefit from the Tier 3
standards as they work to ensure longterm maintenance of the NAAQS.
Section III provides more detail on
how we expect this action will reduce
motor vehicle emissions and ambient
levels of pollution. We project that the
Tier 3 program will meaningfully
reduce ozone concentrations as early as
2017 (the first year of the program), and
even more significantly in 2030. The
estimated 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
will reduce ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
Without this action 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 costeffectiveness as those expected from the
Tier 3 standards. Furthermore, most
states 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 Tier 3 emissions
standards throughout their useful life.
The projected reductions in ambient
ozone and PM2.5 that will result from
the Tier 3 standards will provide
significant health benefits. We estimate
that by 2030, the standards will
annually prevent between 660 and 1,500
PM-related premature deaths, between
110 and 500 ozone-related premature
deaths, 81,000 work days lost, 210,000
school absence days, and approximately
1.1 million minor restricted-activity
days (see Section VIII for more details).
This action will also reduce air toxics;
for example, we project that in 2030, the
Tier 3 standards will decrease ambient
benzene concentrations by 10–25
percent in some urban areas.
Furthermore, the Tier 3 standards will
reduce traffic-associated pollution near
major roads.
EPA is finalizing 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 2017.25 The Tier 3 standards
in this final rule, which address non25 77
FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
GHGs, will 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 will be able to design a
single vehicle for nationwide sales. This
reduces the cost of compliance for auto
manufacturers.
This Tier 3 rulemaking 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.26
Based on our review, we have
concluded that improved vehicle
technology, combined with lower sulfur
gasoline, make it feasible and costeffective 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.
A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air
Act
1. Clean Air Act Section 202
We are setting 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 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 27
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
26 The Presidential Memorandum is found at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuelefficiency-standards.
27 LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings
above 6000 lbs and all MDPVs are considered
‘‘heavy-duty vehicles’’ under the CAA. See section
202(b)(3)(C). For regulatory purposes, we generally
refer to those LDTs which are above 6000 lbs GVWR
and at or below 8500 lbs GVWR as ‘‘heavy lightduty trucks’’ made up of LDT3s and LDT4s, and we
have defined MDPVs primarily as vehicles between
8500 and 10000 lbs GVWR designed primarily for
the transportation of persons. See 40 CFR 86.1803–
01.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23427
motor vehicles during: (1) Operation,
and (2) over 2 or more days of nonuse;
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.
2. Clean Air Act Section 211
We are adopting 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 finalizing 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 concentrations 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. Over 149
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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23428
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
NAAQS in the future.28 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.29 In addition,
populations who live, work, or attend
school near major roads experience
elevated exposure concentrations to a
wide range of air pollutants.30
EPA has already adopted many
emission control programs that are
expected to reduce ambient pollution
concentrations. 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 rule
predicts that without additional controls
there will continue to be a need for
reductions in ozone, PM2.5 and air toxics
concentrations in some locations in the
future. Section III.C of this preamble
presents the air quality modeling results
for this action.
1. Ozone
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
28 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area
Population Exposure Report, current as of
December 5, 2013 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/
oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in
Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135.
29 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the
2005 National-Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/
atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
30 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 http://
www.healtheffects.org].
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
between long-term ozone exposure and
cardiovascular effects, reproductive and
developmental effects, central nervous
b. Health Effects of Ozone
system effects and total mortality. The
This section provides a summary of
evidence is inadequate to infer a causal
the health effects associated with
relationship between chronic ozone
exposure to ambient concentrations of
exposure and increased risk of lung
ozone.31 The information in this section cancer.
is based on the information and
Finally, interindividual variation in
conclusions in the February 2013
human responses to ozone exposure can
Integrated Science Assessment for
result in some groups being at increased
Ozone (Ozone ISA) prepared by EPA’s
risk for detrimental effects in response
to exposure. The Ozone ISA identified
Office of Research and Development
(ORD).32 The Ozone ISA concludes that several groups that are at increased risk
for ozone-related health effects. These
human exposures to ambient
groups are people with asthma, children
concentrations of ozone are associated
and older adults, individuals with
with a number of adverse health effects
and characterizes the weight of evidence reduced intake of certain nutrients (i.e.,
for these health effects.33 The discussion Vitamins C and E), outdoor workers,
and individuals having certain genetic
below highlights the Ozone ISA’s
variants related to oxidative metabolism
conclusions pertaining to health effects
or inflammation. Ozone exposure
associated with both short-term and
long-term periods of exposure to ozone. during childhood can have lasting
For short-term exposure to ozone, the effects through adulthood. Such effects
include altered function of the
Ozone ISA concludes that respiratory
respiratory and immune systems.
effects, including lung function
Children absorb higher doses
decrements, pulmonary inflammation,
(normalized to lung surface area) of
exacerbation of asthma, respiratoryambient ozone, compared to adults, due
related hospital admissions, and
to their increased time spent outdoors,
mortality, are causally associated with
higher ventilation rates relative to body
ozone exposure. It also concludes that
size, and a tendency to breathe a greater
cardiovascular effects, including
fraction of air through the mouth.
decreased cardiac function and
Children also have a higher asthma
increased vascular disease, and total
prevalence compared to adults.
mortality are likely to be causally
Additional children’s vulnerability and
associated with short-term exposure to
ozone and that evidence is suggestive of susceptibility factors are listed in
Section XII.G.
a causal relationship between central
nervous system effects and short-term
c. Current and Projected Concentrations
exposure to ozone.
of Ozone
For long-term exposure to ozone, the
Concentrations that exceed the level
Ozone ISA concludes that respiratory
of the ozone NAAQS occur in many
effects, including new onset asthma,
pulmonary inflammation and injury, are parts of the country, including major
population centers such as Atlanta,
likely to be a causally related with
Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston,
ozone exposure. The Ozone ISA
characterizes the evidence as suggestive New York, Philadelphia, and
Washington, DC. In addition, our
of a causal relationship for associations
modeling without the Tier 3 controls
projects that in the future we will
31 Human exposure to ozone varies over time due
continue to have many counties that
to changes in ambient ozone concentration and
because people move between locations which have will have ambient ozone concentrations
notable different ozone concentrations. Also, the
above the level of the NAAQS (see
amount of ozone delivered to the lung is not only
Section III.C.1). States will need to meet
influenced by the ambient concentrations but also
the standard in the 2015–2032 time
by the individuals breathing route and rate.
32 U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment of
frame for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final
emission reductions and significant
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
ambient ozone improvements from this
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–10/076F, 2013. The
rule, which will take effect starting in
ISA is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/
2017, will be helpful to states as they
recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492#Download.
33 The ISA evaluates evidence and draws
work to attain and maintain the ozone
conclusions on the causal relationship between
NAAQS.
relevant pollutant exposures and health effects,
The primary and secondary NAAQS
assigning one of five ‘‘weight of evidence’’
for ozone are 8-hour standards with a
determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a
causal relationship, suggestive of a causal
level of 0.075 ppm. The most recent
relationship, inadequate to infer a causal
revision to the ozone standards was in
relationship, and not likely to be a causal
2008; the previous 8-hour ozone
relationship. For more information on these levels
standards, set in 1997, had a level of
of evidence, please refer to Table II in the Preamble
of the ISA.
0.08 ppm. In 2004, the U.S. EPA
elevated ozone levels even in areas with
low local VOC or NOX emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
designated nonattainment areas for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.34 35 As of
December 5, 2013, there were 39 ozone
nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS composed of 216 full or partial
counties with a total population of over
112 million. Nonattainment
designations for the 2008 ozone
standard were finalized on April 30,
2012 and May 31, 2012.36 As of
December 5, 2013, there were 46 ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, composed of 227 full or partial
counties, with a population of over 123
million. As of December 5, 2013, over
135 million people are living in ozone
nonattainment areas.37
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 were required to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the 2007 to 2013 time frame and then to
maintain it thereafter.38 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 currently working on a review of
the ozone NAAQS. If EPA revises the
ozone standards pursuant to that
review, the attainment dates associated
with areas designated nonattainment for
that NAAQS would be 5 or more years
after the final rule is promulgated,
depending on the severity of the
problem in each area.
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
34 69
FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).
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.
36 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) and 77 FR 34221
(June 11, 2012).
37 The 135 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 (http://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.
38 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
35 A
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 2018 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 (mm, or 10¥6 meter) in
diameter (for reference, a typical strand
of human hair is 70 mm in diameter and
a grain of salt is about 100 mm).
Atmospheric particles can be grouped
into several classes according to their
aerodynamic and physical sizes,
including ultrafine particles (<0.1 mm),
accumulation mode or ‘fine’ particles
(<1 to 3 mm), and coarse particles (>1 to
3 mm).39 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. The EPA currently has
standards that measure PM2.5 and
PM10.40
Particles span many sizes and shapes
and may 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
concentration and composition varies
by time of year and location, and in
addition to differences in source
emissions, 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
39 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. Figure 3–1.
40 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. With regard to national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) which
provide protection against health and welfare
effects, the 24-hour PM10 standard provides
protection against effects associated with short-term
exposure to thoracic coarse particles (i.e., PM10-2.5).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23429
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), oxides of
nitrogen, 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 broad range of health
effects. These health effects are
discussed in detail in the December
2009 Integrated Science Assessment for
Particulate Matter (PM ISA).41 The PM
ISA summarizes health effects evidence
associated with both short- and longterm exposures to PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and
ultrafine particles. The PM ISA
concludes that human exposures to
ambient PM2.5 concentrations are
associated with a number of adverse
health effects and characterizes the
weight of evidence for these health
outcomes.42 The discussion below
highlights the PM ISA’s conclusions
pertaining to health effects associated
with both short- and long-term PM
exposures. Further discussion of health
effects associated with PM2.5 can also be
found in the rulemaking documents for
the most recent review of the PM
NAAQS completed in 2012.43 44
The EPA concludes that a causal
relationship exists between both long41 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F.
42 The causal framework draws upon the
assessment and integration of evidence from across
epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and
toxicological studies, and the related uncertainties
that ultimately influence our understanding of the
evidence. This framework employs a five-level
hierarchy that classifies the overall weight of
evidence and causality using the following
categorizations: causal relationship, likely to be
causal relationship, suggestive of a causal
relationship, inadequate to infer a causal
relationship, and not likely to be a causal
relationship (U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F, Table 1–3).
43 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013), pages 3103–
3104.
44 77 FR 38890 (June 29, 2012), pages 38906–
38911.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23430
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and
premature mortality and cardiovascular
effects and a likely causal relationship
exists between long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects.
Further, there is evidence suggestive of
a causal relationship between long-term
PM2.5 exposures and other health
effects, including developmental and
reproductive effects (e.g., low birth
weight, infant mortality) and
carcinogenic, mutagenic, and genotoxic
effects (e.g., lung cancer mortality).45
As summarized in the Final PM
NAAQS rule, and discussed extensively
in the 2009 PM ISA, the scientific
evidence available since the completion
of the 2006 PM NAAQS review
significantly strengthens the link
between long- and short-term exposure
to PM2.5 and premature mortality, while
providing indications that the
magnitude of the PM2.5- mortality
association with long-term exposures
may be larger than previously
estimated.46 47 The strongest evidence
comes from recent studies investigating
long-term exposure to PM2.5 and
cardiovascular-related mortality. The
evidence supporting a causal
relationship between long-term PM2.5
exposure and mortality also includes
consideration of new studies that
demonstrated an improvement in
community health following reductions
in ambient fine particles.
Several studies evaluated in the 2009
PM ISA have examined the association
between cardiovascular effects and longterm PM2.5 exposures in multi-city
studies conducted in the U.S. and
Europe. While studies were not
available in the 2006 PM NAAQS
review with regard to long-term
exposure and cardiovascular-related
morbidity, studies published since then
have provided new evidence linking
long-term exposure to PM2.5 with an
array of cardiovascular effects such as
heart attacks, congestive heart failure,
stroke, and mortality. This evidence is
coherent with studies of short-term
exposure to PM2.5 that have observed
associations with a continuum of effects
45 These causal inferences are based not only on
the more expansive epidemiological evidence
available in this review but also reflect
consideration of important progress that has been
made to advance our understanding of a number of
potential biologic modes of action or pathways for
PM-related cardiovascular and respiratory effects
(U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment
for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R–08/139F, chapter 5).
46 78 FR 3103–3104 (January 15, 2013).
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, chapter 6
(Section 6.5) and chapter 7 (Section 7.6).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
ranging from subtle changes in
indicators of cardiovascular health to
serious clinical events, such as
increased hospitalizations and
emergency department visits due to
cardiovascular disease and
cardiovascular mortality.48
As detailed in the 2009 PM ISA,
extended analyses of studies available
in the 2006 PM NAAQS review as well
as epidemiological studies conducted in
the U.S. and abroad published since
then provide stronger evidence of
respiratory-related morbidity effects
associated with long-term PM2.5
exposure. The strongest evidence for
respiratory-related effects is from
studies that evaluated decrements in
lung function growth (in children),
increased respiratory symptoms, and
asthma development. The strongest
evidence from short-term PM2.5
exposure studies has been observed for
increased respiratory-related emergency
department visits and hospital
admissions for chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) and
respiratory infections.49
The body of scientific evidence
detailed in the 2009 PM ISA is still
limited with respect to associations
between long-term PM2.5 exposures and
developmental and reproductive effects
as well as cancer, mutagenic, and
genotoxic effects, but is somewhat
expanded from the 2006 review. The
strongest evidence for an association
between PM2.5 and developmental and
reproductive effects comes from
epidemiological studies of low birth
weight and infant mortality, especially
due to respiratory causes during the
post-neonatal period (i.e., 1 month to 12
months of age).50 With regard to cancer
effects, ‘‘[m]ultiple epidemiologic
studies have shown a consistent
positive association between PM2.5 and
lung cancer mortality, but studies have
generally not reported associations
between PM2.5 and lung cancer
incidence.’’ 51
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, chapter 2
(section 2.3.1 and 2.3.2) and chapter 6.
49 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F, chapter 2
(section 2.3.1 and 2.3.2) and chapter 6.
50 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F, chapter 2
(section 2.3.1 and 2.3.2) and chapter 7.
51 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. pg 2–13.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Specific groups within the general
population are at increased risk for
experiencing adverse health effects
related to PM exposures.52 53 54 55 The
evidence detailed in the 2009 PM ISA
expands our understanding of
previously identified at-risk populations
and lifestages (i.e., children, older
adults, and individuals with preexisting heart and lung disease) and
supports the identification of additional
at-risk populations (e.g., persons with
lower socioeconomic status, genetic
differences). Additionally, there is
emerging, though still limited, evidence
for additional potentially at-risk
populations and lifestages, such as those
with diabetes, people who are obese,
pregnant women, and the developing
fetus.56
For PM10-2.5, the 2009 PM ISA
concluded that available evidence was
suggestive of a causal relationship
between short-term exposures to
PM10-2.5 and cardiovascular effects (e.g.,
hospital admissions and ED visits,
changes in cardiovascular function),
respiratory effects (e.g, ED visits and
hospital admissions, increase in markers
of pulmonary inflammation), and
premature mortality. Data were
inadequate to draw conclusions
regarding the relationships between
long-term exposure to PM10-2.5 and
various health effects.57 58 59
For ultrafine particles, the 2009 PM
ISA concluded that the evidence was
suggestive of a causal relationship
between short-term exposures and
cardiovascular effects, including
changes in heart rhythm and vasomotor
function (the ability of blood vessels to
expand and contract). It also concluded
that there was evidence suggestive of a
causal relationship between short-term
exposure to ultrafine particles and
respiratory effects, including lung
function and pulmonary inflammation,
52 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. Chapter 8
and Chapter 2.
53 77 FR 38890 (June 29, 2012).
54 78 FR 3104 (January 15, 2013).
55 U.S. EPA. (2011). Policy Assessment for the
Review of the PM NAAQS. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/452/R–
11–003. section 2.2.1.
56 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. Chapter 8
and Chapter 2 (Section 2.4.1).
57 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.
58 78 FR 3167–8 (January 15, 2013).
59 77 FR 38947–51 (June 29, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
with limited and inconsistent evidence
for increases in ED visits and hospital
admissions. Data were inadequate to
draw conclusions regarding the
relationship between short-term
exposure to ultrafine particle and
additional health effects including
premature mortality as well as long-term
exposure to ultrafine particles and all
health outcomes evaluated.60 61
c. Current and Projected Concentrations
of PM2.5
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
There are two primary NAAQS for
PM2.5: an annual standard (12.0
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3))
and a 24-hour standard (35 mg/m3), and
two secondary NAAQS for PM2.5: an
annual standard (15.0 mg/m3) and a 24hour standard (35 mg/m3). The initial
PM2.5 standards were set in 1997 and
revisions to the standards were finalized
in 2006 and in December 2012. The
December 2012 rule revised the level of
the primary annual PM2.5 standard from
15.0 mg/m3 to 12.0 mg/m3.62
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 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 2006 24-hour standards in the 2015–
2019 timeframe and the 2012 primary
annual standard in the 2021–2025
timeframe. The emission reductions and
improvements in ambient PM2.5
concentrations from this action, which
will take effect starting in 2017, will be
helpful to states as they work to attain
and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS.
In 2005 the EPA designated 39
nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.63 As of December 5, 2013, over
68 million people lived in the 24 areas
that are still designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. These PM2.5
nonattainment areas are comprised of
135 full or partial counties. EPA
anticipates making initial area
designation decisions for the 2012
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
December 2014, with those designations
likely becoming effective in early
60 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.
61 78 FR 3121 (January 15, 2013).
62 U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.
gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf. 78 FR 3164.
63 70 FR 19844 (April 14, 2005).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
2015.64 On November 13, 2009 and
February 3, 2011, the EPA designated 32
nonattainment areas for the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS.65 As of December
5, 2013, 28 of these areas remain
designated as nonattainment, and they
are composed of 104 full or partial
counties with a population of over 65
million. In total, there are currently 39
PM2.5 nonattainment areas with a
population of over 84 million people.66
States with PM2.5 nonattainment areas
will be required to take action to bring
those areas into attainment in the future.
Designated nonattainment areas not
currently attaining the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS are required to attain the
NAAQS by 2015 and will be required to
maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
thereafter. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5
nonattainment areas are required to
attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in the 2015 to 2019 time frame and will
be required to maintain the 2006 24hour PM2.5 NAAQS thereafter. Areas to
be designated nonattainment for the
2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS will
likely be required to attain the 2012
NAAQS in the 2021 to 2025 time frame.
The Tier 3 standards finalized here
begin taking effect in 2017.
The EPA has already adopted many
mobile source emission control
programs that are expected to reduce
ambient PM concentrations. 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.
d. Current Concentrations of PM10
In the December 2012 action in which
the EPA promulgated the revised
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA
also retained the existing primary and
secondary 24-hour PM10 standards at
64 U.S. EPA (2012). Fact Sheet: Implementing the
Standards. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/
particlepollution/2012/decfsimp.pdf.
65 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009) and 76 FR
6056 (February 3, 2011).
66 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area
Population Exposure Report, current as of July 31,
2013 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/
popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA–HQ–
OAR–2011–0135.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23431
150 mg/m3. As of December 5, 2013, over
11 million people live in the 40 areas
that are designated as nonattainment for
the PM10 NAAQS. There are 33 full or
partial counties that make up the PM10
nonattainment areas.
3. Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur
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
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
The most recent review of the health
effects of oxides of nitrogen completed
by the EPA can be found in the 2008
Integrated Science Assessment for
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX ISA).67 The EPA
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 2008
NOX ISA concluded that the strongest
evidence for such a relationship comes
from epidemiologic studies of
respiratory effects including increased
respiratory symptoms, emergency
department visits, and hospital
admissions. Based on both short- and
long-term exposure studies, the 2008
NOX ISA concluded that individuals
with preexisting pulmonary conditions
(e.g., asthma or COPD), children, and
older adults are potentially at greater
risk of NO2-related respiratory effects.
Based on findings from controlled
human exposure studies, the 2008 NOX
ISA also drew two broad conclusions
regarding airway responsiveness
following NO2 exposure. First, the NOX
67 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23432
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ISA concluded that NO2 exposure may
enhance the sensitivity to allergeninduced decrements in lung function
and increase the allergen-induced
airway inflammatory response following
30-minute exposures of asthmatic adults
to NO2 concentrations as low as 260
ppb. 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
healthy and asthmatic adults. Small but
statistically significant increases in
nonspecific airway hyperresponsiveness
were reported for asthmatic adults
following 30-minute exposures to 200–
300 ppb NO2 and following 1-hour
exposures of asthmatics to 100 ppb 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.
In evaluating a broader range of health
effects, the 2008 NOX ISA concluded
evidence was ‘‘suggestive but not
sufficient to infer a causal relationship’’
between short-term NO2 exposure and
premature mortality and between longterm NO2 exposure and respiratory
effects. The latter was based largely on
associations observed between longterm NO2 exposure and decreases in
lung function growth in children.
Furthermore, the 2008 NOX ISA
concluded that evidence was
‘‘inadequate to infer the presence or
absence of a causal relationship’’
between short-term NO2 exposure and
cardiovascular effects as well as
between long-term NO2 exposure and
cardiovascular effects, reproductive and
developmental effects, premature
mortality, and cancer.68 The
conclusions for these health effect
categories were informed by
uncertainties in the evidence base such
as the independent effects of NO2
exposure within the broader mixture of
traffic-related pollutants, limited
evidence from experimental studies,
and/or an overall limited literature base.
68 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
c. Health Effects of SO2
Information on the health effects of
SO2 can be found in the 2008 Integrated
Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides
(SO2 ISA).69 Short-term peaks of SO2
have long been known to cause adverse
respiratory health effects, particularly
among individuals with asthma. In
addition to those with asthma (both
children and adults), potentially
sensitive groups include all 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 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
concluded that the overall evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship
between short-term exposure to SO2 and
mortality.
d. Current Concentrations of NO2
The EPA most recently completed a
review of the primary NAAQS for NO2
in January 2010. There are two primary
NAAQS for NO2: an annual standard (53
ppb) and a 1-hour standard (100 ppb).
The EPA promulgated area designations
in the Federal Register on February 17,
2012. In this initial round of
designations, all areas of the country
were designated as ‘‘unclassifiable/
attainment’’ for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
based on data from the existing air
quality monitoring network. The EPA
and state agencies are working to
establish an expanded network of NO2
monitors, expected to be deployed in
the 2014–2017 time frame. Once three
years of air quality data have been
collected from the expanded network,
the EPA will be able to evaluate NO2 air
quality in additional locations.70 71
e. Current Concentrations of SO2
The EPA most recently completed a
review of the primary SO2 NAAQS in
69 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.
70 U.S. EPA. (2012). Fact Sheet—Air Quality
Designations for the 2010 Primary Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/
designations/pdfs/20120120FS.pdf.
71 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013).
Revision to Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring
Requirements. March 7, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/
airquality/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20130307fr.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
June 2010. The current primary NAAQS
for SO2 is a 1-hour standard of 75 ppb.
The EPA finalized the initial area
designations for 29 nonattainment areas
in 16 states in a notice published in the
Federal Register on August 5, 2013. In
this first round of designations, EPA
only designated nonattainment areas
that were violating the standard based
on existing air quality monitoring data
provided by the states. The Agency did
not have sufficient information to
designate any area as ‘‘attainment’’ or
make final decisions about areas for
which additional modeling or
monitoring is needed (78 FR 47191,
August 5, 2013). EPA anticipates
designating areas for the revised SO2
standard in multiple rounds.
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 January 2010
Integrated Science Assessment for
Carbon Monoxide (CO ISA).72 The CO
ISA concludes that ambient
concentrations of CO are associated
with a number of adverse health
effects.73 This section provides a
summary of the health effects associated
with exposure to ambient
concentrations of CO.74
Controlled human exposure 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
72 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 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686.
73 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.
74 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
CO ISA concludes that a causal
relationship is likely to exist between
short-term exposures to CO and
cardiovascular 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 central nervous system
and behavioral effects following lowlevel CO exposures, although the
findings have not been consistent across
all studies. The CO ISA concludes the
evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship with both short- and longterm exposure to CO and central
nervous system effects.
A number of studies cited in the CO
ISA have evaluated the role of CO
exposure in 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 perinatal CO exposure to
affect birth weight, as well as other
developmental outcomes. The CO ISA
concludes the evidence is suggestive of
a causal relationship between long-term
exposures to CO and developmental
effects and birth outcomes.
Epidemiologic studies provide
evidence of associations between
ambient CO concentrations and
respiratory morbidity such as changes in
pulmonary function, respiratory
symptoms, and hospital admissions. 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
CO ISA concludes that the evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship
between short-term CO exposure and
respiratory morbidity, and inadequate to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
conclude that a causal relationship
exists between long-term exposure and
respiratory morbidity.
Finally, the CO ISA concludes that
the epidemiologic evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship
between short-term concentrations of
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 CO
ISA also concludes that there is not
likely to be a causal relationship
between relevant long-term exposures to
CO and mortality.
b. Current Concentrations of CO
There are two NAAQS for CO: an
8-hour standard (9 ppm) and a 1-hour
standard (35 ppm). The primary
NAAQS for CO were retained in August
2011. There are currently no CO
nonattainment areas; as of September
27, 2010, all CO nonattainment areas
were redesignated to maintenance areas.
The designations were based on the
existing community-wide monitoring
network. EPA is making changes to the
ambient air monitoring requirements for
CO. The new requirements are expected
to result in approximately 52 CO
monitors operating near roads within 52
urban areas by January 2015 (76 FR
54294, August 31, 2011).
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.’’ 75
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
75 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the
2005 National-Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/
atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23433
and have significant inventory
contributions from mobile sources.76
a. Health Effects of Air Toxics
i. Benzene
The EPA’s Integrated Risk Information
System (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.77 78 79 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 × 10¥6 to 7.8 ×
10¥6 as the unit risk estimate (URE) for
benzene.80 81 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.82 83
A number of adverse noncancer
health effects including blood disorders,
such as preleukemia and aplastic
anemia, have also been associated with
76 U.S. EPA (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
nata2005.
77 U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information
System File for Benzene. This material is available
electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0276.htm.
78 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.
79 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.
80 A unit risk estimate is defined as the increase
in the lifetime risk of an individual who is exposed
for a lifetime to 1 mg/m3 benzene in air.
81 U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information
System File for Benzene. This material is available
electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0276.htm.
82 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.
83 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Toxicology Program. (2011). 12th Report
on Carcinogens. Available at: http://
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40DBA9EC0928DF8B15.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23434
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
long-term exposure to benzene.84 85 The
most sensitive noncancer effect
observed in humans, based on current
data, is the depression of the absolute
lymphocyte count in blood.86 87 EPA’s
inhalation reference concentration (RfC)
for benzene is 30 mg/m3. 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, provides
evidence that biochemical responses are
occurring at lower levels of benzene
exposure than previously
known.88 89 90 91 EPA’s IRIS program has
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 mg/m3 for 1–14 days
exposure.92 93
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
ii. Formaldehyde
In 1991, EPA concluded that
formaldehyde is a carcinogen based on
84 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and
carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health
Perspect. 82: 193–197.
85 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity.
Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3:
541–554.
86 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.
87 U.S. EPA. (2002). Toxicological Review of
Benzene (Noncancer Effects). Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington
DC. This material is available electronically at
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
88 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.
89 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.
90 Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et
al. (2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to
Low Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774–1776.
91 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.
92 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.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf.
93 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
nasal tumors in animal bioassays.94 An
Inhalation Unit Risk for cancer and a
Reference Dose for oral noncancer
effects were developed by the Agency
and posted on the 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.95 96 97
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.98 99 100 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.101 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.102
Finally, a study of embalmers reported
formaldehyde exposures to be
associated with an increased risk of
94 EPA. Integrated Risk Information System.
Formaldehyde (CASRN 50–00–0) http://
www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419/htm.
95 National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), 12th Report
on Carcinogens, June 10, 2011.
96 IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of
Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 88 (2006):
Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tertButoxypropan-2-ol.
97 IARC Mongraphs on the Evaluation of
Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 100F (2012):
Formaldehyde.
98 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.
99 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.
100 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.
101 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a
cohort of garment workers exposed to
formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61:
193–200.
102 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
myeloid leukemia but not brain
cancer.103
Health effects of formaldehyde in
addition to cancer were reviewed by the
Agency for Toxics Substances and
Disease Registry in 1999 104 and
supplemented in 2010,105 and by the
World Health Organization.106 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.
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 2010.107 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
2011.108 The EPA is currently revising
the draft assessment in response to this
review.
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.109 The URE in IRIS for
103 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.
104 ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for
Formaldehyde, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), July 1999.
105 ATSDR. 2010. Addendum to theToxicological
Profile for Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), October 2010.
106 IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical
Assessment Document 40. Formaldehyde. World
Health Organization.
107 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: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/irs_drats/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614.
108 NRC (National Research Council). 2011.
Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s
Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde.
Washington DC: National Academies Press. http://
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13142.
109 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0290.htm.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
acetaldehyde is 2.2 × 10¥6 per mg/m3.110
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.111 112 EPA is currently
conducting a reassessment of cancer risk
from inhalation exposure to
acetaldehyde.
The primary noncancer effects of
exposure to acetaldehyde vapors
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and
respiratory tract.113 In short-term (4
week) rat studies, degeneration of
olfactory epithelium was observed at
various concentration levels of
acetaldehyde exposure.114 115 Data from
these studies were used by EPA to
develop an inhalation reference
concentration of 9 mg/m3. Some
asthmatics have been shown to be a
sensitive subpopulation to decrements
in functional expiratory volume (FEV1
test) and bronchoconstriction upon
acetaldehyde inhalation.116 The agency
is currently conducting a reassessment
of the health hazards from inhalation
exposure to acetaldehyde.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
110 U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0290.htm.
111 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.
112 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.
113 U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0290.htm.
114 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information
System File of Acrolein. Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0364.htm.
115 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.
116 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
carcinogenicity.117 The IARC
determined in 1995 that acrolein was
not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity
in humans.118
Lesions to the lungs and upper
respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, and
hamsters have been observed after
subchronic exposure to acrolein.119 The
Agency has developed an RfC for
acrolein of 0.02 mg/m3 and an RfD of 0.5
mg/kg-day.120 EPA is considering
updating the acrolein assessment with
data that have become available since
the 2003 assessment was completed.
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.121 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.122 Studies in
humans indicate that levels as low as
0.09 ppm (0.21 mg/m3) 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
117 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0364.htm.
118 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.
119 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0364.htm.
120 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/
0364.htm.
121 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:
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/
0364tr.pdf.
122 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: http://
www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23435
data (more pronounced respiratory
irritancy in mice with allergic airway
disease in comparison to non-diseased
mice 123) 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 mg/m3 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 mg/m3 and 0.7
mg/m3, respectively.124
v. 1,3-Butadiene
EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene
as carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation.125 126 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.127 128 129
123 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.
124 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. http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
125 U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3Butadiene. Office of Research and Development,
National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No.
EPA600–P–98–001F. This document is available
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/
buta-sup.pdf.
126 U.S. EPA. (2002). ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0)’’ Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington,
DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
127 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.
128 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). (2008). Monographs on the evaluation of
carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, 1,3Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides
(Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide)
Volume 97, World Health Organization, Lyon,
France.
129 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23436
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
There are numerous studies consistently
demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is
metabolized into genotoxic metabolites
by experimental animals and humans.
The specific mechanisms of 1,3butadiene-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 × 10¥5 per mg/m3.130
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.131
Based on this critical effect and the
benchmark concentration methodology,
an RfC for chronic health effects was
calculated at 0.9 ppb (approximately 2
mg/m3).
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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
130 U.S. EPA. (2002). ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3butadiene (CASRN 106–99–0)’’ Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington,
DC. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
131 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.132 133 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.134 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.135 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).136 137
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.
viii. 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 (shortterm) exposure of humans to
132 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 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=122&tid=25.
133 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment
Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8–
90/057F Office of Research and Development,
Washington DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
134 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.
135 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 http://
www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0457.htm.
136 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.
137 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
naphthalene by inhalation, ingestion, or
dermal contact is associated with
hemolytic anemia and damage to the
liver and the nervous system.138
Chronic (long term) exposure of workers
and rodents to naphthalene has been
reported to cause cataracts and retinal
damage.139 EPA released an external
review draft of a reassessment of the
inhalation carcinogenicity of
naphthalene based on a number of
recent animal carcinogenicity
studies.140 The draft reassessment
completed external peer review.141
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
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.142
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.143
Naphthalene also causes a number of
chronic non-cancer effects in animals,
138 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm.
139 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm.
140 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 http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm.
141 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
(2004). External Peer Review for the IRIS
Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/
ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403.
142 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.
143 International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC). (2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of
the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans.
Vol. 82. Lyon, France.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
including abnormal cell changes and
growth in respiratory and nasal
tissues.144 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 mg/m3.145 The
ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to
naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day.
ix. Other Air Toxics
In addition to the compounds
described above, other compounds in
gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions
from motor vehicles will be affected by
this action. Mobile source air toxic
compounds that will 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.146
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
b. Current Concentrations of Air Toxics
The most recent available data
indicate that 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.147 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.148 According to
the National Air Toxic Assessment
(NATA) for 2005,149 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
144 U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of
Naphthalene, Environmental Protection Agency,
Integrated Risk Information System, Research and
Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/
subst/0436.htm.
145 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 http://
www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
146 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris.
147 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the
2005 National-Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/
atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
148 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007).
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007.
149 U.S. EPA. (2011). 2005 National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
nata2005/.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
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.150 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.
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
150 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23437
concentrations of many carbonyls
downwind of roadways.151, thnsp;152
These findings suggest a substantial
roadway source of these carbonyls.
In the past 15 years, many studies
have been published with results
reporting 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.153 In addition, numerous
studies have found adverse health
effects associated with spending time in
traffic, such as commuting or walking
along high-traffic roadways.154 155 156 157
The health outcomes with the strongest
evidence linking them with trafficassociated air pollutants are respiratory
effects, particularly in asthmatic
children, and cardiovascular effects.
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.158 The panel rated how the
evidence for each type of health
outcome supported a conclusion of a
causal association with trafficassociated air pollution as either
‘‘sufficient,’’ ‘‘suggestive but not
sufficient,’’ or ‘‘inadequate and
151 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.
152 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 http://
dx.doi.org.
153 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.
154 Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Smith, T.J.; Davis, M.E.;
Garshick, E. (2007) Cause-specific mortality in the
unionized U.S. trucking industry. Environmental
Health Perspect 115:1192–1196.
155 Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Heier, M.;
¨
Trentinaglia, I.; Hormann, A.; Wichmann, H.E.;
¨
Lowel, H. (2004) Exposure to traffic and the onset
of myocardial infarction. New England J Med 351:
1721–1730.
156 Zanobetti, A.; Stone, P.H.; Spelzer, F.E.;
Schwartz, J.D.; Coull, B.A.; Suh, H.H.; Nearling,
B.D.; Mittleman, M.A.; Verrier, R.L.; Gold, D.R.
(2009) T-wave alternans, air pollution and traffic in
high-risk subjects. Am J Cardiol 104: 665–670.
157 Dubowsky Adar, S.; Adamkiewicz, G.; Gold,
D.R.; Schwartz, J.; Coull, B.A.; Suh, H. (2007)
Ambient and microenvironmental particles and
exhaled nitric oxide before and after a group bus
trip. Environ Health Perspect 115: 507–512.
158 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 http://
www.healtheffects.org.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23438
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.159 160 161
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).162 163 164 165
In addition to health outcomes,
particularly cardiopulmonary effects,
conclusions of numerous studies
suggest mechanisms by which trafficrelated air pollution affects health.
Numerous studies indicate that nearroadway exposures may increase
systemic inflammation, affecting organ
systems, including blood vessels and
159 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.
160 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.
161 Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air
pollution and childhood cancer: a review of the
epidemiological literature. Int J Cancer 118: 2920–
9.
162 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.
163 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 http://dx.doi.org]
164 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.
165 Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; et al. (2011).
Comparing exposure assessment methods for trafficrelated air pollution in an adverse pregnancy
outcome study. Environ Res 111: 685–6692.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
lungs.166 167 168 169 Long-term exposures
in near-road environments have been
associated with inflammation-associated
conditions, such as atherosclerosis and
asthma.170 171 172
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.173 174 175
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
166 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 http://
dx.doi.org.
167 Alexeef, SE.; 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
http://dx.doi.org.
168 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 http://dx.doi.org.
169 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 http://
www.healtheffects.org.]
170 Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010).
Air pollution and the microvasculatory: a crosssectional 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
http://dx.doi.org.
171 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 http://
dx.doi.org.
172 McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et
al. (2010). Childhood incident asthma and trafficrelated air pollution at home and school. Environ
Health Perspect 1021–1026.
173 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).
174 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.
175 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
than 50 million U.S. residents in close
proximity to high-traffic roadways or
other transportation sources. Based on
2010 Census data, a 2013 publication
estimated that 19 percent of the U.S.
population (over 59 million people)
lived within 500 meters of roads with at
least 25,000 annual average daily traffic
(AADT), while about 3.2 percent of the
population lived within 100 meters
(about 300 feet) of such roads.176
Another 2013 study estimated that 3.7
percent of the U.S. population (about
11.3 million people) lived within 150
meters (about 500 feet) of interstate
highways, or other freeways and
expressways.177 As discussed in Section
III, on average, 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.
In light of these concerns, EPA has
required and is working with states to
ensure that air quality monitors be
placed near high-traffic roadways for
determining NAAQS compliance for
CO, NO2, and PM2.5 (in addition to those
existing monitors located in
neighborhoods and other locations
farther away from pollution sources).
Near-roadway monitors for NO2 begin
operation between 2014 and 2017 in
Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)
with population of at least 500,000.
Monitors for CO and PM2.5 begin
operation between 2015 and 2017.
These monitors will further our
understanding of exposure in these
locations.
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
The welfare effects of ozone can be
observed across a variety of scales, i.e.
subcellular, cellular, leaf, whole plant,
population and ecosystem. Ozone
effects that begin at small spatial scales,
such as the leaf of an individual plant,
when they occur at sufficient
176 Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S.
near-roadway population: public health and
environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D 25: 59–67.
177 Boehmer, T.K.; Foster, S.L.; Henry, J.R.;
Woghiren-Akinnifesi, E.L.; Yip, F.Y. (2013)
Residential proximity to major highways—United
States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 62(3);46–50.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
magnitudes (or to a sufficient degree)
can result in effects being propagated
along a continuum to larger and larger
spatial scales. For example, effects at the
individual plant level, such as altered
rates of leaf gas exchange, growth and
reproduction can, when widespread,
result in broad changes in ecosystems,
such as productivity, carbon storage,
water cycling, nutrient cycling, and
community composition.
Ozone can produce both acute and
chronic injury in sensitive species
depending on the concentration level
and the duration of the exposure.178 In
those sensitive species, 179 effects from
repeated exposure to ozone throughout
the growing season of the plant tend to
accumulate, so that even low
concentrations experienced for a longer
duration have the potential to create
chronic stress on vegetation.180 Ozone
damage to sensitive species includes
impaired photosynthesis and visible
injury to leaves. The impairment of
photosynthesis, the process by which
the plant makes carbohydrates (its
source of energy and food), can lead to
reduced crop yields, timber production,
and plant productivity and growth.
Impaired photosynthesis can also lead
to a reduction in root growth and
carbohydrate storage below ground,
resulting in other, more subtle plant and
ecosystems impacts.181 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 areas with
sensitive species could potentially lead
to species shifts and loss from the
affected ecosystems,182 resulting in a
loss or reduction in associated
ecosystem goods and services.
Additionally, visible ozone injury to
leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic
value in areas of special scenic
significance like national parks and
178 73
FR 16486 (March 27, 2008).
FR 16491 (March 27, 2008). Only a small
percentage of all the plant species growing within
the U.S. (over 43,000 species have been catalogued
in the USDA PLANTS database) have been studied
with respect to ozone sensitivity.
180 The concentration at which ozone levels
overwhelm a plant’s ability to detoxify or
compensate for oxidant exposure varies. Thus,
whether a plant is classified as sensitive or tolerant
depends in part on the exposure levels being
considered. Chapter 9, section 9.3.4 of U.S. EPA,
2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and
Related Photochemical Oxidants. Office of Research
and Development/National Center for
Environmental Assessment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA 600/R–10/076F.
181 73 FR 16492 (March 27, 2008).
182 73 FR 16493/16494 (March 27, 2008), Per
footnote 2 above, ozone impacts could be occurring
in areas where plant species sensitive to ozone have
not yet been studied or identified.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
179 73
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
wilderness areas and reduced use of
sensitive ornamentals in landscaping.183
The Integrated Science Assessment
(ISA) for Ozone presents more detailed
information on how ozone affects
vegetation and ecosystems.184 The ISA
concludes that ambient concentrations
of ozone are associated with a number
of adverse welfare effects and
characterizes the weight of evidence for
different effects associated with
ozone.185 The ISA concludes that visible
foliar injury effects on vegetation,
reduced vegetation growth, reduced
productivity in terrestrial ecosystems,
reduced yield and quality of agricultural
crops, and alteration of below-ground
biogeochemical cycles are causally
associated with exposure to ozone. It
also concludes that reduced carbon
sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems,
alteration of terrestrial ecosystem water
cycling, and alteration of terrestrial
community composition are likely to be
causally associated with exposure to
ozone.
b. Visibility
Visibility can be defined as the degree
to which the atmosphere is transparent
to visible light.186 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.187
183 73
FR 16490/16497 (March 27, 2008).
EPA. Integrated Science Assessment of
Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–10/076F, 2013. The
ISA is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492#Download.
185 The Ozone ISA evaluates the evidence
associated with different ozone related health and
welfare 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 more information on these levels
of evidence, please refer to Table II of the ISA.
186 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
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/.
187 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
184 U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23439
EPA is working to address visibility
impairment. In 1999, EPA finalized the
regional haze program to protect the
visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal
areas.188 There are 156 national parks,
forests and wilderness areas categorized
as Mandatory Class I Federal areas.189
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. EPA has
also 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.
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
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F.
188 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
189 62 FR 38680–38681 (July 18, 1997).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23440
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.190
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.191 192 193 194 195
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
190 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.
191 U.S. EPA. (2004). National Coastal Condition
Report II. Office of Research and Development/
Office of Water. EPA–620/R–03/002.
192 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.
193 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.
194 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.
195 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
19 years.196 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.197
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.198
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.199 In laboratory experiments, a
wide range of tolerance to VOCs has
been observed.200 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
196 U.S. EPA. (2013). U.S. EPA’s Report on the
Environment. Data accessed online November 25,
2013 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?
fuseaction=detail.viewInd&lv=list.listBySubTopic&r
=216610&subtop=341&ch=46.
197 U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA’s Report on the
Environment. Data accessed online February 15,
2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/
index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&
lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=
216610.
198 U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA’s Report on the
Environment. Data accessed online February 15,
2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?
fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&
subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=216610.
199 U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals
in the atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3–
91/001.
200 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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.201
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.202 203 204
III. How would this rule reduce
emissions and air pollution?
A. Effects of the Vehicle and Fuel
Changes on Mobile Source Emissions
The Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards
will significantly reduce the tailpipe
and evaporative emissions of light- and
heavy-duty vehicles in several ways, as
described in this section. In addition,
the gasoline sulfur standard will reduce
emissions of SO2 from existing gasolinepowered vehicles and equipment. As
described in Section II, all of these
emission reductions will 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
implementing closely-coordinated
requirements for both automakers and
refiners in the same rulemaking action.
The Tier 3 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 action,
we have been able to integrate the
provisions into a single, coordinated
program.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. How do vehicles produce the
emissions addressed in this action?
The degree to which vehicles produce
exhaust and evaporative emissions
depends on the design and functionality
of the engine and the associated exhaust
201 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.
202 Viskari E–L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of
Norway spruce needles as indicator of traffic
pollutant deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut.
121:327–337.
203 Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997).
Uptake and transformation of benzene and toluene
by plant leaves. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 37:24–29.
204 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
The pollutants 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.
Light- and heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles also emit PM and CO. PM
forms directly as a combustion product
(as elemental carbon or soot) and
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23441
more volatile hydrocarbon compounds
in gasoline. 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
elastomers in the fuel system, 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 will be
improved under this action) 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 will the changes to gasoline
sulfur content affect vehicle emissions?
Gasoline vehicles rely on highly
efficient aftertreatment catalysts to
control tailpipe emissions of harmful
pollutants like CO and NOX, as well as
VOCs that include air toxics and
precursor compounds to ozone and
secondary PM in the atmosphere. These
catalysts utilize finely-dispersed
precious metals that are susceptible to
deactivation by sulfur compounds in the
exhaust. Studies have repeatedly
demonstrated that the presence of even
a tiny amount of sulfur in fuel has a
measurable impact on the ability of the
catalyst to control emissions, and that
emission levels of most pollutants,
especially NOX, are very sensitive to
fuel sulfur.205 206
205 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
206 Durbin, T., ‘‘The Effect of Fuel Sulfur on NH3
and Other Emissions from 2000–2001 Model Year
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
Continued
28APR2
23442
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Sulfur naturally occurs in crude oil
and is carried through the refining
process into gasoline. EPA’s Tier 2
rulemaking for light-duty vehicles,
published in 2000, required refiners to
reduce sulfur levels in gasoline to an
average of 30 ppm, a reduction of about
90 percent from the in-use baseline. At
the time, there were indications that
sulfur reductions below 30 ppm may
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 below 30 ppm.207
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 ultra-low
sulfur fuel.208 In particular, the study
found a 32 percent decrease in NOX
when sulfur was reduced from 32 ppm
to 6 ppm (equivalent to a 25 percent
decrease if sulfur levels were reduced
from 30 to 10 ppm, assuming a linear
effect). Another recent study by
Umicore showed reductions of 41
percent for NOX and 17 percent for
hydrocarbons on a PZEV operating on
fuel with 33 ppm and 3 ppm fuel
(equivalent to reductions of 27 percent
and 11 percent, respectively, if sulfur
levels were reduced from 30 to 10 ppm,
assuming a linear effect).209
A larger study of Tier 2 vehicles
recently completed by EPA confirmed
these results, showing significant
reductions in FTP-composite NOX (14
percent), CO (10 percent) and total HC
(15 percent) on the 5 ppm fuel, relative
to 28 ppm fuel (equivalent to 12
percent, 9 percent, and 13 percent
reduction, respectively, if sulfur levels
were reduced from 30 to 10 ppm,
assuming a linear effect).210 For NOX,
Vehicles’’, May 2003. Published as Report E–60 by
the Coordinating Research Council, Alpharetta, GA.
207 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
208 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources
Final Rule, EPA 420–R–07–002, Chapter 6.
209 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.
210 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
the majority of overall reductions were
driven by large reductions on warmedup periods of the test cycle (Bag 2),
which showed a 52 percent reduction
using 5 ppm fuel relative to 28 ppm fuel
(equivalent to 45 percent reduction if
sulfur levels were reduced from 30 to 10
ppm, assuming a linear effect),
consistent with the role of sulfur in
catalyst degradation discussed above.
For additional details regarding these
results, please see Section IV.A.6.c.
Our application of these study results
assumes a linear effect of sulfur level on
catalyst efficiency between the high and
low sulfur test fuels. This is reasonable
given that the mass flow rate of sulfur
in exhaust gas changes in proportion to
its concentration in the fuel, and that
the chemical kinetics of adsorption of
sulfur to the precious metal sites is
approximately first order. Linearity of
effect is also supported by past studies
with multiple fuel sulfur levels such as
the CRC E–60 and 2000 AAM/AIAM/Oil
Industry emission test programs.211 212
Based on these analyses, the benefits
of the Tier 3 sulfur standard are
significant in two ways: They enable
vehicles designed to the 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 will emissions be reduced?
The Tier 3 standards will reduce
emissions of VOC, NOX (including
NO2), direct PM2.5, CO, SO2, and air
toxics. The sulfur standards will reduce
emissions from the on-road fleet
immediately upon implementation in
calendar year 2017. The vehicle
standards will begin to reduce
emissions as the cleaner cars and trucks
begin to enter the fleet in model year
2017 and model year 2018, respectively.
The magnitude of reduction will grow
as more Tier 3 vehicles enter the fleet.
We present emission reductions in
calendar year 2018 to reflect the early
reductions expected from the Tier 3
standards, and in calendar year 2030,
when 70 percent of the miles travelled
are from vehicles that meet the fully
phased-in Tier 3 standards. Although
2030 is the farthest year that is feasible
for air quality modeling, the full
211 Durbin, T., ‘‘The Effect of Fuel Sulfur on NH3
and Other Emissions from 2000–2001 Model Year
Vehicles’’, May 2003. Published as Report E–60 by
the Coordinating Research Council, Alpharetta, GA.
212 ‘‘AAM/AIAM/Oil Industry Low Sulfur &
Oxygenate Test Program’’, 2000, last accessed on
01/15/14 at the following URL: http://
www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/carfg3/aam_
prstn.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reduction of the vehicle program will be
realized after 2030, when the fleet has
fully turned over to vehicles that meet
the fully phased-in Tier 3 standards;
thus we present emission reductions
projected in 2050 as well (see Chapter
7 of the RIA).
Emission reductions are estimated on
an annual basis, for all 50 U.S. states
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, RVP, and other fuel properties.
We estimated emission reductions
compared to a reference case that
assumed renewable fuel volumes and
ethanol blends based on the U.S. Energy
Information Administration’s Annual
Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013).213 As
described in Chapter 7 of the RIA, the
reference and control scenarios based on
AEO2013 reflect a mix of E10, E15, and
E85 in both 2018 and 2030. The
reference case assumed an average
sulfur level of 30 ppm (10 ppm in
California) and continuation of the Tier
2 vehicle program indefinitely, with the
exception of California and Section 177
states that have adopted the LEV III
program.
The analysis described here accounts
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)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles (76 FR 57106,
September 15, 2011)
• 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
213 U.S. Energy Information Administration,
Annual Energy Outlook (April 15, 2013).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Standards (77 FR 62623, October 15,
2012)
The analysis also accounts for many
other national rules and standards. In
addition, the modeling accounts for
state and local rules including
California’s most recent Low Emission
Vehicle (LEV III) program adopted in
California and twelve other states (also
referred to as Section 177 states),214
local fuel standards, Inspection/
Maintenance programs, Stage II
refueling controls, the National Low
Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV), and
the Section 177 states LEV and LEV II
23443
well, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
acetaldehyde, acrolein and ethanol
(ranging from 10 to nearly 30 percent of
the national onroad inventory by 2030).
The relative reduction in overall
emissions will 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 will have turned over to
vehicles meeting the fully phased-in
Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3
program will reduce onroad emissions
of NOX and VOC nearly 31 percent from
the level of emissions projected without
Tier 3 controls.
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 2018 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
2018 are significant; for example,
combined NOX and VOC emissions will
be reduced by over 300,000 tons. By
2030, combined NOX and VOC
emissions will be reduced by roughly
500,000 tons, one quarter of the onroad
inventory. Many of the modeled air
toxics will be significantly reduced as
TABLE III–1—ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM THE TIER 3 STANDARDS
[Annual U.S. short tons]
2018
Tons
NOX ..................................................................................................................
VOC .................................................................................................................
CO ....................................................................................................................
Direct PM2.5 ......................................................................................................
Benzene ...........................................................................................................
SO2 ..................................................................................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...................................................................................................
Formaldehyde ..................................................................................................
Acetaldehyde ...................................................................................................
Acrolein ............................................................................................................
Ethanol .............................................................................................................
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 Tier 3 sulfur standards will
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
2030
% of Onroad
inventory
264,369
47,504
278,879
130
1,916
14,813
257
513
600
40
2,704
Tier 2 vehicles by lowering sulfur levels
to 10 ppm. Prior research shows that
NOX emissions will also be expected to
decrease from the fleet of older (pre-Tier
2) light-duty vehicles as well as heavyduty gasoline vehicles,215 although to a
lesser extent than for Tier 2 vehicles.
Table III–2 shows the reduction in
NOX emissions, in annual short tons,
projected in calendar years 2018 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
Tons
10
3
2
0.1
6
56
5
2
3
3
2
% of Onroad
inventory
328,509
167,591
3,458,041
7,892
4,762
12,399
677
1,277
2,067
127
19,950
25
16
24
10
26
56
29
10
21
15
16
attributable to vehicle standards enabled
by low sulfur fuel (model year 2017 and
later). As shown, upon implementation
of the Tier 3 sulfur standards, total
onroad NOX emissions are projected to
drop 10 percent. This is primarily due
to large reductions from Tier 2 gasoline
vehicles, which contribute about onequarter of the NOX emissions from the
on-road fleet in 2018. The relative
reduction grows as cleaner vehicles turn
over into the fleet. By 2030, we project
that the reduction in overall onroad
NOX inventory will be 25 percent.
TABLE III–2—PROJECTED NOX REDUCTIONS FROM TIER 3 PROGRAM
[Annual U.S. tons]
2018
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Total reduction .............................................................................................................................................
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard ...............................................................................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards ................................................................
Percent reduction in onroad NOX emissions ..............................................................................................
214 These states include Connecticut, Delaware,
Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Washington, and Vermont.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
264,369
242,434
21,934
10%
2030
328,509
56,324
272,185
25%
215 Rao, V. (2001), Fuel Sulfur Effects on Exhaust
Emissions: Recommendations for MOBILE6, EPA–
420–R–01–039.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23444
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
2. VOC
standards. In 2018, as with NOX, we
project reductions from the pre-Tier 3
fleet with the fuel standards. By 2030,
the reduction in overall onroad VOC
emissions will be 16 percent, the
majority of this from the vehicles
Table III–3 shows the reduction in
VOC emissions, in annual short tons,
projected in calendar years 2018 and
2030 resulting from the Tier 3
meeting the fully phased-in Tier 3
standards. The evaporative standards
are projected to account for roughly one
third of the overall vehicle program
reduction in 2030.
TABLE III–3—PROJECTED VOC REDUCTIONS FROM TIER 3 PROGRAM
[Annual U.S. tons]
2018
Total reduction .............................................................................................................................................
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard ...............................................................................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards ................................................................
Exhaust ........................................................................................................................................................
Evaporative ..................................................................................................................................................
Percent reduction in onroad VOC emissions ..............................................................................................
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. In contrast to NOX and
VOC, the immediate CO reductions in
the onroad fleet from sulfur control in
2018 are small, based on research
showing that fuel sulfur level has a
2030
47,504
38,786
8,718
43,009
4,495
3%
167,591
11,249
156,343
105,253
62,339
16%
minimal impact on CO emissions from
Tier 2 vehicles. The CO exhaust
standards are projected to reduce
onroad CO emissions by 24 percent in
2030.
TABLE III–4—PROJECTED CO REDUCTIONS FROM TIER 3 PROGRAM
[Annual U.S. tons]
2018
Total reduction .............................................................................................................................................
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard ...............................................................................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards ................................................................
Percent reduction in onroad CO emissions ................................................................................................
4. Direct PM2.5
Reductions in direct emissions of
PM2.5 are projected to result solely from
the vehicle tailpipe standards, so
meaningful reductions are realized
mainly as the fleet turns over. By 2030,
we project a reduction of about 7,900
tons annually, which represents
approximately 10 percent of the onroad
direct PM2.5 inventory. The relative
reduction in onroad emissions is
projected to grow to 28 percent in 2050,
when nearly all of the fleet will have
turned over to vehicles meeting the fully
phased-in Tier 3 standards. Reductions
in NOX and VOC emissions will 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 will be
reduced by the sulfur, exhaust and
2030
278,879
122,171
156,708
2%
3,458,041
17,734
3,440,307
24%
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, for most air toxics. 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]
Tons reduced
in 2018
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Benzene ...........................................................................................................
Acetaldehyde ...................................................................................................
Formaldehyde ..................................................................................................
1,3-Butadiene ...................................................................................................
Acrolein ............................................................................................................
Naphthalene .....................................................................................................
Ethanol .............................................................................................................
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)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
1,916
600
513
257
40
99
2,704
compounds in gas and particle phase,
and additional gaseous compounds such
as toluene, xylenes, styrene, hexane,
2,2,4-trimethylpentane, n-hexane, and
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
% Reduction
in onroad
emissions
6
3
2
5
3
3
2
Tons reduced
in 2030
4,762
2,067
1,277
677
127
269
19,950
% Reduction
in onroad
emissions
26
21
10
29
15
15
16
propionaldehyde (see Appendix 7A of
the RIA). As shown, in 2030, the overall
onroad inventory of total toxics will be
reduced by 15 percent, with nearly one
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
23445
half of the vehicle program reductions
coming from the evaporative standards.
TABLE III–6—REDUCTIONS IN TOTAL MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS
[Annual U.S. tons]
2018
Total reduction .............................................................................................................................................
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard ...............................................................................
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards ................................................................
Exhaust ........................................................................................................................................................
Evaporative ..................................................................................................................................................
Percent reduction in onroad toxics emissions .............................................................................................
6. SO2
will 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
SO2 emissions from mobile sources
are a direct function of sulfur in the
fuel, and reducing sulfur in gasoline
2030
15,583
11,981
3,602
13,340
2,243
3%
64,558
3,517
61,041
34,595
29,963
15%
relative contribution of on-road vehicles
and off-road equipment, where off-road
gasoline consumption accounts for
approximately 5 percent of overall
gasoline use.216
TABLE III–7—PROJECTED SO2 REDUCTIONS FROM TIER 3 PROGRAM
[Annual U.S. tons]
2018
Total reduction .............................................................................................................................................
Reduction from onroad vehicles due to sulfur standard .............................................................................
Reduction from off-road equipment due to sulfur standard ........................................................................
Percent reduction in onroad SO2 emissions ...............................................................................................
15,565
14,813
752
56%
13,261
12,399
862
56%
Reductions in nitrous oxide (N2O)
emissions and methane (CH4) emissions,
both potent greenhouse gas emissions,
are projected for gasoline cars and
trucks as a result of the sulfur and
tailpipe standards. A study conducted
by the University of California-Riverside
found a 29 percent reduction in N2O
emissions over the FTP when sulfur was
reduced from 30 to 5 ppm,217 while EPA
research described in Section IV.A.6 on
sulfur effects found a 26 percent
reduction in CH4 emissions when sulfur
was reduced from 28 to 5 ppm.218
Several studies have established
correlations between reductions in
tailpipe NOX emissions and reductions
in N2O from gasoline cars and
trucks,219 220 221 222 as well as
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
7. Greenhouse Gases
2030
correlations between reductions in
tailpipe HC emissions and reductions in
CH4.223 224 Studies by Winer, et al (2005)
and Behrentz et al (2004) reported N2O:
NOX ratios of 0.06 and 0.095,
respectively, and supported the
application of N2O: NOX ratios to NOX
emissions as a reasonable method for
estimating N2O emission inventories.
CARB has also used N2O: NOX ratio to
develop the N2O emissions inventories
for the LEV III program, based on a
regression analysis suggesting N2O: NOX
ratio of 0.04, on average.225
As detailed in Chapter 7.3 of the RIA,
the N2O reductions are estimated by
employing two different methodologies,
resulting in a range of reductions. The
first method applies the relationship
between N2O and NOX from a regression
model 226 to NOX inventories from both
Tier 3 and pre-Tier 3 vehicles. The
second method applies the regression of
N2O and NOX only to Tier 3 vehicles
and uses the UC Riverside sulfur results
to estimate the N2O reductions from preTier 3 vehicles. Using a 100-year global
warming potential of 298 for N2O
according to the 2007 IPCC AR4,227 the
estimated N2O reduction is 2.2 million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2e) in 2018, growing to the
range between 3.8 to 4.0 MMTCO 2e in
2030. For 2018, there was an agreement
between the two methodologies
described above, resulting in a single
estimate. MOVES can be used to
directly estimate CH4 reductions from
the sulfur and vehicle standards,
estimating an additional 0.1 MMTCO2e
216 U.S. Energy Information Administration,
Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (April 15, 2013).
217 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
218 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002,
219 Michaels, H. (1998) Emissions of Nitrous
Oxide from Highway Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA
EPA420–R–98–009.
220 Behrentz, et al. (2004), Measurements of
nitrous oxide emissions from light-duty motor
vehicles: A pilot study, Atmospheric Environment
4291–4303.
221 Meffert, et. al (2000) Analysis of Nitrous Oxide
Emissions from Light Duty Passenger Cars, SAE
2000–01–1952.
222 Winer, et al. (2005) Estimates of Nitrous Oxide
Emissions and the Effects of Catalyst Composition
and Aging, State of California Air Resources Board
02–313.
223 Meszler, D. (2004), Light Duty Vehicle
Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions: Greenhouse
Gas Impacts, Study for Northeast States Center for
a Clean Air Future.
224 Graham, L., Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
1997–2005 Model Year Light Duty Vehicles,
Environment Canada ERMD Report #04–44.
225 LEV III Moblie Source Emissions Inventory
Technical Support Document—Appendix T,
January 2012, last accessed on 01/15/14 at the
following URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/
leviiighg2012/levappt.pdf.
226 U.S. EPA, 2014, Memorandum to Docket:
Regression Analysis of Nitrous Oxide and Oxides of
Nitrogen from Motor Vehicles.
227 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 100year GWP of 298 and CH4 has a 100-year GWP of
25 according to the 2007 IPCC AR4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23446
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
reduction in 2018, growing to 0.3
MMTCO2e in 2030. The total GHG
reduction from the Tier 3 rule is 2.3
MMTCO2e in 2018, and between 4.1 and
4.3 MMTCO2e in 2030.
These reductions will be partially
offset by CO2 emissions associated with
higher energy use required in the
process of removing sulfur within the
refinery. As an extension of our
refinery-by-refinery cost modeling
described in Section VII.B., we
calculated the CO2 emission impacts of
Tier 3 gasoline sulfur control. We
estimated refinery-specific changes in
process energy and then applied
emission factors that correspond to
those changes, on a refinery-by-refinery
basis. As described in Chapter 4.5 of the
RIA, the results showed an increase of
up to 1.9 MMTCO2e in 2018 and 1.6
MMTCO2e in 2030 for all U.S. refineries
complying with the lower sulfur
standards assuming that the sulfur
standards are fully phased-in. In 2018,
the combined impact of CH4 and N2O
emission reductions from the vehicles
and CO2 emission increases from the
refineries shows a slight net decrease on
a CO2 equivalent basis. While still
small, this net decrease grows to a range
between 2.5 to 2.7 MMTCO2e by 2030.
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 are controlled by the Tier
3 program—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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. How will air pollution be reduced?
Reductions in emissions of NOX,
VOC, PM2.5 and air toxics expected as a
result of the Tier 3 standards are
projected to lead to significant
improvements in air quality. The air
quality modeling predicts significant
improvements in ozone concentrations
due to the Tier 3 standards. Ambient
PM2.5 and NO2 concentrations are also
expected to improve as a result of the
Tier 3 program. Decreases in ambient
concentrations of air toxics are projected
with the Tier 3 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 Tier 3
standards. The results of our air quality
modeling of the impacts of the Tier 3
rule are summarized in the following
section.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
1. Ozone
The air quality modeling done for this
action projects that in 2018, with all
current and required controls in effect
but excluding the emissions changes
expected to occur as a result of the Tier
3 standards or any other additional
controls, at least 19 counties, with a
projected population of over 37 million
people, would have projected design
values above the level of the 2008 8hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. In 2030
the modeling projects that in the
absence of Tier 3 standards or any other
additional controls there will be 6
counties with a population of over 19
million people with projected design
values above the level of the 2008 8hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. An
additional 37 million people will be
living in the 43 counties that will be
close to (within 10 percent of) the level
of the ozone standard.
Air quality modeling indicates that
this action will meaningfully decrease
ozone design value concentrations in
many areas of the country, including
those that are projected to be exceeding,
or close to exceeding, the ozone
standard. In 2018, the majority of the
design value decreases are between 0.5
and 1.0 ppb. In 2030, the Tier 3 rule will
result in larger decreases in ozone
design values, with the majority of
counties projecting decreases of
between 0.5 and 1.0 ppb, and over 250
more counties with decreases greater
than 1.0 ppb. Since the Tier 3 standards
go into effect during the period when
some areas are still working to attain the
ozone NAAQS, the projected air quality
changes will help state and local
agencies in their effort to attain and
maintain the ozone standard.
2. Particulate Matter
The air quality modeling conducted
for this action projects that in 2018,
with all current controls in effect but
excluding the emissions changes
expected to occur as a result of Tier 3
standards or any other additional
controls, at least 14 counties, with a
projected population of over 20 million
people, would have projected design
values above the level of the annual
standard of 12 mg/m3 and at least 24
counties, with a projected population of
over 18 million people, would have
projected design values above the level
of the 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m3. In
2030, the modeling projects that in the
absence of Tier 3 standards or any other
additional controls there will be 13
counties, with a projected population of
over 21 million people, with projected
design values above the level of the
annual standard of 12 mg/m3 and 18
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
counties, with a projected population of
over 12 million people, with projected
design values above the level of the 24hour standard of 35 mg/m3. Since the
Tier 3 standards go into effect during
the period when some areas are still
working to attain the 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, the projected air quality
changes will be useful to state and local
agencies in their effort to attain and
maintain the PM2.5 standards.
The Tier 3 standards will reduce 24hour and annual PM2.5 design values
due to projected tailpipe reductions in
primary PM2.5, SO2, NOX and VOCs
from reductions in fuel sulfur and
engine controls. In 2018 the standards
will have a small impact on annual
PM2.5 design values in the majority of
modeled counties. However, in over 200
counties annual PM2.5 design values are
projected to decrease by greater than
0.01 mg/m3. In 2030 annual PM2.5 design
values in the majority of modeled
counties will decrease by between 0.01
and 0.05 mg/m3 and in over 140
additional counties design values are
projected to decrease by greater than
0.05 mg/m3. In addition, in 2018 24-hour
PM2.5 design values in over 200 counties
are projected to decrease by between
0.05 and 0.15 mg/m3 and in 2030 24hour PM2.5 design values in over 180
counties decrease by at least 0.15 mg/m3.
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 rule, 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 rule is
available in Section 7.2.1 of the RIA.
4. Air Toxics
Our modeling indicates that the
impacts of final Tier 3 standards include
notable nationwide reductions in
benzene and generally small decreases
in ambient concentrations of other air
toxics, mainly in urban areas. Although
reductions are greater in 2030 (when 70
percent of the miles travelled are from
vehicles that meet the fully phased-in
Tier 3 standards) than in 2017 (the first
year of the final program), our modeling
projects there will be small immediate
reductions in ambient concentrations of
air toxics due to the Tier 3 sulfur
controls. Furthermore, the full reduction
of the vehicle program will be realized
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
after 2030, when the fleet has fully
turned over to vehicles meeting the fully
phased-in Tier 3 standards. Air toxics
pollutants dominated by primary
emissions (or a decay product of a
directly emitted pollutant), such as
benzene, are impacted more than air
toxics that primarily result from
photochemical transformation.
Specifically, in 2030, our modeling
projects that the Tier 3 rule will
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 1,3butadiene and acrolein concentrations
in 2030 ranging between 1 and 25
percent and 1 and 10 percent
respectively, with 1,3-butadiene
decreases of at least 0.005 mg/m3 in
urban areas. These toxics are national
risk drivers and the reductions in
ambient concentrations from this rule
will 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 10 percent and 1 to
2.5 percent respectively in 2030 as a
result of the Tier 3 rule. Decreases in
ethanol concentrations are expected due
to reductions in VOC as a result of the
Tier 3 standards. Changes in ambient
acetaldehyde concentrations are
generally less than 1 percent across the
U.S., although the Tier 3 rule may
decrease acetaldehyde concentrations in
some urban areas by 1 to 2.5 percent in
2030. Changes in ambient naphthalene
23447
concentrations are generally between 1
and 10 percent in 2030 with absolute
decreases of up to 0.005 mg/m3.
Although the reductions in ambient
air toxics concentrations expected from
the Tier 3 standards are generally small,
they are projected to benefit the majority
of the U.S. population. As shown in
Table III–8, over 75 percent of the total
U.S. population is projected to
experience a decrease in ambient
benzene and 1,3-butadiene
concentrations of at least 1 percent.
Over 60 percent of the U.S population
is projected to experience at least a 1
percent decrease in ambient ethanol and
acrolein concentrations, and over 35
percent would experience a similar
decrease in ambient formaldehyde
concentrations with the Tier 3
standards.
TABLE III–8—PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION EXPERIENCING CHANGES IN ANNUAL AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF TOXIC
POLLUTANTS IN 2030 AS A RESULT OF THE TIER 3 STANDARDS
Percent change
(percent)
Benzene
(percent)
Acrolein
(percent)
1,3-Butadiene
(percent)
Formaldehyde
(percent)
Ethanol
(percent)
Acetaldehyde
(percent)
Naphthalene
(percent)
≤¥50 ............................
>¥50 to ≤¥25 .............
>¥25 to ≤¥10 .............
>¥10 to ≤¥5 ...............
>¥5 to ≤¥2.5 ..............
>¥2.5 to ≤¥1 ..............
>¥1 to <1 ....................
≥1 to <2.5 .....................
≥2.5 to <5 .....................
≥5 to <10 ......................
≥10 to <25 ....................
≥25 to <50 ....................
≥50 ...............................
........................
........................
2.29
20.63
27.50
28.60
20.97
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0.75
12.72
25.17
24.62
36.74
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
19.07
27.29
15.37
18.33
19.93
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
0.60
35.34
64.06
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
5.39
24.08
34.10
36.43
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
11.77
88.23
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
10.74
31.56
20.58
14.98
22.14
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
In addition, as described in Section
7.2.4.4.2 of the RIA, our modeling
projects that acrolein concentrations
would decrease to levels below the
inhalation reference concentration for
acrolein (0.02 mg/m3) for over 5 million
people in 2030, meaning that as a result
of the Tier 3 standards, 5 million fewer
Americans will be exposed to ambient
levels of acrolein high enough to present
a potential for adverse health effects.
5. Visibility
Air quality modeling conducted for
this final action was used to project
visibility conditions in 137 mandatory
class I federal areas across the U.S. The
results show that in 2030 all the
modeled areas will continue to have
annual average deciview levels above
background and the Tier 3 rule will
improve visibility in all these areas.228
228 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
The average visibility at all modeled
mandatory class I federal areas on the 20
percent worst days is projected to
improve by 0.02 deciviews, or 0.16
percent, in 2030. Section 7.2.5.5 of the
RIA contains more detail on the
visibility portion of the air quality
modeling.
6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
Our air quality modeling projects
substantial decreases in nitrogen
deposition as a result of the Tier 3
standards. The standards will result in
annual percent decreases of greater than
2.5 percent in most major urban areas
and greater than 5 percent in a few
areas. In addition, smaller decreases, in
the 1 to 2.5 percent range, will occur
over much of the rest of the country.
The impacts of the Tier 3 standards on
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
sulfur deposition are smaller, ranging
from no change to decreases of over 2.5
percent in some areas. For maps of 2030
deposition impacts and additional
information on these impacts see
Section 7.2.5.6 of the 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23448
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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.229
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
pollution.230 231 232 233 Household-level
stressors such as parental smoking and
relationship stress also may increase
susceptibility to the adverse effects of
air pollution.234 235
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
229 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.
230 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 http://
dx.doi.org].
231 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 trafficrelated air pollution and exposure to violence on
urban asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect
115: 1140–1146. doi:10.1289/ehp.9863 [Online at
http://dx.doi.org].
232 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.
233 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 http://dx.doi.org].
234 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 http://
dx.doi.org].
235 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 http://
dx.doi.org].
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 236 237 238 239 240 241
More recently, three publications
report nationwide analyses that
compare the demographic patterns of
people who do or do not live near major
roadways.242 243 244 All three of these
studies found that people living near
major roadways are more likely to be
minorities or low in SES. They also
236 Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental
inequality: Air pollution exposures in California’s
South Coast Air Basin.
237 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 http://dx.doi.org].
238 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
http://dx.doi.org].
239 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
[http://dx.doi.org].
240 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 http://
dx.doi.org].
241 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.
242 Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the US
near-roadway population: Public health and
environmental justice considerations.
Transportation Research Part D; 59–67.
243 Tian, N.; Xue, J.; Barzyk. T.M. (2013)
Evaluating socioeconomic and racial differences in
traffic-related metrics in the United States using a
GIS approach. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol
23: 215–222.
244 Boehmer, T.K.; Foster, S.L.; Henry, J.R.;
Woghiren-Akinnifesi, E.L.; Yip, F.Y. (2013)
Residential proximity to major highways—United
States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 62(3): 46–50.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
found that the outcomes of their
analyses varied between regions within
the U.S. However, only one such study
looked at whether such conclusions
were confounded by living in a location
with higher population density and how
demographics differ between locations
nationwide. In general, it found that
higher density areas have higher
proportions of low income and minority
residents.
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 ‘‘4or-more lane highway, railroad, or
airport.’’ 245 We analyzed whether there
were differences between houses and
householders in such locations and
those not in them.246 We included other
variables, such as land use category,
region of country, and housing type. We
found that homes with a nonwhite
householder were 22–34 percent more
likely to be located within 300 feet of
these large transportation facilities,
while homes 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.
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.247 To
determine school proximities to major
roadways, we used a geographic
245 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. Highways thus
represent the overwhelming majority of
transportation facilities described by this factor in
the AHS.
246 Bailey, C. (2011) Demographic and Social
Patterns in Housing Units Near Large Highways and
other Transportation Sources. Memorandum to
docket.
247 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
information system (GIS) to map each
school and roadways based on the U.S.
Census’s TIGER roadway file.248 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.
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 emission
reductions from this rule are projected
to result in widespread air quality
improvements, but the impact on
pollution levels in close proximity to
roadways is expected to be most direct.
Thus, this rule is likely to help in
mitigating the disparity in racial, ethnic,
and economically-based exposures.
IV. Vehicle Emissions Program
In the 14 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 emissions, especially exhaust
hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and particulate matter (PM), and
evaporative hydrocarbons. The
California LEV II program has been
instrumental in the auto industry’s
continuous technology improvements
by requiring year after year reductions
in fleet average exhaust hydrocarbon
levels. In addition, California set
performance standards that have
resulted in the introduction of advanced
exhaust and evaporative emission
controls in partial zero emission
vehicles (PZEVs). Overall, this progress
in vehicle technology has made it
possible for manufacturers to achieve
emission reductions with a number of
today’s vehicles that go well beyond the
requirements of the Tier 2 program.
Extensive data from existing Tier 2
(and California LEV II) vehicles
presented in the NPRM and received
since the proposal have demonstrated
the potential for further significant
248 Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of
Schools within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and
Secondary Roads. Memorandum to the docket.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
reductions. For exhaust emissions, these
opportunities include 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 age on
vehicles and control systems. In
addition, technologies now exist that
have inherently low evaporative
emission characteristics and
demonstrate improved in-use durability.
Based on this body of data, we are
adopting more stringent standards
designed to reduce emissions, primarily
exhaust non-methane organic gases
(NMOG), NOX, and PM and evaporative
hydrocarbon emissions from new
vehicles. As discussed in detail below
and in the final RIA, we have concluded
that, in conjunction with the reductions
in fuel sulfur also required in this
action, the new vehicle emissions
standards are feasible, accounting for
costs, across the fleet in the timeframe
of the program. We believe that
simultaneous reductions in fuel sulfur
will be a key factor in enabling the
entire fleet of vehicles subject to Tier 3
to meet the new emission standards inuse, throughout the life of the vehicles
(see Section IV.A.6 below).
We received a large number and wide
range of comments on the proposed
vehicle emission program, and we have
carefully considered all of them. (The
Summary and Analysis of Comments
document addresses the comments
received; it is located in the docket for
this rulemaking and also on EPA’s Web
site at www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm.)
With very few exceptions, we are
finalizing the Tier 3 vehicle emission
program as proposed, including the
levels of the new emission standards
and the phase-in schedules. In several
cases, as discussed in detail below, the
comments and/or newer technical
information have resulted in
adjustments to the proposed program,
including when the requirements begin,
what fuel is used for vehicle compliance
testing, and what the PM standard level
is for testing under aggressive driving
conditions. The final Tier 3 vehicle
provisions, like the proposal, also
harmonize closely with California’s LEV
III program.
This section describes in detail the
program for reducing tailpipe and
evaporative emissions from light-duty
vehicles (LDVs, or passenger cars), lightduty trucks (LDT1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s),
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
(MDPVs), and certain heavy-duty
vehicles (HDVs). Sections IV.A and IV.B
discuss the tailpipe emission standards
and time lines, and other provisions for
new LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs and for
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23449
new heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000
lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR). Section IV.C presents the new
Tier 3 evaporative emissions standards
and program and Section IV.D describes
the new evaporative emissions leak test.
Section IV.E presents improvements to
the existing Onboard Diagnostics (OBD)
provisions. In Section IV.F, we describe
new provisions to update our federal
certification fuel to better match today’s
in-use fuel. We also discuss in this
section the compliance flexibilities for
small auto manufacturing companies
and small-volume manufacturers (IV.G)
as well as new testing and test
procedure provisions and other
compliance provisions (IV.H).
A. Tier 3 Tailpipe Emission Standards
for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty
Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger
Vehicles
1. How the Tier 3 Program Is
Harmonized With the California LEV III
Program
In describing the Tier 3 program for
light- and heavy-duty vehicles in this
preamble, we discuss how the
provisions are consistent with the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
LEV III program.249 During the
development of the proposed rule and
in their comments, auto manufacturers
stressed to us the importance of their
being able to design and produce a
single fleet of vehicles for all 50 states
that simultaneously complies with
requirements under the Tier 3 program
and the LEV III program, as well as
greenhouse gas/CAFE requirements they
are facing in the same timeframe. To the
extent that the federal and California
programs are consistent, special
versions of vehicles with different
emission control hardware and
calibrations for different geographic
areas will be unnecessary. This will
allow manufacturers to avoid the
additional costs of parallel design,
development, calibration, and
manufacturing. Consistency among
programs also eliminates the need to
supply aftermarket parts for repair of
multiple versions of a vehicle. We
believe that the most effective and
efficient national program will result
from close coordination between CARB
LEV III and federal Tier 3 program
elements and their implementation.
249 See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) &
GHG 2012 regulations adopted by the 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 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/
2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm (last accessed
December 2, 2013).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23450
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
To that end, we worked closely with
CARB and the vehicle manufacturers,
the latter both individually and through
their trade associations, to align the two
programs. The Tier 3 program is
identical to LEV III in most major
respects for light-duty vehicles (and
heavy-duty vehicles, as described in
sections below). The levels and the
timing of the declining fleet-average
NMOG+NOX standards are identical to
those in LEV III. The Tier 3 emissions
bins to which manufacturers will certify
individual vehicle models in order to
comply with the fleet-average standards,
are also identical to those in LEV III.
Similarly, the light-duty Tier 3 FTP PM
standards and percent phase-in match
those for LEV III through MY 2024.
We note there are a few light-duty
Tier 3 and LEV III provisions that are
different, for reasons discussed below.
For example, the LEV III program and
the Tier 3 program have different lightduty PM requirements late in the
program (i.e., after MY 2024 (IV.A.3.b.)),
and the two programs have different
final NMOG+NOX standards for small
volume manufacturers (IV.G.1). As also
discussed below, we are finalizing a
revised SFTP (US06) PM standard, and
CARB has commented that it plans to
take similar action in near future. CARB
also indicated in their comments that
they intend to consider several
additional actions to further align
several minor aspects of LEV III with the
Tier 3 program once Tier 3 is finalized.
Beyond the provisions mentioned
above, the differences between the
programs are not major and most will
exist only in the transitional years of the
Tier 3 program. These additional
differences result from the fact that the
LEV III requirements begin slightly
earlier and that a limited phase-in of
some provisions is necessary for a
smooth transition to overall aligned
programs. These temporary differences
include the process for how early
compliance credits are generated and
used (e.g., Section IV.A.7.a); how
quickly manufacturers will need to
move toward certifying all of their
vehicle models to longer useful-life
values (e.g., Section IV.A.7.c) and on the
new test fuel (e.g., Section IV.A.7.d);
and transitional emissions bins to
facilitate the transition from Tier 2 to
Tier 3 (Section IV.A.7.n).
2. Summary of the Tier 3 FTP and SFTP
Tailpipe Standards
a. Major Comments on and Significant
Changes to the Proposal
As mentioned above, we are finalizing
most aspects of the comprehensive Tier
3 vehicle program as we proposed them.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
The levels of the FTP and SFTP
standards for the key tailpipe pollutants
of concern—the sum of NMOG and NOX
emissions, expressed as NMOG+NOX,
and PM—are the same as proposed
(except for the numerically lower final
PM SFTP (US06) standard, as discussed
below). In addition, the timing of the
requirements remains the same as in the
NPRM, starting with MY2017 and
MY2018 and phasing in according to the
same declining fleet-average schedule
for the NMOG+NOX standards and the
same percent-of-sales phase-in schedule
for the PM standards. We continue to
believe that these elements form a
robust framework for the Tier 3 vehicle
program and closely harmonize with the
respective elements of California’s LEV
III program.
There are several important
provisions of the light-duty Tier 3
program that we have revised from the
proposal, based on further consideration
and information that we received from
commenters. We discuss each of these
in detail later in this section and
summarize them here.
• As described below in Section
IV.A.2.c, each of the four primary Tier
3 emission standards has an associated
alternative phase-in option for heavier
light-duty vehicles that a manufacturer
can choose if it prefers a later start date
(to provide 4 years of lead time) and a
stable standard.250 We proposed that a
manufacturer choosing these options be
required to apply the alternative phasein schedule to its entire light-duty fleet.
In response to comments from
automakers that this restriction would
be unnecessarily burdensome, we
reconsidered this provision. For the
reasons discussed below, we are
allowing a manufacturer to apply the
alternative phase-in schedules to only
their heavier light-duty vehicles, instead
of their entire light-duty fleet. However,
manufacturers have largely indicated
that they plan on adopting the primary
program which is harmonized with LEV
III.
• This Tier 3 rule provides an
opportunity for EPA to reassess the
degree to which the gasoline used for
vehicle emissions testing and
certification reflects in-use gasoline
around the country. In the case of
ethanol content, we proposed that the
emissions test fuel contain 15 percent
ethanol (E15), anticipating a significant
shift to higher ethanol content in use in
the near future. For several reasons
described below (Section IV.F.1), this
250 In this preamble, ‘‘heavier light-duty vehicles’’
refers to LDVs and LDTs greater than 6,000 lbs
GVWR and MDPVs, and ‘‘lighter light-duty
vehicles’’ refers to LDVs and LDTs up to 6,000 lbs
GVWR.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
shift in in-use fuel is not materializing
as quickly as expected, and E10
continues to be almost universal today.
We received a near consensus among
comments from stakeholders that E10
test fuel is more appropriate. We agree
that E10 most appropriately reflects inuse gasoline around the country today
and into the foreseeable future, and thus
we are finalizing E10 for the test fuel. In
addition, as discussed in Section IV.F.1,
we are finalizing a fuel volatility
specification for test fuel of 9 psi RVP,
as proposed.
• We are finalizing a set of standards
for PM as measured on the aggressivedriving segment of the SFTP test cycle
(the US06 cycle) based on US06 PM test
data that we published as part of the
NPRM, along with more recent test data
developed by California. Our review of
these data has led us to finalize
numerically lower levels for the US06
PM standards than we proposed. The
data presented in the NPRM as well as
the data provided by California clearly
show that the proposed US06 PM
standards were inappropriately high,
that US06 PM emissions are not closely
related to vehicle weight, and that lower
values for the standards would achieve
the goal of the program to bring all
vehicles in the light-duty fleet to the
US06 PM levels that are being met by
many vehicles today. Based on the body
of available data, we are establishing 6
mg/mi as the long-term US06 PM
standard. (This compares to the
proposed standards of 10 and 20 mg/mi
for lighter and heavier light-duty
vehicles, respectively.) However,
because there remains some uncertainty
about how manufacturers will achieve
this level in the early years of the
program, we are setting the standard at
10 mg/mi for the early years of the
program, for MYs 2017 and 2018.
Similarly, we are providing a lessstringent standard of 10 mg/mi for
testing of in-use vehicles in recognition
of the challenges of the requirements as
vehicles age.
• In the Tier 3 program, as for vehicle
emission control programs in the past,
manufacturers are responsible for the
emissions performance of the vehicle for
a specified ‘‘useful life’’ of the vehicle.
EPA proposed that vehicles meet the
Tier 3 standards for 150,000 miles or 15
years, identical to the LEV III program’s
approach. We proposed an option for
lighter light-duty vehicles to certify to a
shorter useful life of 120,000 miles or 10
(or 11, as applicable) years, as set in the
Tier 2 program. We proposed that
manufacturers certifying to the shorter
useful life would need to meet
numerically lower NMOG+NOX
standards (85 percent of the respective
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
150,000-mile NMOG+NOX standards).
We also proposed that a manufacturer
choosing the shorter useful life for one
vehicle model would need to use that
useful life and associated standards for
all of its lighter vehicles. Auto industry
commenters stated that applying the
provision across a manufacturer’s fleet
would create an onerous compliance
burden. We have reconsidered our
proposed approach, and as discussed in
Section IV.A.7.c below, we will allow a
manufacturer to split its lighter lightduty fleet among models certified for
either the 150,000 mile or 120,000 mile
useful life and associated standards.
• Another area of substantial
comment, primarily from the petroleum
refining industry, questioned the
technological need of auto
manufacturers for lower in-use sulfur
levels in order to meet the Tier 3 vehicle
emission standards. In contrast, auto
manufacturers and emissions control
system manufacturers commented that
lower sulfur gasoline is critical to meet
the Tier 3 standards. After careful
consideration of the comments, we
continue to believe that the large body
of data presented in the NPRM,
supplemented by newer data that
consistently reinforces the earlier
conclusions, strongly supports our
determination of the need for average
in-use gasoline sulfur levels to be at 10
ppm sulfur or lower for manufacturers
to meet the Tier 3 vehicle standards
across their fleets for the useful life of
the vehicles. See Section IV.A.6 below
for a detailed discussion of the need for
gasoline sulfur control.
b. Structure of the Primary Tier 3
Tailpipe Standards
As proposed, compliance with the
standards is based on vehicle testing
using test procedures that represent a
range of vehicle operation, including the
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure
(SFTP). The Tier 3 FTP and SFTP
NMOG+NOX standards are fleet-average
standards, meaning that the
manufacturer calculates the salesweighted average emissions of the
vehicles it sells in each model year,
accounting for any Tier 3 emissions
credits or deficits, and compares that
average to the applicable standard for
that model year. The fleet average
standards for NMOG+NOX evaluated
over the FTP are the same values as
proposed and are summarized in Table
IV–2 and discussed in detail below. For
lighter light-duty vehicles, the standards
begin in MY 2017 at a level representing
a 46 percent reduction from the current
Tier 2 requirements for lighter vehicles
and then become increasingly stringent,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
culminating in an 81 percent reduction
in MY 2025. The FTP NMOG+NOX
program includes separate fleet average
standards for heavier vehicles that begin
in MY 2018 and then converge with the
standards for lighter vehicles at 30
milligrams per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025
and later, as proposed.251 252
Manufacturers will determine their
fleet average FTP NMOG+NOX emission
values as we proposed, based on the
per-vehicle ‘‘bin standards’’ to which
they certify each vehicle model.
Manufacturers will be free to certify
vehicles to any of the bins, so long as
the sales-weighted average of the
NMOG+NOX values from the selected
bins meets the fleet average standard for
that model year. Table IV–1 presents the
per-vehicle bin standards. Similarly, the
fleet average NMOG+NOX standards
measured over the SFTP are
summarized in Table IV–4 and
discussed in detail below. The SFTP
NMOG+NOX fleet average standards
decline from MY 2017 until MY 2025.
In this case, the same standards apply
to both lighter and heavier vehicles. In
MY 2025, the SFTP NMOG+NOX
standard reaches its fully phased-in fleet
average level of 50 mg/mi.
Also as proposed, the new Tier 3 PM
standards apply to each vehicle
separately. The PM standards are pervehicle cap standards and not fleetaverage standards. Also, in contrast to
the declining NMOG+NOX standards,
the PM standard on the FTP is a
constant 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and for
all model years, phasing in to an
increasing percentage of vehicle sales
beginning in MY 2017 for vehicles at or
below 6,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (GVWR) and in MY 2018 for
vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. As
discussed in Section IV.A.3.b above,
based on data generated by EPA and
CARB test programs, most current lightduty vehicles are already performing at
or below the 3 mg/mi level. However,
some vehicles are emitting above this
level, due to such factors as excessive
fueling during cold start and
combustion chamber and fuel system
designs that are not optimized for low
PM emissions. The intent of the 3 mg/
mi standard is to bring all light-duty
vehicles to the PM level typical of that
251 The declining NMOG+NO fleet-average
X
standards consist of one set of declining standards
that applies to light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and small
light trucks (LDT1s) and a second set of declining
standards that applies to heavier light trucks
(LDT2s, LDT3s. LDT4s), and MDPVs.
252 This preamble presents the new Tier 3
standards in terms of milligrams per mile (mg/mi)
for convenience. Throughout the associated Tier 3
regulatory language we continue to present the
standards in terms of grams per mile (g/mi) for
consistency with earlier programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23451
being demonstrated by most light-duty
vehicles today. To address the
uncertainties that will accompany the
introduction of new technologies, the
program 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 proposed, as described in
more detail below.
As presented in Table IV–3, for
vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR,
these FTP PM certification and in-use
standards phase in over several years,
beginning with a requirement that at
least 20 percent of a company’s U.S.
sales of these vehicles comply with the
Tier 3 standards in MY 2017. We are
also finalizing an option for a
manufacturer to choose to certify 10
percent of its total light-duty fleet
sales—including LDVs and LDT over
6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs—to the
Tier 3 FTP PM standards in MY 2017.
Manufacturers would reach a 100
percent compliance requirement in MY
2021.
Finally, the Tier 3 program includes
PM standards evaluated over the US06
cycle (a component of the SFTP test that
captures higher speeds and
accelerations). Based on emissions test
data presented in the NPRM and
additional data submitted in public
comments, and as presented in Table
IV–5 and further discussed in Section
IV.A.4.b below, we are establishing a
single long-term US06 PM standard of 6
mg/mi for both lighter and heavier
vehicles, a level that is numerically
lower than what we proposed. However,
because there remains some uncertainty
about how manufacturers will decide to
achieve this level in the early years of
the program, we are setting the standard
through MY 2018 at 10 mg/mi. The
US06 PM standards phase in using the
same 20–20–40–70–100 percent
schedule, and on the same vehicles, as
the new FTP PM standards. The 10 mg/
mi standard applies in MYs 2017 and
2018 (at a percent-of-sales requirement
of 20 percent, and the long-term 6 mg/
mi standard applies in MYs 2019 and
later, increasing from 40 to 100 percent
of sales. This US06 standard will apply
to the same vehicle models that a
manufacturer chooses to certify to the
FTP PM standard during the percent
phase-in period. As in the case of the
FTP PM standards, the intent of the
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 proposed, we include a separate inuse US06 PM standard during in the
middle years of the program, but at a
different numerical level and during
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23452
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
different years than proposed (as
discussed in Section IV.A.4.b below).
We did not propose new emission
requirements for any vehicle or fuel
over the cold temperature test cycles
(i.e., the 20 °F cold carbon monoxide
(CO) and non-methane hydrocarbon
(NMHC) tests), but requested comment
on that decision. Only the automakers
commented on this topic, agreeing with
EPA’s approach of not changing its cold
temperature requirements. As indicated
in the proposal, we are not establishing
any new cold temperature requirements
in this rule.
c. Alternate Phase-In Schedules
For heavier light-duty vehicles (i.e.,
LDVs and LDTs greater than 6,000 lbs
GVWR, plus MDPVs), EPA is also
finalizing alternative phase-in schedules
for each of the four primary vehicle
emission standards: FTP NMOG+NOX,
FTP PM, SFTP NMOG+NOX, and US06
PM.253 These alternative phase-ins are
available if a manufacturer prefers stable
standards and four full years of lead
time, as specified in the Clean Air Act
for heavier vehicles. We describe each
of the alternative phase-ins in more
detail below, including several ways in
which we have revised the proposed
provisions.
EPA received comment on the
proposed alternative phase-in
provisions, primarily from automakers
and their trade associations. These
comments questioned whether the
proposed structure of and restrictions
on the use of the alternative phase-ins
were so onerous as to unduly restrict a
manufacturer from choosing the
alternative phase-ins and their lead time
and stability provisions as set forth in
the Clean Air Act. The commenters
criticized the proposed requirement that
a manufacturer using the alternative
phase-ins apply the alternative
schedules to its entire light-duty fleet,
both below and above 6,000 lbs GVWR.
EPA had proposed this provision to
minimize the complexity of complying
with the alternative phase-in if a
manufacturer’s heavier and lighter lightduty vehicles had different compliance
structures.
In consideration of these concerns, we
have removed from the alternative
phase-in provisions the requirement
that a manufacturer apply the
alternative schedules to its entire lightduty fleet including vehicles below
6,000 lbs GVWR. For the practical
functioning of the program, the final
rule requires that any manufacturer
choosing to use the alternative phase-in
253 Tier 3 standards for CO and HCHO phase in
with the NMOG+NOX standards, as applicable.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
apply all four alternative phase-in
schedules to its entire light-duty fleet
above 6,000 lbs GVWR. We believe that
the alternative phase-ins allow
manufacturers to comply with emission
standards in a time frame that is clearly
feasible and fully compliant with the
CAA requirements for lead time and
regulatory stability. To the extent that
manufacturers choose to use them, the
alternative would result in overall
emission reductions essentially
identical to those of the primary
program.
The alternative phase-in schedules
would begin to apply to each vehicle for
either MY 2019 or MY 2020, depending
on exactly when the manufacturer
begins production of the vehicle. (See
Section 86.1811–17(b)(8)(i) for how we
implement this provision.) For models
that begin MY 2019 production after the
fourth anniversary of the signing of this
final rule, the alternative phase-in
would provide four full years of lead
time and would first apply for MY 2019.
The phase-in obligation would be
calculated based only on those vehicles
beginning production after the fourth
anniversary date. For models beginning
production before that date, the
alternative phase-in would first apply
for MY 2020, and the phase-in
percentage for MY 2020 would be based
on the manufacturer’s entire fleet of
heavier light-duty vehicles. Based on
historical certification patterns, few
models begin production before midcalendar-year, so we expect that the vast
majority of MY 2019 vehicles will begin
production after the 4-year anniversary
and thus the alternative phase-ins, if
chosen, will typically apply beginning
in MY 2019.
At the time of certification for MY
2018, a manufacturer must declare
whether it intends to apply the
alternative phase-in schedules to its
heavier light-duty vehicles. A
manufacturer choosing the alternative
phase-ins would be committed to this
phase-in approach for the duration of
the phase-ins, and could not later
choose the fleet-average approach for
NMOG+NOX standards. For all vehicles
below 6,000 lbs GVWR, the primary
program will apply, beginning in MY
2017. For a manufacture’s vehicles
subject to the alternative phase-ins,
there would be no new tailpipe
emissions requirements beyond the Tier
2 program until the beginning of the
alternative phase-in schedules; that is,
MY 2019 or 2020, as explained above.
As discussed above, a manufacturer
choosing the alternative phase-in
approach for its heavier light-duty
vehicles would be required to use all
four phase-ins together. The next
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
paragraphs explain how each of the
alternative phase-ins requires an
increasing percent of the manufacturer’s
sales to comply with the alternative
standards. Thus, until the end of the
phase-ins, some percent of a
manufacturer’s affected vehicles will
meet the new standard and the
remainder of that year’s sales will not
yet comply with Tier 3. For the practical
functioning of the program, a
manufacturer choosing the alternative
phase-ins would be required to comply
with exactly the same segment of their
fleet in each model year for all four
alternative phase-ins. For example, a
manufacturer that complies with the 70
percent MY 2020 requirement for the
FTP NMOG+NOX standard with a
segment of its vehicle fleet must meet
the 70 percent MY 2020 requirement for
the FTP PM standard with the same set
of vehicles. Vehicles covered by the
alternative phase-in programs would be
considered ‘‘Final Tier 3’’ vehicles and
thus would also need to comply with
the Tier 3 certification fuel and full
useful life provisions.
For the FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX
alternative phase-in schedules, once the
phase-in is complete for a segment of a
manufacturer’s fleet, the standards
continue for that set of vehicles through
MY 2024, after which the full Tier 3
program applies regardless of the phasein strategy. Thus, the fleet-average
standards that decline through MY 2024
do not apply for these vehicles.
Although manufacturers would
implement all four alternative phase-in
schedules together, as discussed above,
each alternative phase-in has unique
characteristics. The following
paragraphs explain the unique
provisions of each.
(1) Alternative Phase-In Schedule for
the FTP NMOG+NOX Standard
Instead of the primary FTP
NMOG+NOX declining fleet average
standards, a manufacturer choosing the
alternative phase-ins would comply
with a stable fleet average FTP
NMOG+NOX standard of 30 mg/mi that
would apply to an increasing percentage
of a manufacturer’s combined sales of
LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR
and MDPVs. This percent phase-in
would match the percentages in the
primary PM percent phase-in schedule,
as discussed above—specifically, 40
percent of MY 2019 heavier light-duty
vehicles (excluding those vehicles with
production beginning before the 4-year
anniversary), 70 percent of all of its
heavier light-duty vehicles in MY 2020,
and 100 percent compliance in MY 2021
and later model years.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23453
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Alternative Phase-In Schedule for
the FTP PM Standard
(4) Alternative Phase-In Schedule for
the US06 PM Standard
Instead of the primary FTP PM
percent phase-in schedule, a
manufacturer choosing the alternative
phase-ins would postpone the beginning
of its FTP PM phase-in for its LDVs and
LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and
MDPVs until MY 2019 or 2020
(depending on the dates production
begins for its vehicle models, as
discussed above). The manufacturer
would then comply with the 3 mg/mi
per-vehicle FTP PM standard (and the 6
mg/mi in-use standard) on an increasing
percentage of these vehicles, following
the 40–70–100 percentage phase-in of
the primary PM program—specifically,
40 percent of MY 2019 heavier lightduty vehicles (excluding those vehicles
with production beginning before the 4year anniversary), 70 percent of all of its
heavier light-duty vehicles in MY 2020,
and 100 percent compliance in MY 2021
and later model years.
Finally, instead of the primary US06
PM percent phase-in schedule, a
manufacturer choosing the alternative
phase-ins would postpone the beginning
of the US06 phase-in for its LDVs and
LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and
MDPVs until MY 2019 or 2020
(depending on the dates production
begins for its vehicle models, as
discussed above). The manufacturer
would then comply with the 10 mg/mi
US06 PM standard for 40 percent of MY
2019 heavier light-duty vehicles
(excluding those vehicles with
production beginning before the 4-year
anniversary), 70 percent of all of its
heavier light-duty vehicles in MY 2020,
with 100 percent compliance in MY
2021, and then 100 percent compliance
with the 6 mg/mi standard in MY 2022
and later model years.
The next sections describe in more
detail the new Tier 3 standards, how
they will be implemented over time,
and the technological approaches that
we believe are or will be available to
manufacturers in order to comply.
(3) Alternative Phase-In Schedule for
the SFTP NMOG+NOX Standard
As with the other alternative phaseins, instead of the primary SFTP
NMOG+NOX declining fleet average
standards, a manufacturer choosing the
alternative phase-ins would comply
with a stable fleet average SFTP
NMOG+NOX standard of 50 mg/mi that
would apply to an increasing percentage
of a manufacturer’s combined sales of
LDVs and LDTs above 6000 lbs GVWR
and MDPVs. This percent phase-in
again would match the percentages in
the primary PM percent phase-in
schedule, as discussed above—
specifically, 40 percent of MY 2019
heavier light-duty vehicles (excluding
those vehicles with production
beginning before the 4-year
anniversary), 70 percent of all of its
heavier light-duty vehicles in MY 2020,
and 100 percent compliance in MY 2021
and later model years.
3. FTP Standards
As summarized above, we are
finalizing, largely as proposed, 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
The Tier 3 NMOG and NOX standards
are expressed in terms of the sum of the
two pollutants—NMOG+NOX in mg/
mi.254 We received no comments
recommending a different approach.
The California LEV III standards are also
expressed as NMOG+NOX; aligning Tier
3 with LEV III is an important element
of facilitating a national program.
EPA received a number of comments
about how the proposed NMOG+NOX
standards transition from the existing
Tier 2 standards, but there was little
comment recommending different levels
of the standards themselves, especially
later in the program. Based on our
extensive evaluation of existing and
emerging vehicle technologies (see
Section IV.A.5) and the level of sulfur
in gasoline that will be available during
the implementation timeframe of this
rule, and considering the comments we
received, we continue to believe that the
fully phased-in level for the fleetaverage FTP NMOG+NOX standard of 30
mg/mi is the most stringent level that
we can reasonably establish. As
discussed in Sections IV.A.5 and IV.A.6
below, when necessary margins of
compliance and the demonstrated
effects of fuel sulfur on emissions
performance are considered, the 30 mg/
mi standard is effectively very close to
zero. The 30 mg/mi Tier 3 NMOG+NOX
standard is also consistent with the final
LEV III standard.
A key compliance mechanism
adapted from the Tier 2 program is a
‘‘bin’’ structure for the FTP emission
standards. For these purposes, a bin is
a set of several standards that must be
complied with as a group. Thus, as
proposed, each FTP Tier 3 bin has an
NMOG+NOX standard and a PM
standard, as well as CO and HCHO
standards.
We intend for the Tier 3 CO and
HCHO standards to prevent new engine
and emission control designs that result
in increases in CO and HCHO
emissions, compared to levels being
achieved today. The standards are based
on the comparable current LEV II and
Tier 2 bin standards for these pollutants,
which we believe are sufficiently
protective at this time. There were no
comments on the proposed CO and
HCHO standards. The current standards
are not technology-forcing, and we
believe that this will continue to be the
case as Tier 3 technologies are
developed.
Table IV–1 presents the bin structure
for light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck,
and MDPV FTP standards.
TABLE IV–1—TIER 3 FTP STANDARDS FOR LDVS, LDTS AND MDPVS
[mg/mi]
NMOG+NOX
(mg/mi)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
160 ........................................................................................................................................
125 ........................................................................................................................................
70 ..........................................................................................................................................
50 ..........................................................................................................................................
254 See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) &
GHG 2012 regulations adopted by the State of
California Air Resources Board, March 22, 2012,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Resolution 12–21 incorporating by reference
Resolution 12–11, which was adopted January 26,
2012. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
PMa
(mg/mi)
160
125
70
50
CO
(g/mi)
3
3
3
3
4.2
2.1
1.7
1.7
HCHO
(mg/mi)
4
4
4
4
2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm (last accessed
December 2, 2013).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23454
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV–1—TIER 3 FTP STANDARDS FOR LDVS, LDTS AND MDPVS—Continued
[mg/mi]
PMa
(mg/mi)
NMOG+NOX
(mg/mi)
Bin
Bin 30 ..........................................................................................................................................
Bin 20 ..........................................................................................................................................
Bin 0 ............................................................................................................................................
30
20
0
CO
(g/mi)
3
3
0
HCHO
(mg/mi)
1.0
1.0
0
4
4
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, the same
Tier 3 standards apply to all LDVs,
LDTs, or MDPVs, regardless of the fuel
they use, as proposed. That is, vehicles
certified to operate on any fuel (e.g.,
gasoline, diesel fuel, E85, CNG, LNG,
hydrogen, and methanol) are all subject
to the same standards.
The Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards as
measured on the FTP will reduce the
combined fleet-average emissions
gradually from MY 2017 through 2025,
as shown in Table IV–2 below.
Beginning in MY 2017, there are two
separate sets of fleet-average standards
for, first, LDVs and LDT1s and, second,
all other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and
LDT4s) and MDPVs. Both fleet-average
standards decline annually, converging
in MY 2025. These declining average
standards are identical to CARB’s LEV
III standards.255
As proposed and as discussed above
(Section IV.A.2.a), the declining fleetaverage NMOG+NOX FTP standards
begin in MY 2017 for light-duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks with a GVWR up
to and including 6,000 lbs and in MY
2018 for light-duty vehicles and lightduty trucks with a GVWR greater than
6,000 lbs and MDPVs. The standards
apply to the heavier vehicles a year later
to facilitate the transition to a 50-state
program for all manufacturers. During
this transition period, as described
above, there will be two fleet-average
NMOG+NOX standards for each model
year, one for LDVs and LDT1s and one
for all other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and
LDT4s) and for MDPVs that decline
essentially linearly from MY 2017
through MY 2025. At that point, the two
fleet-average standards converge and
stabilize for all later model years at the
same level, 30 mg/mi, as shown in Table
IV–2.
TABLE IV–2—TIER 3 LDV, LDT, AND MDPV FLEET AVERAGE FTP NMOG+NOX STANDARDS
[mg/mi]
Model year
2017 a
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
and
later
86
101
79
92
72
83
65
74
58
65
51
56
44
47
37
38
30
..........
LDV/LDT1 b ........................................................................................
LDT2,3,4 and MDPV ..........................................................................
a For
LDVs and LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the fleet average standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers can choose to certify their LDVs and LDV1s to a useful life of 120,000
miles. If a vehicle model is certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet average standard applies, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg/mi. See Section IV.A.7.c.
b These
As discussed above (Section IV.A.2.c),
for LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs
GVWR and MDPVs, EPA is also
providing an alternative phase-in of the
fleet-average 30 mg/mi FTP
NMOG+NOX standard.
We are establishing new FTP
standards for PM emissions at the
proposed levels—3 mg/mi, with a
temporary standard of 6 mg/mi for inuse vehicle testing—as summarized in
Table IV–3 below. These levels are
intended to ensure that all new vehicles
will perform at a level representing
what is already being achieved by welldesigned emission control technologies
today.
Many commenters were either silent
on or supportive of the proposed FTP
PM standard levels. However, some
commenters—including CARB and
several NGOs and auto industry
suppliers—supported a more stringent
standard of 1 mg/mi, which the
California LEV III program phases in
beginning in MY 2025. After detailed
consideration of these comments and
information available at this time, we
continue to believe that the PM
standards that we are finalizing for the
federal Tier 3 program are the most
stringent technically feasible standards
within the implementation timeframe of
this rule. (See Section 1.5.1 of the RIA.)
We will continue to work closely with
CARB in this area. Specifically, our
agencies will continue our parallel
evaluations of how improved
gravimetric PM measurement methods
can reduce PM mass measurement
variability at very low PM levels and
how this relates to the evolving
technological capabilities of automakers
to reach very low PM levels with
sufficient compliance margins.
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 operation, PM control is less
effective, especially the oxidation by the
catalytic converter of semi-volatile
organic compounds from the lubricating
oil. We believe that for vehicles that are
not already at the Tier 3 levels, the new
255 See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) &
GHG 2012 regulations adopted by the 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 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/
2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm (last accessed
January 14, 2014).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
b. FTP PM Standards
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23455
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
standards can be achieved with
improvements to the fuel controls
during the cold start, without the need
for any new technology or hardware. We
also expect that manufacturers will pay
close attention to maintaining low PM
emissions during the implementation of
newer technologies like gasoline direct
injection (GDI) and turbocharged
engines. Improvements in cold-start
exhaust catalyst performance for
NMOG+NOX control will also reduce
emissions of semi-volatile organic PM.
For these reasons, cold start PM levels
are relatively independent of vehicle
application and therefore we are
finalizing a single FTP PM standard for
all light-duty vehicles, as proposed.
Unlike the NMOG+NOX FTP
standard, it is not necessary for the FTP
PM standard to phase in on a declining
curve over time, since most
manufacturers are already producing
vehicles that meet the new standards.
We are finalizing the proposed PM FTP
percent-of-sales phase-in during the first
5 years of the Tier 3 program in
response to concerns expressed by
automakers about logistical, facilities,
and compliance challenges with a
standard in the range of 3 mg/mi in the
early years of the program. Beginning in
MY 2017 (and in MY 2018 for LDVs and
LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR and
MDPVs), manufacturers will need to
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 need to comply increases each year,
reaching 100 percent in MY 2021. In
addition to this percent phase-in, we are
also establishing, as proposed, a
separate PM standard of 6 mg/mi that
will 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
will 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 will likely choose a
single large-volume durability group to
meet the 2017 requirements, we are also
including an option that a manufacturer
could use to comply with the MY 2017
PM requirements. Under this option, a
manufacturer may choose to certify 10
percent of its total light-duty vehicle
sales in MY 2017 to the new PM
standards, including light-duty vehicles
over 6,000 lbs. This approach is
consistent with the CARB LEV III
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 limiting the number of tests using
the new procedures that a manufacturer
needs to perform at certification and
during in-use testing, as proposed.
Specifically, manufacturers will only 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).256
Manufacturers may select which
durability groups to test, but will need
to rotate the groups tested each year to
eventually cover their whole fleet.
Similarly, manufacturers performing inuse testing under the In-Use Verification
Program can limit their testing to 50
percent of their low- and high-mileage
test vehicles. Again, manufacturers will
need to rotate their vehicle models so
that each model will be tested every
other year. Overall, we believe that the
flexibility that these provisions provide
will facilitate the expeditious
implementation of the Tier 3 program,
with no significant impact on the
benefits of the program.
TABLE IV–3—SUMMARY OF TIER 3 LDV, LDT, AND MDPV FTP STANDARDS
Model year
Program element
Units
Notes
2017 a
NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet average) .......................................
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023+
Per declining fleet averages (see Table IV–2) b
mg/mi ..
PM Standards
Phase-in ......................................................................................
% .........
20c
20
40
70
100
100
100
FTP:
Certification ..........................................................................
In-use ...................................................................................
mg/mi ..
mg/mi ..
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
3
3
3
Note d.
Note e.
a For
LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the FTP PM standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
percent phase-in does not apply to the declining fleet average standards.
comply in MY 2017 with 20 percent of their LDV and LDT fleet under 6,000 lbs GVWR, or alternatively with 10 percent of their
total LDV, LDT, and MDPV fleet.
d Manufacturers must test 25 percent of each model year’s durability groups, and a minimum of 2.
e Manufacturers must test 50 percent of their combined low- and high- mileage in-use vehicles.
b The
c Manufacturers
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
As discussed in Section IV.A.2.c
above, for LDVs and LDTs above 6,000
lbs GVWR and MDPVs, EPA is
providing an alternative phase-in of the
3 mg/mi FTP PM standard.
4. SFTP Standards
In addition to addressing vehicle
emissions during typical driving, as
addressed by the FTP standards
presented above, the Tier 3 program also
addresses emissions during more severe
driving conditions. Thus, we are
finalizing NMOG+NOX and PM
standards as measured on the SFTP. The
SFTP (and specifically the US06
component of the test) is designed to
simulate, among other conditions,
higher speeds and higher acceleration
rates, and thus higher loads. As
described below, most commenters were
supportive of or silent on the proposed
SFTP NMOG+NOX standards and the
associated declining fleet-average phasein schedule, but several commenters
stated that the level of the standards
should be more stringent than proposed.
Based on our analysis of the stringency
256 Durability groups are a subset of engine
families. Several engine families may have the same
durability group.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23456
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
of the program, discussed in Section
IV.A.5 below and in Chapter 1 of the
RIA, we disagree that more stringent
SFTP NMOG+NOX standards are
necessary or appropriate at this time,
and we are finalizing the standards and
phase-in schedule as proposed.
However, we are finalizing more
stringent SFTP standards for PM, which
focus on the US06 test component,
based on newer data and public
comments. These are also described
below.
The Tier 3 SFTP standards are
necessary to address emissions during
high-load conditions, when engines can
go into a fuel ‘‘enrichment’’ mode and
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. We are finalizing these SFTP
standards, as well as limitations on the
amount of enrichment that drivers can
command (see Section IV.A.4.c below)
to address this important source of
vehicle emission.
We are also finalizing an SFTP
composite CO standard of 4.2 g/mi for
all model years 2017 (or 2018 for LDVs
and LDTs over 6000 lbs GVWR and
MDPVs) 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 are finalizing the Tier 3 SFTP
NMOG+NOX standards and declining
fleet-average phase-in schedule as
proposed and as presented in Table IV–
5 below. Most commenters were
generally supportive of these standards
or silent about them. However, several
commenters stated that the proposed
standards are too lenient, based on their
evaluation of vehicle emission test data
we presented in the NPRM. We have
considered these comments and have
reviewed the data from the NPRM. Our
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
conclusion from that data continues to
be that the SFTP NMOG+NOX emission
levels that we are finalizing ensure that
manufacturers essentially eliminate fuel
enrichment events and their emissions
consequences, thereby resulting in
important emissions reductions. See
Chapter 1 of the RIA for an analysis of
this data. We do not believe that
significant additional reductions would
result from SFTP weighted NMOG+NOX
standards more stringent than the 50
mg/mi fully phased-in level. In
addition, we believe that the 50 mg/mi
standard will ensure that the SFTP
performance of future vehicles with
future technologies continues to be
comparable to that of the current fleet.
The SFTP emissions value for
certification of gaseous pollutants will
continue to be calculated as a weighted
composite value of emissions on three
cycles (0.35 × FTP + 0.28 × US06 + 0.37
× SC03), as is done for the Tier 2 SFTP
standards.
To provide flexibility in meeting the
fleet-average standards, manufacturers
will, as proposed, determine the specific
SFTP composite standard for each
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 will choose any
composite NMOG+NOX standard, up to
180 mg/mi, in even 10 mg/mi
increments. The manufacturer will 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 fleetaverage standards for that model year.
Table IV–4 presents the declining fleetaverage SFTP NMOG+NOX standards.
As discussed in Section IV.A.2.c
above, for LDVs and LDTs above 6,000
lbs GVWR and MDPVs, EPA is
providing an alternative phase-in of the
50 mg/mi SFTP NMOG+NOX standard.
b. US06 PM Standards
We are finalizing a single short-term
US06 PM standard of 10 mg/mi for MYs
2017 and 2018 (or only for MY 2018 for
LDVs and LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR
and MDPVs) and a single long-term
standard of 6 mg/mi for MY 2019 and
later. These standards are numerically
lower than those we proposed, and less
complex in their structure. As discussed
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
below and in Chapter 1 of the RIA, a
substantial body of more recent PM data
from a variety of vehicles tested on the
US06 cycle has given us greater
understanding of the feasible level of
control of these emissions, both
currently and in the timeframe of the
Tier 3 standards, including what level of
control we may reasonably require for
the light-duty fleet. The standards we
are finalizing reflect this review. Much
of the more recent data was developed
late in the development of the NPRM
and, although we made it available in
the rulemaking docket to inform
potential commenters, the proposed
standards did not reflect consideration
of the newer data. Since the NPRM,
additional data from CARB have become
available, and we have considered all of
this information in finalizing the US06
PM standards.
We believe that the fully phased-in
US06 PM standard of 6 mg/mi will
achieve the goal that we presented in
the NPRM—to maintain the
performance being achieved by current
well-performing vehicles taking into
account reasonable compliance margins.
Comments from stakeholders
representing states, including CARB,
and several NGOs urged EPA to finalize
more stringent standards than those
proposed, in some cases advocating for
standards below 6 mg/mi. Conversely,
auto industry commenters generally
supported the proposed standards. We
have concluded that the body of recent
data clearly shows that the long-term 6
mg/mi standard, is the appropriate level
to prevent any significant ‘‘backsliding’’
in US06 PM emissions as new vehicles
and technologies enter the fleet. At the
same time, the 6 mg/mi standard
provides a reasonable compliance
margin—about 50% above the average
levels of current vehicles, which are
averaging about 4 mg/mi. A long-term
standard numerically lower than 6 mg/
mi would run counter to our intent to
bring the emissions performance of all
vehicles to that already being
demonstrated by many vehicles in the
current light-duty fleet. We believe the
long-term US06 PM standard we are
finalizing is appropriate based on all of
the information available at this time
and will not hinder introduction of new
technologies manufacturers may choose
for compliance with the other Tier 3
standards or other rules.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23457
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
that because of the industry’s general
lack of experience with stringent PM
standards, especially as the newlydesigned vehicles age, less stringent
standards for in-use testing would
reduce near-term concerns about
performance variability early in the
program. We agree, and we are
finalizing a separate standard of 10 mg/
mi for in-use vehicle testing for the
intermediate years of the program, MYs
2019 through MY 2023. This standard is
numerically lower than the proposed inuse standards—again because of the
availability of improved US06 test data
as described above—but the purpose of
providing an in-use standard remains
the same. The in-use standard, in
conjunction with the short-term 10 mg/
mi standard represents a longer duration
for the in-use standard than we had
proposed, again based on comments
from the industry about their
compliance concerns with new US06
standards. For MY 2024 and later, there
will be no separate in-use standard and
all vehicles will need to meet the longterm standard at certification and in use.
EPA proposed that different US06 PM
standards apply to lighter and heavier
vehicles. The newer US06 PM test data
discussed above also make clear that the
US06 PM performance of current
vehicles is not closely related to vehicle
weight, although the earlier data had
indicated that this might be the case.
Several commenters urged EPA to
finalize a single standard for vehicles
above and below 6,000 lbs GVWR based
on the newer data. At the same time,
auto manufacturers generally supported
The short-term, less-stringent US06
standard of 10 mg/mi (applicable in
MYs 2017 and 2018) responds to
automaker concerns about uncertainties
stemming from simultaneous regulatory
requirements and rapidly evolving
exhaust and engine technologies in the
coming years. We recognize that vehicle
control technologies for both criteria
and GHG emissions are evolving and
will continue to do so, including an
expected expansion of gasoline direct
injection (GDI) technologies (see
IV.A.5.c and the RIA). Also, the
transition to lower sulfur in-use gasoline
required by this rule may create
temporary additional challenges in
consistently achieving lower US06 PM
emissions (see IV.A.6 and the RIA). We
believe that most manufacturers will
implement similar if not identical
emission control strategies to comply
(or, more often, to continue to comply
with) with both the 10 mg/mi and the
6 mg/mi standards. In so doing, we
expect them to use the temporary
additional compliance margin provided
by the 10 mg/mi standard to reduce
uncertainties about potential variability
in performance (in use and, in
particular, later in vehicle life) during
the early years of developing and
commercializing their control
technologies.257
The 10 mg/mi standard will expire
after MY 2018, and the long-term
standard of 6 mg/mi will take effect. As
the implementation of the program
continues, we believe a limited degree
of relief for testing of in-use vehicles is
appropriate. Manufacturers commented
the proposed vehicle weight distinction,
asserting a higher degree of uncertainty
about the emission performance of their
larger vehicles, especially in the early
years of the program and in light of
simultaneous technology challenges.
The newer data clearly show that larger
vehicles today are generally achieving
US06 PM levels very similar to smaller
vehicles, and well below the proposed
standards. We are not finalizing separate
US06 standards for heavier and lighter
vehicles because separate standards are
unwarranted based on a review of the
newer data. However, we believe that
the short-term 10 mg/mi standard, as
well as the temporary in-use vehicle
testing standard, will significantly
reduce manufacturer compliance
uncertainties in the early years of the
program for all vehicles, as discussed
above.
As with the FTP PM standards,
manufacturers will comply with the
US06 PM standards with the same
increasing minimum percentage of their
vehicles, as shown in Table IV.5. Also
as with the FTP PM phase-in, we are
providing the option for a manufacturer
to choose to certify 10 percent of its
total light-duty vehicle sales in MY 2017
to the new US06 PM standards,
including light-duty vehicles over 6,000
lbs GVWR.
As discussed in Section IV.A.2.c
above, for LDVs and LDTs more than
6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, EPA is
also providing an alternative phase-in of
the US06 PM standards.
All of the SFTP/US06 standards are
shown in Table IV–4 and Table IV–5.
TABLE IV–4—TIER 3 LDV, LDT, AND MDPV SFTP COMPOSITE FLEET AVERAGE STANDARDS
Model year
2017 a
NMOG+NOX (mg/mi) ......................
2018
103
2019
97
2020
90
2021
83
77
2023
70
2025
and
later
2024
63
57
50
4.2 a
CO (g/mi) ........................................
a For
2022
LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the NMOG+NOX and CO standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
TABLE IV–5—SUMMARY OF LDV, LDT, AND MDPV TIER 3 SFTP STANDARDS
Model year
Program element
Units
Notes
2017 a
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet average) .........
% .........
257 We note that the purpose of the percent phasein schedule for the FTP and US06 PM standards is
to facilitate the expansion of manufacturers’ PM
testing facilities, which have been relatively limited
in their availability prior to these new emission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
2019
2020
20 c
20
40
70
standards. While effectively providing more time
for technology development as well as for
expansion of facilities, we believe that the PM
standards are designed to be fully feasible in the
early years of the program and do not themselves
PO 00000
2021
2022
2023
2024+
Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV–4) b
mg/mi ..
PM Standards:
Phase-in .................................................
2018
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
100
100
100
100
require the phase-in relief, especially given the
short-term 10 mg/mi standard and the temporary
relaxed in-use testing standards.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23458
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV–5—SUMMARY OF LDV, LDT, AND MDPV TIER 3 SFTP STANDARDS—Continued
Model year
Program element
Units
Notes
2017 a
US06:
LDV, LDT, MDPV: Certification .............
LDV, LDT, MDPV: In-Use ......................
mg/mi ..
2018
10
2019
10
2020
6
10
6
10
2021
6
10
2022
6
10
2023
6
10
2024+
6
Note d.
a For
LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
percent phase-in does not apply to the declining fleet average standards.
comply in MY 2017 with 20 percent of their LDV and LDT fleet under 6,000 lbs GVWR, or alternatively with 10 percent of their
total LDV, LDT, and MDPV fleet.
d Manufacturers must test 25 percent of each model year’s durability groups, minimum of 2.
b The
c Manufacturers
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
c. Enrichment Limitation for SparkIgnition Engines
To prevent emissions that result from
excessive enrichment from auxiliary
emission control devices (AECD) that
are substantially present during the
SFTP cycles, we are finalizing
limitations on the magnitude of
enrichment that can be commanded,
including enrichment episodes
encountered during in-use operation.
During conditions where enrichment is
demonstrated to be present on the SFTP,
the nominal air-to-fuel ratio cannot be
richer at any time than the leanest airto-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 will 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-tofuel ratio required at a speed and load
point with a fixed spark advance to
make peak torque. Specifically, an
increase in fuel will 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. One manufacturer commented that
there is no universally accepted
definition or procedure to determine
LBT so we should retain the Tier 2 LBT
requirements. We believe that the
proposed definition provides sufficient
clarity and will generally agree with
most manufacturers’ internal definition
of LBT. Additionally, we are finalizing
the flexibility that manufacturers may
request approval of an alternative LBT
definition for a unique technology or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
control strategy. The Agency may
determine that an enrichment amount is
excessive or not necessary and therefore
deem that the approach does not meet
the air-to-fuel ratio requirements.
Enrichment required for thermal
protection will continue to be allowed
upon demonstration of necessity to the
Agency, based upon temperature
limitations of the engine or exhaust
components. Manufacturers will 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 industryreported thermal protection
requirements.
A manufacturer commented that this
requirement to report enrichment
requirements for component protection
for every application is burdensome and
unnecessary. EPA believes that closer
review of off-cycle enrichment by the
agency, including enrichment for
component protection, is necessary to
ensure emissions are well controlled
under all operating conditions. While
this requirement may in some cases
require additional resources at
certification, this information has
generally been required to be
maintained by manufactures to support
use of enrichment as an auxiliary
emission control device (AECD) and
therefore should be an exercise of
reporting existing records for most
manufacturers.
The requirements described in this
section apply for vehicles certified to
any of the Tier 3 standards.
5. Feasibility of the NMOG+NOX and
PM Standards
In the proposal, we concluded that all
of the Tier 3 emissions standards are
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
technologically feasible in the time
frame of the program. The technical
conclusions we reached at that time
have been further reinforced by
information we received in the public
comments or has otherwise become
available and placed in the docket for
this rulemaking. After considering the
comments received and with additional
supporting information in Chapter 1 of
the RIA, we conclude that the Tier 3
standards are feasible and reasonable,
considering lead-time provided and
expected compliance costs.
For each of the emission standards,
the lead time provided by the 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 rulemaking. For
example, many of the technologies that
manufacturers have begun to develop
for model years 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
national program. Similarly,
manufacturers have been producing
some limited vehicle offerings since as
early as MY 2000 that comply with our
final MY 2025 standards in response to
the CARB PZEV requirements. In
addition, as described above, our
program incorporates a number of
phase-in provisions that will ease the
transition to compliance, including time
some manufacturers may need to install
PM testing capability and to ramp up
production on a national scale. 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
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
Tier 3 NMOG+NOX and PM standards
or similar levels. EPA has assessed the
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emissions control challenges
manufacturers will 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
Tier 3 program will 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 will be certified on
gasoline with a fuel sulfur content of 10
ppm and operated on in-use gasoline
with an average of 10 ppm sulfur.258
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.A.6 below and
further discussed in the RIA. This
assessment reinforces the critical role of
gasoline sulfur control in making it
possible for EPA to establish 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
Tier 2 vehicle emissions as well as our
projections of how we expect that sulfur
will affect compliance on vehicles with
standards in the range of the Tier 3
standards. The projections are based on
extensive EPA testing of Tier 2 vehicles
as well as targeted evaluation of
passenger cars and heavier trucks
performing at or near the Tier 3 Bin 30
(30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX) including
manufacturer supplied data of a
prototype Tier 3 light-duty truck as
discussed in Section IV.6.
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 will 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
258 Our
technology, feasibility, and cost
assessments are also consistent with an assumption
that certification fuel will contain 10 percent
ethanol and will have other properties as specified
in Section IV.F below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
applications (e.g., 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 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 final program.
a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
The Tier 3 emission requirements
include stringent NMOG+NOX
standards on the FTP that will require
new vehicle hardware in order to
achieve the 30 mg/mi fleet average level
in MY 2025. The type of new hardware
that will be required will vary
depending on the specific application
and emission challenges. Smaller
vehicles with corresponding smaller
engines will generally need less new
hardware while larger vehicles may
need additional hardware and
improvements beyond what will be
needed for the smaller vehicles. While
some vehicles, especially larger light
trucks, may face higher costs in meeting
the standards, it is important to
remember that not every vehicle needs
to meet the standard. The 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 standards. We believe that the
availability of the less-stringent bins
will allow for the balancing of feasibility
and cost considerations of compliance
strategies 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
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23459
follow a similar trend with the 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
will face in meeting the lower fleet
average emission standards. Each of
these considerations is described in
greater detail below.
The current Tier 2 federal fleet is
certified to an average of Tier 2 Bin 5,
equivalent to 160 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX.259 As an example, for MY
2009 when the Tier 2 program was fully
implemented across all vehicle types, 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 trend has generally
continued through MY 2013 as the most
recent certification results indicate that
manufacturers are continuing to certify
primarily to Tier 2 Bin 5 standards for
the federal fleet however there has been
a shift to more certifications using the
cleaner bins as discussed in the RIA.
This is not an unexpected result as there
is no motivation prior to
implementation of the Tier 3
rulemaking for vehicle manufacturers to
produce a federal fleet that overcomplies with respect to the existing
Tier 2 standards. By comparison, in the
California fleet where compliance with
the declining fleet average NMOG
requirement and the ‘‘PZEV’’ program
requires 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 cleaner bins such as Tier
2 Bin 3 and 4. The situation regarding
the truck fleet in California is similarly
stratified, with 37 percent of the LDT2s
through LDT4s being certified to Tier 2
259 The 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. The NOX fleet-average
requirement of .07 gm/mi is the same level as the
Bin 5 NOX standard.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23460
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Bin 5 and 55 percent being certified to
the cleaner Tier 2 Bin 3 and 4. In many
cases identical vehicles are being
certified to a lower standard in
California and a higher standard
federally simply because there is no
incentive to over perform to the federal
standards. 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 currently
be certified to a lower federal fleet
average immediately, with no
significant feasibility concerns, if lower
sulfur gasoline were made available
nationwide.
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 stackup
• 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 thru MY 2013, 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 Californiacertified 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 will design for in
order to comply with the 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/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
mi) will need improvements sufficient
to reach about 15 mg/mi (50 percent of
a 30 mg/mi standard).
To understand how the several
currently-used technologies described
below could be used by manufacturers
to reach the stringent Tier 3–
NMOG+NOX standards, it is helpful to
consider emissions formation in
common modes of operation for
gasoline engines, or modal analysis.260
The primary challenge faced by
manufacturers for producing Tier 3
compliant light-duty gasoline vehicle
powertrains will be keeping warmed-up
running emissions at effectively zero
emissions levels while reducing 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, we believe that to
comply with the Tier 3 FTP standards,
manufacturers will focus on effective
control of these cold-start emissions
while maintaining zero running
emissions; this is only possible when
sulfur levels in the fuel do not degrade
catalyst performance. 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.
During the analysis of current
vehicles certified to the cleanest
emission levels (Tier 2 Bin 2 and LEV
II SULEV) it was noted that no large
pick-ups equipped with their
application specific engines were
performing at the 30 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX level. We believe that
these applications may be the most
challenging due to the fact that the
design criteria required to provide the
utility aspect may have direct impact on
their ability to implement some of the
technologies described in section
IV.A.5.d below. Since these vehicles
represent a substantial and important
part of the light- duty fleet, EPA
performed a technical feasibility study
directly targeting this class of vehicles.
In order to assess the technical
feasibility of a 30 mg/mi FTP
NMOG+NOX standard, EPA purchased a
2011 Chevrolet Silverado heavy-lightduty (LDT4) pickup truck with a
developmental goal of modifying the
truck to achieve exhaust emission levels
in compliance with the Tier 3 Bin 30
emissions standards including a
reasonable compliance margin. The
truck was equipped with a 5.3L V8 with
260 A modal analysis provides a second-by-second
view of the total amount of emissions over the
entire cycle being considered.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
General Motors’ ‘‘Active Fuel
Management’’ cylinder deactivation
system. This particular truck was
chosen as an example of a Tier 3
prototype in part because cylinder
deactivation is a key technology for
light-truck compliance with future GHG
standards and in part because it
achieved very low emissions in the
OEM, Tier 2-compliant configuration
(certified to Tier 2 Bin 4). A prototype
exhaust system was obtained from
MECA consisting of high-cell-density
(900 cpsi) thin-wall (2.5 mil), high-PGM,
close-coupled Pd-Rh catalysts with an
additional under-body Pd-Rh catalyst.
The total catalyst volume was
approximately 116 in3 with a specific
PGM loading of 125 g/ft3 and
approximate loading ratio of 0:80:5
(Pt:Pd:Rh). Third-party (non-OEM) EMS
calibration tools were used to modify
the powertrain calibration in an effort to
improve catalyst light-off performance.
The final test configuration used
approximately 4 degrees of timing retard
and approximately 200 rpm higher idle
speed relative to the OEM configuration
during and immediately following coldstart. The exhaust catalyst system and
HEGO sensors were bench aged to an
equivalent 150,000 miles using standard
EPA accelerated catalyst bench-aging
procedures. The truck was tested on
California LEV III E10 certification fuel
at 9 ppm gasoline sulfur levels.
The EPA Tier 3 prototype Silverado
achieved NMOG+NOX emissions of 18
mg/mi on the 9 ppm S fuel. The
NMOG+NOX emissions were
approximately 60% of the Bin 30
standard and thus are consistent with
meeting the Tier 3 Bin 30 exhaust
emissions standard with a moderate
compliance margin. The technologies
used on the prototype Silverado to
achieve these emission levels are
common approaches used today on
smaller vehicles. They do not
compromise any of the design utility of
this vehicle class and are some of the
same approaches we expect
manufacturers to use to meet the Tier 3
Bin 30 exhaust emissions standards.
b. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards
The increase in the stringency of the
SFTP NMOG+NOX standards,
specifically across the US06 cycle, will
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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
improvements to the engine and
emission control hardware to tolerate
higher combustion and exhaust
temperatures expected in these future
GHG-oriented engine designs when
under higher loads. The upgraded
materials or components will enable
manufacturers to rely less on fuel
enrichment during high-speed/highload 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, the
primary method available to
manufacturers to protect the catalyst
and other exhaust components from
over-temperature conditions has been
changes to the fuel/air mixture by
increasing the fuel fraction, but this 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 Tier 3 FTP
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 MY
2017 and later vehicles will be able to
comply with the SFTP standards, either
directly or through the flexibility of the
averaging, banking and trading program.
For further information on the analysis
see Chapter 1 of the 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 will generally also only
require additional focus on fuel control
of the engines and attention to PM
emissions during the 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 will be capable of
continuing to perform optimally even as
the systems age.
We based our conclusions about the
ability of manufacturers to meet the 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 Tier 3 FTP PM
standards.
The testing results can be found in
Chapter 1 of the RIA. A small number
of vehicles are at or just over the Tier
3 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 will also
provide the necessary PM control.
Vehicles that currently have higher PM
emissions over the FTP or SFTP at
higher mileages will likely be required
to control oil consumption and
combustion chamber deposits.
We also analyzed PM test data results
on the US06 test cycle from Tier 2
vehicles. The data show that many
vehicles are already at or below the Tier
3 standards on the US06 test cycle.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23461
Vehicles that have high PM emission
rates on the US06 will 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 will 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-tocylinder interfaces. Auto manufacturers
have stated that 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
the stringent Tier 3 standards will
address the emissions control system’s
ability to reduce emission during cold
start while maintaining zero or near zero
running emissions. The effectiveness of
current vehicle emissions control
systems at reducing cold start emissions
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 °C. In
order to improve catalyst light-off, we
expect that manufacturers will 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, catalyst
platinum group metals (PGM) loading
and strategy, thermal management,
close-coupled catalysts, 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23462
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 closecoupled 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.
There can be a NOX emissions
disbenefit to use of secondary air
injection since it can impact the ability
of oxygen storage components (OSC)
within the catalyst to take up excess
oxygen as necessary to promote NOX
reduction reactions immediately
following cold start conditions.
• 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
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
technologies is 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
RIA.
Several commenters indicated that
large light-duty trucks (e.g., pickups and
full-size sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in
the LDT3 and LDT4 categories) will be
the most challenging light-duty vehicles
to bring into compliance with the 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.
261 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
In this section, we discuss the impact
of gasoline sulfur control on the
feasibility of the Tier 3 vehicle
emissions standards and on the exhaust
emissions of the existing in-use vehicle
fleet. Section IV.A.6.a describes the
chemistry and physics of the impacts of
gasoline sulfur compounds on exhaust
catalysts. Sections IV.A.6.b, c and d
summarize research on the impacts of
gasoline sulfur on vehicles utilizing
various degrees of emission control
technology, with Section IV.A.6.b
summarizing historical studies on the
impact of gasoline sulfur on vehicle
emissions, Section IV.A.6.c describing
impacts on Tier 2 vehicles and the
existing light-duty vehicle fleet, and
Section IV.A.6.d describing impacts on
vehicles using technology consistent
with what we expect to see in the future
Tier 3 vehicle fleet. Section IV.A.6.e
provides EPA’s assessment of the level
of gasoline sulfur control necessary for
light-duty vehicles to comply with Tier
3 exhaust emission standards.
EPA’s primary findings are:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
• Reducing gasoline sulfur content to
a 10 ppm average will provide
immediate and significant exhaust
emissions reductions to the current, inuse fleet of light-duty vehicles.
• Reducing gasoline sulfur content to
an average of 10 ppm will enable
vehicle manufacturers to certify their
entire product lines of new light-duty
vehicles to the final Tier 3 Bin 30 fleet
average standards. Without such sulfur
control it would not be possible for
vehicle manufacturers to reduce
emissions sufficiently below Tier 2
levels to meet the new Tier 3 standards
because it would require offsetting
significantly higher exhaust emissions
resulting from the higher sulfur levels.
EPA has not identified any existing or
developing technologies that would
compensate for or offset the higher
exhaust emissions resulting from higher
fuel sulfur levels.
a. Gasoline 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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
exhaust gases. These systems
simultaneously reduce NOX when airto-fuel ratio control operates in a
condition of relatively low amplitude/
high frequency oscillation about the
stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a wellknown catalyst poison. There is a large
body of work demonstrating sulfur
inhibition of the emissions control
performance of PGM three-way exhaust
catalyst
systems.262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271
262 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.
263 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.
264 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.
265 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.
266 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
Continued
28APR2
ER28AP14.000
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on
the Effectiveness of the Vehicle
Emission Standards
23463
23464
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The nature of sulfur interactions with
washcoat materials, active catalytic
materials and catalyst substrates is
complex and varies with catalyst
composition, 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 lightload operation, throttle tip-in events and
enrichment under high-load conditions
can all impact sulfur interactions with
the catalyst.
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
the alumina washcoating material (see
Figure IV–2).272 The amount of sulfur
retained by an exhaust catalyst system
is primarily a function of the
concentration of sulfur oxides in the
incoming exhaust gases, air-to-fuel ratio
feedback and control by the engine
management system, the operating
temperature of the catalyst and the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
267 Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T.
Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Fuel Property Requirement for
Advanced Technology Engines. SAE Technical
Paper 2000–01–2019.
268 Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T.
Fujimoto, Y. (2001). ‘‘Fuel properties for advanced
engines.’’ Automotive Engineering International 109
12, 117–120.
269 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.
270 Shen, Y., Shuai, S., Wang, J. Xiao, J. (2008).
Effects of Gasoline Fuel Properties on Engine
Performance. SAE Technical Paper 2008–01–0628.
271 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.
272 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5:
Catalyst Deactivation in Catalytic Air Pollution
Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
active materials and coatings used
within the catalyst.
In their supplemental comments to
the Tier 3 proposal, API criticized the
use of emissions data generated using
gasoline with sulfur content outside of
the range of 10 ppm to 30 ppm within
EPA and other analyses of the impacts
of gasoline sulfur on exhaust emissions
from current in-use (Tier 2) and future
(Tier 3) light-duty vehicles. Specific
examples include:
• Comparisons of exhaust emissions at
5 ppm and 28 ppm gasoline sulfur
levels within the recent EPA study of
emissions from Tier 2 vehicles 273
• Comparison of exhaust emissions of a
SULEV vehicle at 8 ppm and 33 ppm
gasoline sulfur levels within the Takei
et al. study 274
• Comparison of exhaust emissions of a
PZEV vehicle at 3 ppm and 33 ppm
gasoline sulfur levels within the Ball
et al. study.275
The relationship between changes in
gasoline sulfur content and NOX, HC,
NMHC and NMOG emissions is
typically linear. The linearity of sulfur
impacts on NOX, NMHC and NMOG
emissions is supported by past studies
with multiple fuel sulfur levels all of
which compare gasoline with differing
sulfur levels that are below
approximately 100 ppm (e.g., CRC E–60
and 2001 AAM/AIAM programs as well
as comments on this rulemaking
submitted by MECA).276 277 278 An
273 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
274 Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T.
Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Fuel Property Requirement for
Advanced Technology Engines. SAE Technical
Paper 2000–01–2019.
275 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.
276 Coordinating Research Council. 2003. ‘‘The
Effect of Fuel Sulfur on NH3 and Other Emissions
from 2000–2001 Model Year Vehicles.’’ CRC Project
No. E–60 Final Report. Accessed on the Internet on
12/4/2013 at the following URL: http://
www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2003/E60%20Final%20Report.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
assumption of linearity of the effect of
gasoline sulfur level on catalyst
efficiency between any two test fuels
with differing sulfur levels is reasonable
given that the mass flow rate of sulfur
in exhaust gas changes in proportion to
its concentration in the fuel, and that
the chemistry of adsorption of sulfur on
the active catalyst sites is an
approximately-first-order chemisorption
until all active sites within a catalyst
reach an equilibrium state relative to
further input of sulfur compounds. The
relative linearity of the effect of gasoline
sulfur level on NMOG and NOX
emissions allows exhaust emissions
results generated within EPA and other
studies of gasoline sulfur at levels
immediately above or below either 10
ppm or 30 ppm to be normalized to
either 10 ppm sulfur (Tier 3 gasoline) or
to 30 ppm sulfur (Tier 2 gasoline, which
are used in the analysis of the impacts
of the Tier 3 gasoline standards on
existing in-use vehicles and future Tier
3 vehicles.
In their supplemental comments to
the Tier 3 proposal, API also
commented that EPA did not show the
sulfur impact on exhaust emissions at
intermediate sulfur levels between 10
ppm and 30 ppm. In response, based on
the relative linearity of the effect of
gasoline sulfur level on NMOG and NOX
emissions allowing exhaust emissions to
be estimated for gasoline sulfur levels
between 10 and 30 ppm, data in EPA’s
analysis shows increases NMOG+NOX
emissions (as fuel sulfur increases) that
become more severe (i.e., higher
percentage increase in NMOG+NOX
emissions) for vehicles with extremely
low 279 exhaust emission (SULEV,
PZEV, LEV III, Tier 3) as described in
further detail in Sections IV.A.6.d and e.
277 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 2001.
‘‘AAM–AIAM Industry Low Sulfur Test Program.’’
278 Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association. 2013. ‘‘The Impact of Gasoline Fuel
Sulfur on Catalytic Emission Control Systems.’’
279 Vehicles that meet the cleanest emission
standards by demonstrate very low cold start
NMOG and NOX emissions and zero or near-zero
running NMOG and NOX emissions.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
280 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5:
Catalyst Deactivation in Catalytic Air Pollution
Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
281 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.
282 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.
283 Waqif, M., Bazin, P., Saur, O., Lavalley, J.C.,
Blanchard, G., Touret, O. ‘‘Study of ceria sulfation.’’
Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 11 (1997) 193–
205.
284 Bazin, P., Saur, O., Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard,
G., Visciglio, V., Touret, O. ‘‘Influence of platinum
on ceria sulfation.’’ Applied Catalysis B:
Environmental 13 (1997) 265–274.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
285 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6:
Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution
Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
286 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.
287 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
or ‘‘light-off’’, temperature as quickly as
possible after the vehicle is started. It
also means, however, that the exhaust
catalyst(s) in the close-coupled
location(s) are subject to higher exhaust
temperatures during fully-warmed up
operation. Pd is required in closedcoupled catalysts due to its resistance to
high-temperature thermal sintering
thereby maintaining sufficient
durability of the emissions control
system over the useful life of a vehicle.
Sulfur removal from Pd requires rich
operation at higher temperatures than
required for sulfur removal from other
PGM catalysts.
In addition to its interaction with
catalyst materials, sulfur can also react
with the wash-coating itself to form
alumina sulfate, which in turn can block
coating pores and reduce gaseous
diffusion to active materials below the
coating surface (see Figure IV–2).288
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 emissions
288 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
ER28AP14.001
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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).281 282 283 284 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. 285 Ceria sulfation interferes with
OSC functionality within the catalyst
and thus can have a detrimental impact
on the catalyst’s ability to effectively
reduce NOX emissions. 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).286 287 Pd is also of increased
importance for meeting Tier 3 standards
due to its unique application in the
close-coupled-catalyst location required
for vehicles certifying to very stringent
emission standards. Close-coupling
means that the exhaust catalyst is
moved as close as possible to the
engine’s exhaust ports within the
packaging constraints of an engine
compartment. This ensures that the
catalyst reaches its minimal operational,
23465
23466
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
when high-load, high-temperature
conditions are encountered.289
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 catalyst components. Thus, regular
operation at sufficiently high
temperatures at net fuel-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. In current vehicles,
desulfurization conditions occur
typically at high loads when there is a
degree of commanded enrichment (i.e.,
fuel enrichment commanded by the
engine management system primarily
for protection of engine and/or exhaust
system components). A study of Tier 2
vehicles in the in-use fleet recently
completed by EPA290 shows that
emission levels immediately following
high speed/load operation is still a
function of fuel sulfur level for the
gasoline used following desulfurization.
If a vehicle operates on gasoline with
less than 10 ppm sulfur, exhaust
emissions stabilize over repeat FTP tests
at emissions near those of the first FTP
that follows the high speed/load
operation and catalyst desulfurization. If
the vehicle continues to operate on
higher sulfur gasoline following
desulfurization, exhaust emissions
creep upward until a new equilibrium
exhaust emissions level is established.
This suggests that lower fuel sulfur
levels achieve emission benefits
unachievable by catalyst desulfurization
procedures alone. Continued operation
on gasoline with a 10 ppm average
sulfur content or lower is necessary after
catalyst desulfurization in order to
achieve emissions reductions with the
current in-use fleet.291 Furthermore,
regular operation at the high exhaust
temperatures and rich air-to-fuel ratios
necessary for catalyst desulfurization is
not desirable and may not be possible
for future Tier 3 vehicles for several
reasons:
• Thermal sintering and resultant
catalyst degradation: The temperatures
necessary to release sulfur oxides are
high enough to lead to thermal
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
289 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.
290 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
291 See Preamble Section IV.A.6.c and Chapter 1
of the RIA (Section 1.2.3.2) for more details on this
study and its results.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
degradation of the catalyst over time via
thermal sintering of active materials.
Sintering reduces the surface area
available to participate in reactions and
thus reduces the overall effectiveness of
the catalyst.
• Operational conditions: It is not
always possible to maintain fuel-rich
operational conditions and exhaust
catalyst temperatures that are high
enough for sulfur removal because of
cold weather, idle conditions and lightload operation.
• Increased emissions: In order to
achieve greater emission reductions
across a fuller range of in-use driving
conditions, vehicle manufacturers’ use
of commanded enrichment, which has
been beneficial for sulfur removal, will
be greatly reduced or eliminated under
Tier 3. Additionally, the fuel-rich air-tofuel ratios necessary for sulfur removal
from active catalytic surfaces would
result in increased PM, NMOG, CO and
air toxic emissions, particularly at the
high-temperature, high load conditions
(e.g., US06 or comparable) necessary for
sulfur removal. Previously used levels
of commanded enrichment (e.g., under
Tier 2) would interfere with the
strategies necessary to comply with
more stringent Tier 3 SFTP exhaust
emissions standards. There are also
additional provisions within the Tier 3
standards that further restrict the use of
US06 and off-cycle commanded
enrichment in an effort to reduce highload and off-cycle PM, NMOG, CO and
air toxic emissions.292
• Expected changes to engine
performance necessary to reduce fuel
consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions will improve the thermal
efficiency of engines and may result in
reduced exhaust temperatures.
b. Previous Studies of Gasoline Sulfur
Impacts
This section summarizes studies to
provide historical context regarding
what is known about the direct impacts
of gasoline sulfur on vehicle exhaust
emissions. Reducing fuel sulfur levels
has been the primary regulatory
mechanism EPA has used to minimize
sulfur contamination of exhaust
catalysts and to ensure optimum
emissions performance over the useful
life of a vehicle. The impact of gasoline
sulfur on exhaust catalyst systems has
become even more important as vehicle
emission standards have become more
stringent. Studies have suggested a
progressive increase in catalyst
292 See § 86.1811–17 (LD) within the Tier 3
regulations. Tier 3 restrictions to commanded
enrichment are also discussed in further detail
within section IV.A.4.c of this preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
sensitivity to sulfur 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 of little importance. 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.293 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 or on vehicles with extremely
low tailpipe emissions as described
earlier.
In 2005, EPA and several automakers
jointly conducted a research program,
the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT)
Study that examined the effects of sulfur
and other gasoline properties such as
benzene and volatility on emissions
from a fleet of nine Tier 2 compliant
vehicles.294 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. In particular, the study
found a 48 percent increase in NOX over
the FTP when gasoline sulfur was
increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Given
the preparatory 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 in-use
sulfur loading was largely reversible for
Tier 2 vehicles, and that there were
likely to be significant emission
reductions possible with further
reductions in gasoline sulfur level. More
recently, EPA completed a
comprehensive study on the effects of
gasoline sulfur on the exhaust emissions
of Tier 2 vehicles at low to moderate
mileage levels.295 Further details of this
study are summarized in Section
IV.A.6.c of this preamble.
In the NPRM, we summarized the
limited data available regarding the
293 Tier 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA 420–
R–99–023, December 22, 1999, last accessed on the
Internet on 12/04/2013 at the following URL:
http://epa.gov/tier2.
294 Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420–R–07–002,
February 2007, last accessed on the Internet on 12/
04/2013 at the following URL: http://nepis.epa.gov/
Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1004LNN.PDF.
295 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
impact of gasoline sulfur on the nearzero exhaust emission vehicle
technologies that will be necessary for
Tier 3 compliance. Vehicles certified to
California LEV II SULEV and PZEV
standards and federal Tier 2 Bin 2
standards achieve levels of exhaust
emissions control consistent with the
levels of control that will be necessary
for Tier 3 compliance. While these
vehicles represent only a relatively
small subset (e.g., typically small lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks with
limited GVWR or towing utility) of the
broad range of vehicles that will need to
comply with Tier 3 standards as part of
a fleet-wide average, data on these
vehicles provide an opportunity to
study the impact of gasoline sulfur on
near-zero exhaust emission technologies
and is generally representative of
technology that are expected to be used
with mid-size and smaller light-duty
vehicles for Tier 3 compliance. Vehicle
testing by Toyota (Takei et al.) 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.296 Ball et al. of Umicore Autocat
USA, Inc. studied the impact of gasoline
fuel sulfur levels of 3 ppm and 33 ppm
on the emissions of a 2009 Chevrolet
Malibu PZEV.297 Umicore’s testing of
the Malibu PZEV vehicle showed a
pronounced and progressive trend of
increasing NOX emissions (referred to as
‘‘NOX creep’’) when switching from a 3
ppm sulfur gasoline to repeated, backto-back FTP tests using 33 ppm sulfur
gasoline. The PZEV Chevrolet Malibu,
after being aged to an equivalent of
150,000 miles, demonstrated emissions
at a level consistent with the Tier 3 Bin
30 NMOG+NOX standards 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 Tier 3 30 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX standard.271 This
represents a 70% NOX increase between
3 ppm sulfur and 33 ppm sulfur
296 Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T.
Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Fuel Property Requirement for
Advanced Technology Engines. SAE Technical
Paper 2000–01–2019.
297 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
gasolines, approximately 2–3 times of
what has been previously reported for
similar changes in fuel sulfur level for
Tier 2 and older vehicles.298 299
Both the Umicore and Toyota studies
suggest that the emissions from vehicles
using near-zero exhaust emissions
control technology similar to what is
expected for compliance with the Tier 3
standards are more sensitive to changes
in gasoline sulfur content at low (sub30 ppm) sulfur concentrations than
technology used to meet the higher
Federal Tier 2 and California LEV II
standards. The Umicore and Toyota
studies clearly indicate that a
progressive increase in catalyst
sensitivity to sulfur continues as
exhaust emissions decrease from levels
required by federal Tier 2 and California
LEV II emissions standards to the lower
levels required by Tier 3 emissions
standards. In addition, although
vehicles with Tier 2 technology have
somewhat less sulfur sensitivity
compared to future Tier 3 vehicles,
there is still significant opportunity for
further emissions reductions from the
existing in-use fleet by reducing
gasoline sulfur content from 30 ppm to
10 ppm. The results of recent testing
demonstrating the potential for in-use
emissions reductions from further
gasoline sulfur control are summarized
in Section IV.A.6.c. Recent data on the
impact of gasoline sulfur on vehicles
with exhaust emission control
technologies that we expect to be used
with Tier 3 vehicles is summarized in
Sections IV.A.6.d and e.
c. EPA Testing of Gasoline Sulfur Effects
on Tier 2 Vehicles and the In-Use Fleet
Both the MSAT 300 and Umicore 301
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
fleet requires understanding how sulfur
298 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
299 Shapiro, E. (2009). National Clean Gasoline—
An Investigation of Costs and Benefits. Published
by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
300 Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420–R–07–002,
February 2007, last accessed on the Internet on 12/
04/2013 at the following URL: http://nepis.epa.gov/
Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1004LNN.PDF.
301 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23467
exposure over time impacts emissions,
and what the state of catalyst sulfur
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.302 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 93 cars and light
trucks recruited from owners in
southeast Michigan, covering model
years 2007–9 with approximately
20,000–40,000 odometer miles.303 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. All emissions
data was collected using the FTP cycle
at a nominal temperature of 75 °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-toback 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, demonstrating that sulfur
loadings have a large effect on exhaust
catalyst performance, and that Tier 2
vehicles can achieve significant
reductions based on removing, at least
in part, the negative impact of the sulfur
loading on catalyst efficiency (Table IV–
6). For example, Bag 2 NOX emissions
dropped 31 percent between the preand post-cleanout tests on 28 ppm fuel.
302 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
303 The NPRM modeling was based on analysis of
81 passenger cars and trucks. Since the NPRM,
twelve additional Tier 2 vehicles were tested and
included in the statistical analysis described in the
docketed final report, examining the effect of sulfur
on emissions from Tier 2 vehicles. The analysis
based on the complete set of 93 Tier 2 vehicles is
reflected in the results presented in this section and
the emissions modeling for FRM.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23468
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV–6—PERCENT REDUCTION IN IN-USE EMISSIONS AFTER THE CLEAN-OUT 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 ........................................................
........................
........................
6.0% (0.0151)
........................
........................
Bag 2 ........................................................
31.4%
(0.0003)
35.4%
(<0.0001)
11.4%
(0.0002)
........................
14.9%
(0.0118)
20.4%
(<0.0001)
3.8%
(0.0249)
........................
........................
18.7%
(0.0131)
27.7%
(<0.0001)
3.5%
(0.0498)
........................
14.4%
(0.0019)
10.3%
(<0.0001)
6.0%
(0.0011)
........................
15.4%
(< 0.0001)
........................
Bag 3 ........................................................
FTP Composite ........................................
Bag 1–Bag 3 ............................................
a The
21.5%
(0.0001)
6.8%
(0.0107)
7.2%
(0.0656)
24.5%
(<0.0001)
13.7%
(<0.0001)
........................
clean-out effect is not significant at a = 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 the differences in the
effectiveness of the clean-out procedure
under 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 34
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. This further
indicates that current sulfur levels in
gasoline continue to have a long-term,
adverse effect on exhaust emissions
control that is not fully removed by
intermittent clean-out procedures that
can occur in day-to-day operation of a
vehicle and demonstrates that lowering
sulfur levels to 10 ppm on average will
significantly reduce the effects of sulfur
impairment on emissions control
technology.
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)
Bag 1 ........................................................
5.3%
(0.0513)
34.4%
(0.0036)
42.5%
(<0.0001)
15.0%
(0.0002)
(a)
Bag 2 ........................................................
Bag 3 ........................................................
FTP Composite ........................................
Bag 1–Bag 3 ............................................
a The
THC
(p-value)
CO
(p-value)
6.8%
(0.0053)
33.9%
(<0.0001)
36.9%
(<0.0001)
13.3%
(<0.0001)
( a)
6.2%
(0.0083)
(a)
14.7%
(0.0041)
8.5%
(0.0050)
( a)
NMHC
(p-value)
5.7%
(0.0276)
26.4%
(0.0420)
51.7%
(<0.0001)
10.9%
(0.0012)
( a)
CH4
(p-value)
14.0%
(<0.0001)
49.4%
(<0.0001)
28.5%
(<0.0001)
23.6%
(<0.0001)
(a )
PM a
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
effectiveness of clean-out cycle is not significant at a = 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 52 percent between 28 ppm
and 5 ppm overall. For all pollutants,
the model fitting did not find a
significant miles-by-sulfur interaction,
suggesting the relative differences were
not dependent on miles driven after
clean-out.
TABLE IV–8—PERCENT REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS FROM 28 PPM TO 5 PPM FUEL SULFUR ON IN-USE TIER 2 VEHICLES
NOX
(p-value)
Bag 1 ............................
Bag 2 ............................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Bag 3 ............................
FTP Composite ............
Bag 1–Bag 3 ................
a Sulfur
7.1%
(0.0216)
51.9%
(< 0.0001)
47.8%
(< 0.0001)
14.1%
(0.0008)
(a)
THC
(p-value)
9.2%
(0.0002)
43.3%
(< 0.0001)
40.2%
(< 0.0001)
15.3%
(< 0.0001)
5.9%
(0.0074)
CO
(p-value)
NMHC
(p-value)
6.7%
(0.0131)
(a)
15.9%
(0.0003)
9.5%
(< 0.0001)
(a)
8.1%
(0.0017)
42.7%
(0.0003)
54.7%
(< 0.0001)
12.4%
(< 0.0001)
( b)
CH4
(p-value)
16.6%
(< 0.0001)
51.8%
(< 0.0001)
29.2%
(< 0.0001)
29.3%
(< 0.0001)
( b)
level not significant at a = 0.10.
because the mixed model did not converge.
b Inconclusive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
NOX+NMOG
(p-value)
PM a
N/A
........................
N/A
........................
N/A
........................
14.4%
(< 0.0001)
N/A
........................
........................
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Major findings from this study
include:
• Largely 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 Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards is
expected to achieve significant
reductions in emissions of NOX,
hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of
interest in the current in-use fleet.
• Assuming that the emissions
impacts vs. gasoline sulfur content are
approximately linear, changing gasoline
sulfur content from 30 ppm to 10 ppm
would result in NMOG+NOX emissions
decreasing from 52 mg/mi to 45 mg/mi,
respectively (a 13% decrease), and NOX
emissions decreasing from 19 mg/mi to
16 mg/mi, respectively (a 16%
decrease), for the vehicles in the study.
To evaluate the robustness of the
statistical analyses assessing the overall
in-use emissions reduction between
operation on high and low sulfur fuel
(Table IV–8), a series of sensitivity
analyses were performed to assess the
impacts on study results of
measurements from low-emitting
vehicles and influential vehicles, as
documented in detail in the report.304
The sensitivity analyses showed that the
magnitude and the statistical
significance of the results were not
impacted and thus demonstrated that
the results are statistically robust. We
also subjected the design of the
experiment and data analysis to a
contractor-led independent peer-review
process in accordance with EPA’s peer
review guidance. The results of the peer
review 305 306 largely supported the
study design, statistical analyses, and
the conclusions from the program and
raised only minor concerns that have
not changed the overall conclusions and
have subsequently been addressed in
the final version of the report.307
Overall, the reductions found in this
study are in agreement with other low
sulfur studies conducted on Tier 2
304 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
305 Peer Review of the Effects of Fuel Sulfur Level
on Emissions from the In-Use Tier 2 Vehicles, EPA–
HQ–OAR–2011–0135–1847.
306 EPA In-Use Sulfur Report—Response to PeerReview Comments, EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135–
1848.
307 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
vehicles, namely MSAT and Umicore
studies mentioned above, in terms of the
magnitude of NOX and HC reductions
when switching from 28 ppm to 5 ppm
fuel.308 We have reviewed the results of
the emission effects study performed by
SGS, which was included with API’s
comments on the Tier 3 proposal, and
have concluded that these results are
also consistent with the findings of
EPA’s Tier 2 in-use study, specifically
that exhaust emissions performance is
sensitive to fuel sulfur level.309 The SGS
study also suggests that negative effects
of exposure to a somewhat higher sulfur
level (80 ppm in this case) are largely
reversible for Tier 2 vehicles, meaning
that reducing fuel sulfur levels
nationwide will bring significant
immediate benefits by reducing
emissions of the existing fleet. For
further details regarding the Tier 2 InUse Gasoline Sulfur Effects Study, see
the final report.310
As a follow-on phase to the Tier 2 inuse study, EPA analyzed five
vehicles 311 certified to Tier 2 Bin 4,
LEV II ULEV and LEV II SULEV exhaust
emissions standards to assess the
gasoline sulfur sensitivity of Tier 2 and
California LEV II vehicles with emission
levels approaching or comparable to the
Tier 3 standards. The analysis found
that these low-emitting Tier 2 vehicles
showed similar or greater sensitivity to
fuel sulfur levels compared to the
original Tier 2 test fleet—for example, a
24 percent reduction in FTP composite
NOX emissions when sulfur is reduced
from 28 ppm to 5 ppm.312 Test results
discussed below in section IV.A.6.d also
confirm that there is significantly
increased sensitivity of exhaust
emissions to gasoline sulfur as vehicle
technologies advance towards exhaust
emissions approaching near-zero
emissions (e.g., Tier 3 Bin 50 and
lower). The impact of fuel sulfur on
vehicles with exhaust emission control
technologies that we expect to be used
with Tier 3 vehicles is summarized in
the next two sections (Preamble
IV.A.6.d and e).
308 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.
309 American Petroleum Institute. 2013.
Supplemental Comments of the American
Petroleum Institute. Available in the docket for this
final rule, docket no. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135.
310 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
311 The make and model of the tested vehicles are
Honda Crosstour, Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet
Silverado, Ford Focus and Subaru Outback.
312 The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on
Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet,
EPA–420–R–14–002.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23469
EPA believes that the studies by EPA
and others described in this section
strongly support our conclusion that
reducing gasoline sulfur content to a 10
ppm average will result in significant
exhaust emissions reductions from the
current in-use fleet. However, some
commenters have expressed concerns
about the relevance and appropriateness
of the data, as well as the conclusions
drawn from them. The Summary and
Analysis of Comments document,
available in the docket for this
rulemaking, provides our responses to
those comments.
d. Testing of Gasoline Sulfur Effects on
Vehicles With Tier 3/LEV III
Technology
The Tier 3 fleet average exhaust
emissions standards of 30 mg/mi
NMOG+NOX will require large
reductions of emissions across a broad
range of light-duty vehicles and trucks
with differing degrees of utility.
Previous studies of sulfur impacts on
extremely low exhaust emission
vehicles (e.g., Toyota, Umicore) were
limited to mid-size or smaller light-duty
vehicles. There are currently no LDT3 or
any LDT4 vehicles certified at or below
Federal Tier 2 Bin 3 or to the California
LEV II SULEV exhaust emission
standards with the exception of a single
hybrid electric SUV. At the time of the
Tier 3 NPRM, EPA was not aware of any
existing data demonstrating the impact
of changes in gasoline sulfur content on
larger vehicles with technology
comparable to what would be expected
for compliance with Tier 3 exhaust
emission standards. In their
supplemental comments to the Tier 3
proposal, API criticized EPA’s reliance
on emissions data from older vehicles
that were not considered to be examples
of future Tier-3-like vehicles. In order to
further evaluate this issue, the Agency
initiated a test program at EPA’s
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. The Agency obtained a
heavy-light-duty truck and applied
changes to the design and layout of the
exhaust catalyst system and to the
calibration of the engine management
system consistent with our engineering
analyses of technology necessary to
meet Tier 3 Bin 30 emissions with a 20
to 40% compliance margin at 150,000
miles. EPA also requested that Umicore
loan the Agency the vehicle tested in
their study to undergo further
evaluation of gasoline sulfur impacts on
exhaust emissions. In addition, Ford
Motor Company completed testing of
fuel sulfur effects on a Tier 3/LEV III
developmental heavy-light-duty truck
and submitted a summary report of their
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23470
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
findings as part of their supplemental
comments to the Tier 3 NPRM. The
results of these three test programs are
summarized below.
i. Ford Motor Company Tier 3 Sulfur
Test Program
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Ford Motor Company recently
completed testing of a heavy-light-duty
truck (i.e., between 6,000 and 8,500
pounds GVWR) under development to
meet the Tier 3 Bin 50 standards on two
different fuel sulfur levels and
submitted the resulting data to EPA as
part of its supplemental
comments.313 314 The test results from
this vehicle are particularly important
when considering the following factors:
• These are the first detailed
emissions data submitted by a vehicle
manufacturer to the Agency
demonstrating emissions of a heavylight-duty-truck consistent with Tier 3
Bin 50 or lower emissions levels.
• The truck tested uses a version of
Ford’s 2.0 L GTDI engine, an engine
with high BMEP (approximately 23-bar)
that can allow significant engine
displacement downsizing while
maintaining the truck’s utility. This is a
key enabling GHG reduction strategy
analyzed by EPA in the 2017–2025 GHG
Final Rule.315
• The vehicle was specifically under
development by a vehicle manufacturer
with an engineering target of meeting
Tier 3 Bin 50 and LEV III ULEV50
exhaust emissions standards.
Turbocharged, downsized engines are
key technologies within Ford’s strategy
to reduce GHG emissions.316 EPA
expects that trucks with configurations
similar to this developmental Ford
Explorer (downsized engines with
reduced GHG emissions and very low
emissions of NMOG+NOX) will become
increasingly prevalent within the
313 Ford Motor Company. 2013. ‘‘Quality Changes
Needed to Meet Tier 3 Emission Standards and
Future Greenhouse Gas Requirements.’’ Attachment
2: ‘‘Tier 3 Sulfur Test Program—Ford Motor
Company Summary Report.’’ Available within EPA
Docket for this final rule, EPA–HQ–2011–0135.
314 Dominic DiCicco, Ford Motor Company. 2013.
‘‘Additional data as requested. RE: Ford
Supplemental Comments on Tier 3.’’ Available
within EPA Docket for this final rule, EPA–HQ–
2011–0135.
315 See 77 FR 62840–62862, October 15, 2012; and
Joint Technical Support Document: Final
Rulemaking for 2017–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards (EPA–420–R–12–
901), August 2012, Chapter 3.4.1.7–3.4.1.8 (pages 3–
88—3–95).
316 Ford Motor Company, 2012. ‘‘Sustainability
2011/2012—Improving Fuel Economy.’’ Accessed
on the Internet on 11/21/2013 at: http://
corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report2011-12/environment-products-plan-economy.
Available within EPA Docket for this final rule,
EPA–HQ–2011–0135.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
timeframe of the implementation of the
Tier 3 regulations.
The developmental truck used closecoupling of both catalyst substrates and
relatively high PGM loading (150 g/ft3).
Ford used accelerated aging of the
catalysts and O2 sensors to an
equivalent of 150,000 miles (the Tier 3
full useful life). The developmental
hardware and engine management
calibration configuration of this truck
was designed to meet federal Tier 3 Bin
50 and California LEV III ULEV50
standards of 50 mg/mi NMOG+NOX at
150,000 miles. The emissions data
submitted by Ford included NOX and
NMHC emissions during operation on
E10 California LEV III certification fuel
at two different sulfur levels, 10 ppm
and 26.5 ppm. Ford did not provide
NMOG emissions data but there was
sufficient information for EPA to
calculate NMOG emissions from the
provided NMHC data using calculations
from Title 40 CFR 1066.665.
The truck demonstrated average FTP
NMOG+NOX emissions of 37 mg/mi on
the 10 ppm E10 California LEV III fuel,
emissions that are consistent with
compliance with Bin 50 and ULEV50
standards with a reasonable margin of
compliance (emissions at approximately
70% of the standard). Retesting of the
same vehicle on LEV3 E10 blended 317
to 26.5 ppm S resulted in average
NMOG+NOX emissions of 53 mg/mi,
6% above the Tier 3 Bin 50 standard.
Ford found a high level of statistical
significance with respect to the increase
of emissions with increasing fuel sulfur.
Assuming a linear effect of sulfur on
emissions performance, NMOG+NOX
emissions would be approximately 56
mg/mi at 30 ppm sulfur, which is
approximately 12% above the Bin 50
exhaust emissions standard. This also
represents an increase in NMOG+NOX
emissions of 53% with an approximate
doubling of NOX emissions and a 13%
increase in NMOG for 30 ppm sulfur
gasoline vs. 10 ppm sulfur gasoline.
The advanced technology Ford truck,
which was shown to be capable of
complying with the Tier 3 Bin 50
standard with a reasonable margin of
compliance on 10 ppm sulfur gasoline,
in effect reverted to approximately LEV
II ULEV exhaust emissions levels when
tested on higher sulfur gasoline,
equivalent to the previous level of
emissions control to which earlier
models of this vehicle were certified for
MY 2013. The effect of increasing
gasoline sulfur levels from 10 ppm to 30
317 Ford used the same tert-butyl sulfide fuel
sulfur additives used within the EPA testing in
IV.A.6.c and d.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ppm 318 on this vehicle essentially
negated the entire benefit of the
advances in emissions control
technology that were applied by the
vehicle manufacturer to meet
developmental goals for compliance
with Tier 3 standards. This clearly
indicates, for this vehicle model using
technology representative of what
would be expected for compliance with
Tier 3 Bin 50 and post 2017 GHG
standards, reducing gasoline sulfur to 10
ppm is needed for the advances in
technology to achieve their intended
effectiveness in reducing NMOG+NOX
emissions. The advances in vehicle
technology and the reduction in
gasoline sulfur clearly are both needed
to achieve the emissions reductions
called for by Tier 3.
ii. EPA Re-Test of Umicore 2009
Chevrolet Malibu PZEV
Ball et al. of Umicore Autocat USA,
Inc. previously studied the impact of
gasoline fuel sulfur levels of 3 ppm and
33 ppm on the emissions of a 2009
Chevrolet Malibu PZEV.319 In their
supplemental comments, API
commented that the composition of the
two test fuels outside of sulfur content
was not held constant and thus the
exhaust emissions differences attributed
to the difference in gasoline sulfur
levels may have been due to other fuel
property differences. For example, the 3
ppm fuel used by Ball et al. was
nonoxygenated EEE Clear test fuel
(essentially, Tier 2 Federal certification
gasoline except with near-zero sulfur)
while the 33 ppm fuel was an
oxygenated California Phase 2 LEV II
certification fuel. Thus it was not
entirely clear if the changes in NOX
emissions observed between tests with
the two fuels were significantly
impacted by fuel composition variables
other than gasoline sulfur content. EPA
obtained the same test vehicle from
Umicore for retesting at the EPA NVFEL
facility using the 5 ppm and 28 ppm
sulfur E0 test fuels and vehicle test
procedures used in EPA gasoline sulfur
effects testing on Tier 2 vehicles (see
Section IV.6.b).
In EPA’s retest of the 2009 Chevrolet
Malibu PZEV, when sulfur was the only
difference between the test fuels, the
gasoline with higher sulfur resulted in
significantly higher increases in NOX
emissions with increasing fuel sulfur
content than was observed in the
318 Emissions at 30 ppm sulfur estimated
assuming approximately linear emissions effects
between 10, 26.5 and 30 ppm gasoline sulfur levels.
319 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. Available in the docket for this final rule.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
previous testing by Ball et al. at
Umicore. Assuming emissions impacts
vs. gasoline sulfur content are
approximately linear, the original data
from Ball et al. would have resulted in
a predicted increase in NOX emissions
of approximately 40% when increasing
gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm to 30 ppm.
The EPA re-testing of the same vehicle
that controlled for other fuel
composition differences resulted in a
predicted increase in NOX emissions of
93% when increasing gasoline sulfur
from 10 ppm to 30 ppm, with NOX
emissions approximately doubling from
22 g/mi to 43 g/mi, with no statistically
significant difference in NMOG
emissions and with an increase in
NMOG+NOX emissions of 56%. The
approximate doubling in NOX emissions
with the Malibu PZEV between 10 ppm
and 30 ppm sulfur was nearly identical
to the results found during testing of the
Tier 3 Bin 50 developmental Ford
Explorer discussed above. The results
confirm that fuel compositional
differences other than sulfur may have
impacted exhaust emissions results in
the Ball et al. study by underreporting
a substantial portion of the effect of
increased sulfur on NOX emissions.
When controlling for other fuel
composition differences, the resultant
increase in NOX exhaust emissions due
to increasing gasoline sulfur was more
than double that observed in the
original Ball et al. study. The observed
increase in NMOG+NOX emissions
during EPA testing of the Malibu PZEV
was also comparable to results found
with the developmental Tier 3 Bin 50
Ford Explorer. There was also a much
higher increase in NOX and
NMOG+NOX emissions for both the
Malibu PZEV and the Tier 3 Bin 50
Explorer with increased gasoline sulfur
than was observed with Tier 2 vehicles
in the EPA Tier 2 in-use study. (See also
Chapter 1.2.4 of the RIA)
iii. EPA Prototype Tier 3 Heavy-LightDuty Truck Test Program
EPA purchased a 2011 Chevrolet
Silverado heavy-light-duty (LDT4)
pickup truck with a developmental goal
of modifying the truck to achieve
exhaust emissions consistent with
compliance with the Tier 3 Bin 30
emissions standards. The truck was
equipped with a 5.3L V8 with General
Motors’ ‘‘Active Fuel Management’’
cylinder deactivation system. This
particular truck was chosen in part
because cylinder deactivation is a key
technology for light-truck compliance
with future GHG standards and in part
because it achieved very low emissions
in its OEM, Tier 2-compliant
configuration (certified to Tier 2 Bin 4).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
A prototype exhaust system was
obtained from MECA consisting of highcell-density (900 cpsi) thin-wall (2.5
mil), high-PGM, close-coupled Pd-Rh
catalysts with an additional under-body
Pd-Rh catalyst. The total catalyst
volume was approximately 116 in3 with
a specific PGM loading of 125 g/ft3 and
approximate loading ratio of 0:80:5
(Pt:Pd:Rh). Third-party (non-OEM) EMS
calibration tools were used to modify
the powertrain calibration in an effort to
improve catalyst light-off performance.
The final test configuration used
approximately 4 degrees of timing retard
and approximately 200 rpm higher idle
speed relative to the OEM configuration
during and immediately following coldstart. The exhaust catalyst system and
HEGO sensors were bench aged to an
equivalent 150,000 miles using standard
EPA accelerated catalyst bench-aging
procedures.320 The truck was tested on
California LEV III E10 certification fuel
at 9 and 29 ppm gasoline sulfur levels.
The EPA Tier 3 prototype Silverado
achieved NMOG+NOX emissions of 18
mg/mi on the 9 ppm S fuel. The
NMOG+NOX emissions were
approximately 60% of the Bin 30
standard and thus are consistent with
meeting the Tier 3 Bin 30 exhaust
emissions standard with a moderate
compliance margin. NMOG+NOX
emissions increased to 29 mg/mi on the
29 ppm S fuel and one out of four tests
exceeded the Bin 30 exhaust emissions
standards. NMOG+NOX emissions
would be at 19 mg/mi and 30 mg/mi
with 10 ppm and 30 ppm gasoline
sulfur, respectively, assuming a linear
effect of sulfur on emissions
performance. This represents an
increase in NMOG+NOX emissions of
approximately 55%, comparable to
increases observed with both the EPAtested Chevrolet Malibu PZEV and the
developmental Tier 3 Bin 50 Ford
Explorer. The impact of increased
gasoline sulfur on NMOG+NOX
emissions was due to comparable
increases (on a percentage basis) in both
NMOG and NOX emissions. This effect
of gasoline sulfur on the Prototype
Silverado truck’s emissions differed
from the sulfur impacts observed on the
developmental Ford Explorer, which
primarily affected NOX emissions, and
the Malibu PZEV, where the impact was
entirely on NOX emissions.
320 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,
§ 86.1823–08 ‘‘Durability demonstration procedures
for exhaust emissions.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23471
e. Gasoline Sulfur Level Necessary for
New Light-Duty Vehicles To Achieve
Tier 3 Exhaust Emissions Standards
Meeting Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards
will require major reductions in exhaust
emissions across the entire fleet of new
light-duty vehicles. As discussed in
previous sections, the Tier 3 program
will require reductions in fleet average
NMOG+NOX emissions of over 80
percent for the entire fleet of light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks. This
significant level of fleet average
emission reduction will require
reductions from all parts of the fleet,
including vehicles models with exhaust
emissions currently at or near the level
of the fully phased-in Tier 3 FTP
NMOG+NOX fleet average standard of
30 mg/mi.
Compliance with the more stringent
Tier 3 fleet average standards will
require vehicle manufacturers to certify
a significant amount of vehicles to bin
standards that are below the Bin 30 fleet
average standard to offset other vehicles
that are certified to bin standards that
remain somewhat above the Bin 30 fleet
average even after significantly reducing
their emissions. At the same time, the
stringency of the Tier 3 standards will
push almost all vehicle models to be
close to or below the Bin 30 fleet
average standard. There are only 2
compliance bins below Bin 30, i.e., Bin
20 and Bin 0, available to offset
emissions of vehicles certifying above
Bin 30. There is also very limited ability
for vehicle manufacturers to certify
vehicles below the stringent Tier 3 fleet
average exhaust emissions standard
since Bin 20 and Bin 30 standards for
individual vehicle certification test
groups are approaching the engineering
limits of what can be achieved for
vehicles using an internal combustion
engine and Bin 0 can only be achieved
by electric-only vehicle operation. The
result is that there is a very limited
ability to offset sales of vehicles
certified above the 30 mg/mi fleet
average emission standard. This means
in general that vehicle models currently
with higher emissions will have to
achieve significant emissions reductions
to minimize the gap, if any, between
their certified bin levels under Tier 3
and the Tier 3 Bin 30 fleet average
standard, and vehicle models currently
at or below Bin 30 will also have to
achieve further emissions reductions
under Tier 3 to offset the vehicles that
remain certified to bin standards
somewhat above Bin 30l. The end result
is a need for major reductions from all
types of vehicles in the light-duty fleet,
including those above as well as most
vehicles that are already near, at, or
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23472
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
below the Tier 3 Bin 30 fleet average
standard.
Achieving exhaust emissions
reductions of over 80% for the fleet,
with major reductions across all types of
light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks, will be a major technological
challenge. Vehicles already have made
significant advances in controlling cold
start emissions and maximizing exhaust
catalyst efficiency (e.g., improving
warm-up and catalyst light-off after cold
starts and maintaining very high catalyst
efficiency once warmed up) in order to
meet Tier 2 and LEV II emissions
standards. There are no ‘‘low-hanging
fruit’’ remaining for additional
NMOG+NOX reductions from light-duty
vehicles from a technology perspective,
meaning that vehicle manufacturers
cannot merely change one aspect of
emissions control and thereby achieve
all of the required reductions. Instead,
compliance with light-duty Tier 3
exhaust emissions standards will
require significant improvements in all
areas of emissions control—with further
improvements in fuel-system
management and mixture preparation
during cold start, improvements in
achieving catalyst light-off immediately
after cold start, and improved catalyst
efficiency during stabilized, fullywarmed-up conditions. Manufacturers
will need further improvements in each
of these areas with nearly every vehicle
in order to comply with the fleetaverage Tier 3 standards.
From a technology perspective, the
most likely control strategies will
involve using exhaust catalyst
technologies and powertrain calibration
primarily focused on reducing cold-start
emissions of NMOG, and on reducing
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 will involve controlling
engine-out NOX emissions during cold
start, shortening the cold start period
prior to catalyst light-off of NOX
reduction reactions, and better
controlling NOX emissions once the
catalyst is fully warmed up. This is
needed to allow a sufficient NMOG
compliance margin so that vehicles can
meet the combined NMOG+NOX
emissions standards for their full useful
life.
While significant NMOG+NOX
emissions reductions can be achieved
from better control of cold start NMOG
emissions, there are practical
engineering limits to NMOG control for
larger displacement vehicles (e.g., large
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
light-duty trucks with significant
payload and trailer towing capabilities).
This is based in part on the impact on
NMOG emissions of the larger engine
surface-to-volume ratio and resultant
heat conduction from the combustion
chamber during warm-up. There are
also tradeoffs between some cold-start
NMOG controls and cold-start NOX
control. For example, secondary air
injection and/or leaner fueling strategies
improve catalyst light-off for NMOG
after a cold-start but also place OSC
components in an oxidation state that
limits potential for NOX reduction and
thus often result in higher cold-start
NOX emissions. Some applications
achieve lower NMOG+NOX emissions
without the use of secondary air
injection by careful calibration, changes
to the catalyst formulation and
balancing of catalyst HC and NOX
activity. The EPA Prototype Silverado
and the developmental Ford Explorer
are specific examples of this approach.
Because of engineering limitations
with large vehicles, heavy-light-trucks
and other vehicles with significant
utility, we expect many applications
will need close to 100% efficiency in
NOX control under fully warmed-up
conditions and very fast light-off of NOX
reduction reactions over the exhaust
catalyst almost immediately after coldstart for those applications. This will
require significant improvements in
catalytic and engine-out NOX reduction
compared with Tier 2 vehicles and will
be especially important for heavier
vehicles due to the challenges of
achieving low NMOG.
These technology improvements—
improving warm-up and catalyst lightoff after cold starts and maintaining very
high catalyst efficiency—once warmed
up—all rely on 10 ppm average sulfur
fuel to achieve the very significant
emissions reductions required for the
fleet to achieve the Tier 3 Bin 30 fleet
average emissions standard. The
evidence from the test results and
specific vehicle examples discussed
above clearly indicate that leaving the
gasoline sulfur level at 30 ppm would
largely negate the benefits of key
technology improvements expected to
be used for compliance with Tier 3
exhaust emissions standards. Without
the lower 10 ppm gasoline sulfur
content, the Tier 3 exhaust fleet average
emissions standards would not be
achievable across the broad range of
vehicles that must achieve significant
exhaust emissions reductions.
One aspect of the need for sulfur
levels of 10 ppm average stems from the
fact that achieving the Tier 3 emission
standards will require very careful
control of the exhaust chemistry and
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 large
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 and the much more
severe NOX emissions degradation
observed in recent test data from PZEV
and prototype/developmental Tier 3/
LEV III vehicles.321
The importance of lower sulfur
gasoline is also demonstrated by the fact
that vehicles certified to California
SULEV are typically certified to higher
bins for the federal Tier 2 program.
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 the higher sulfur gasoline
sold nationwide. While vehicles
certified to the LEV II 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 significant,
sustained operation on gasoline with an
average of 10 ppm sulfur and a
maximum cap of 30 ppm sulfur while
federally certified vehicles under the
Tier 2 program 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
321 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6:
Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution
Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
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.
There are currently no LDTs larger
than LDT2 with the exception of a
single hybrid electric SUV certified to
Tier 2 Bin 2 or SULEV emissions
standards. We expect that additional
catalyst technologies, for example
increasing catalyst surface area (volume
or substrate cell density) and/or
increased PGM loading, will need to be
applied to larger vehicles in order to
achieve the catalyst efficiencies
necessary to comply with the Tier 3
standards, and any sulfur impact on
catalyst efficiency will have a larger
impact on vehicles and trucks that rely
more on very high catalyst efficiencies
in order to achieve very low emissions.
The vehicle emissions data referenced
in Section IV.A.6.d represents the only
known data on non-hybrid vehicles
spanning a range from mid-size LDVs to
heavy-light-trucks at the very low
criteria pollutant emissions levels that
will be needed to comply with the Tier
3 exhaust emissions standards. The
developmental Ford Explorer, Chevrolet
Malibu PZEV and EPA prototype
Chevrolet Silverado vehicles described
in section IV.A.6.c also represent a
range of different technology
approaches to both criteria pollution
control and GHG reduction (e.g., use of
secondary air vs. emphasizing cold-start
NOX control, use of engine downsizing
via turbocharging vs. cylinder
deactivation for GHG control, etc.) and
represent a broad range of vehicle
applications and utility (mid-size LDV,
LDT3, LDT4). All of the vehicles with
Tier 3/LEV III technology demonstrated
greater than 50% increases in
NMOG+NOX emissions when increasing
gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm to 30 ppm.
Two of the vehicles showed a doubling
of NOX emissions when increasing
gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm to 30 ppm.
Both of the heavy-light-duty trucks with
specific engineering targets of meeting
Tier 3 emissions were capable of
meeting their targeted emission
standards with a sufficient compliance
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
margin on 10 ppm sulfur gasoline and
could not meet their targeted emissions
standards or could not achieve a
reasonable compliance margin when
tested with 30 ppm sulfur gasoline.
The negative impact of gasoline sulfur
on catalytic activity and the resultant
loss of exhaust catalyst effectiveness to
chemically reduce NOX and oxidize
NMOG occur across all vehicle
categories. However, the impact of
gasoline sulfur on the effectiveness of
exhaust catalysts to control NOX
emissions 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
emissions levels in order to offset
engineering limitations on further
NMOG exhaust emissions control with
these vehicles, 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 level low enough to
comply with the 30 mg/mi fleet-average
standard. Any degradation in catalyst
performance due to gasoline sulfur
would reduce or eliminate the margin
necessary to ensure in-use compliance
with the Tier 3 emissions standards.
Certifying to a useful life of 150,000
miles versus the current 120,000 miles
will further add to manufacturers’
compliance challenge for Tier 3 large
light trucks (See Section IV.A.7.c below
for more on the useful life
requirements.) These vehicles represent
a sufficiently large segment of light-duty
vehicle sales now and for the
foreseeable future such that their
emissions could not be sufficiently
offset (and thus the fleet-average
standard could not be achieved) by
certifying other vehicles to bins below
the fleet average standard.
As discussed above, achieving Tier 3
levels as an average across the light-duty
fleet will require fleet wide reductions
of approximately 80%. This will require
significant reductions from all light duty
vehicles, with the result that some
models and types of vehicles will be at
most somewhat above the Tier 3 level,
and all other models will be at or
somewhat below Tier 3 levels.
Achieving these reductions presents a
major technology challenge. The
required reductions are of a magnitude
that EPA expects manufacturers to
employ advances in technology in all of
the relevant areas of emissions control—
reducing engine-out emissions, reducing
the time to catalyst lightoff, improving
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23473
exhaust catalyst durability at 120,000 or
150,000 miles and improving efficiency
of fully warmed up exhaust catalysts.
All of these areas of emissions control
need to be improved, and gasoline
sulfur reduction to a 10 ppm average is
a critical part of achieving Tier 3 levels
through these emissions control
technology improvements.
The use of 10 ppm average sulfur fuel
is an essential part of achieving Tier 3
levels while applying an array of
advancements in emissions control
technology to the light-duty fleet. The
testing of Tier 2 and Tier 3 type
technology vehicles, as well as other
information, shows that sulfur has a
very large impact on the effectiveness of
the control technologies expected to be
used in Tier 3 vehicles. Without the
reduction in sulfur to a 10 ppm average,
the major technology improvements
projected under Tier 3 would only
result in a limited portion of the
emissions reductions needed to achieve
Tier 3 levels. For example, without the
reduction in sulfur from a 30 ppm to 10
ppm average, the technology
improvements would not come close to
achieving Tier 3 levels. In some cases
this may result in the same effectiveness
as the current Tier 2 technology and
achieve only approximately Tier 2
levels of exhaust emissions control.
Achieving Tier 3 levels without a
reduction in sulfur to 10 ppm levels
would only be possible if there were
technology improvements significantly
above and beyond those discussed
above. Theoretically, without reducing
sulfur levels to 10 ppm average,
emissions control technology
improvements would need to provide
upwards of twice as much, and in some
cases significantly more than twice as
much, emissions control effectiveness as
the Tier 3 technology improvements
discussed above in Section IV.A.6.d.
EPA has not identified technology
improvements that could provide such
a large additional increase in emissions
control effectiveness, across the lightduty fleet, above and beyond that
provided by the major improvements in
technology discussed above, without
any additional gasoline reductions in
gasoline sulfur content. The impact of
sulfur reduction on the effectiveness of
the available technology improvements
plays such a large role in achieving the
Tier 3 levels that there would be no
reasonable basis to expect that
technology would be available, at the 30
ppm sulfur level, to fill the emission
control gap left from no sulfur
reduction, and achieve the very
significant fleetwide reductions needed
to meet the Tier 3 fleet average
standards. In effect reducing sulfur from
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23474
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
30 ppm to 10 ppm has such a large
impact on the ability of the technology
improvements to achieve Tier 3
emissions levels that absent these sulfur
reductions there is not a suite of
technology advancements available to
fill the resulting gap in emissions
reductions. We cannot identify a
technology path for vehicles that would
achieve the Tier 3 Bin 30 average
standard, across the fleet, with sulfur at
30 ppm levels, and as a result Tier 3
levels would not be technically feasible
and achievable.
This analysis also applies to gasoline
sulfur levels between 10 and 30 ppm,
e.g., 20 ppm. The Tier 3 required
emissions reductions are so large and
widespread across the fleet, and the
technology challenges are sufficiently
high, especially for heavier vehicles,
that the large increase in emissions that
would occur from a higher average
sulfur level compared to a 10 ppm
average would lead to an inability for
vehicle technologies to widely achieve
Tier 3 levels as a fleet wide average in
order to meet the Bin 30 fleet average
standard.
EPA acknowledges that some models
in the light-duty fleet, when viewed in
isolation, may be able to achieve Tier 3
levels at current sulfur levels of 30 ppm
average. Under the Tier 3 fleet average
standards, it is not sufficient for one or
a few of a manufacturer’s vehicle
models to meet Tier 3 levels because the
manufacturer’s light-duty vehicle fleet
as a whole must achieve the Tier 3 30
mg/mi exhaust emissions standard as a
fleet-wide average. As discussed above,
all vehicle models will need to achieve
further reductions and be either below
or no more than somewhat above Tier
3 levels to achieve the Tier 3 standard
as a fleet wide average. Absent the
reductions in sulfur levels to 10 ppm
average, this is not achievable from a
technology perspective.
As discussed in Section V.B, the
average 10 ppm gasoline sulfur standard
is feasible and is the level that
appropriately balances costs with the
emission reductions that it provides and
enables. Not only will a 10 ppm sulfur
standard enable vehicle manufacturers
to certify their entire product line of
vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet average
standards, but reducing gasoline sulfur
to 10 ppm will better enable these
vehicles to maintain their emission
performance in-use over their full useful
life. Higher sulfur levels would make it
impossible for vehicle manufacturers to
meet the Tier 3 standards, and would
forego the very large immediate
reductions from the existing fleet.
Reducing the sulfur level below 10 ppm
would further reduce vehicle emissions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
and allow the Tier 3 vehicle standards
to be achieved more easily. However,
we believe that a 10 ppm average
standard is sufficient to allow vehicles
to meet the Tier 3 standards. Further, as
discussed in Sections V.B and IX.B
there are significant challenges
associated with reducing sulfur below
10 ppm.
7. Other Provisions
a. Early Credits
The California LEV III program is
scheduled to begin at least two model
years earlier than the federal Tier 3
program.322 The Tier 3 standards begin
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
will be meeting at that time. In addition,
the California NMOG+NOX standards
will further decline before Tier 3 begins,
resulting in the gap growing between
the current federal program and LEV III.
We are finalizing an early credit
program that with minor revisions is as
we proposed. We have designed the
early credit provisions to accomplish
three goals: (1) To encourage
manufacturers to produce a cleaner
federal fleet earlier than otherwise
required; (2) to provide valuable
flexibility to the manufacturers to
facilitate the significant ‘‘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) to create an overall Tier
3 program that although starts later, 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. Commenters were
generally supportive of or silent on the
early credits program as proposed.
The early credit program we are
finalizing includes several distinct
provisions. The first provision allows
manufacturers to generate early federal
credits against the current Tier 2 Bin 5
requirement 323 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 will
322 See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) &
GHG 2012 regulations adopted by the 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 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/
2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm (last accessed
December 2, 2013).
323 Tier 2 standards are not set in the form of
NMOG+NOX. The equivalent Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet
average in NMOG+NOX terms is equal to 160 mg/
mi (90 mg/mi NMOG + 70 mg/mi NOX).
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
only be available to manufacturers that
comply under the primary program
(declining fleet average), not the
alternative phase-in approach (Section
IV.A.2.c above). In order to generate
these credits, manufacturers sum the bin
specific NMOG and NOX certification
standards for each federally certified
Tier 2 vehicle and the bin NMOG+NOX
standards for any vehicle certified under
the Early Tier 3 provision described
below and calculate an NMOG+NOX
fleet average for the entire
manufacturers fleet sold in a model
year. Credits are based on how far the
fleet average is below the existing Tier
2 Bin 5 requirement (160 mg/mi total of
NMOG and NOX). We expect that
manufacturers will be able to achieve a
fleetwide average below the Tier 2 Bin
5 level by several means, such as
certifying LEV III vehicles either under
Tier 2 or as Early Tier 3 vehicles under
Tier 3 (discussed in the next section) to
bin levels lower than Tier 2 Bin 5. Our
analysis, presented in Section IV.A.5
above and Chapter 1 of the RIA, shows
that manufacturers could certify many
vehicles currently certified to Tier 2 Bin
5 to a lower bin—e.g., to Tier 2 Bin 3
or Bin 4—by simply accepting a
relatively small reduction in compliance
margins. Many manufacturers certify
Tier 2 vehicles to Tier 2 Bin 5 but also
certify the same vehicle to a cleaner
emission standard under the LEV II
program (e.g. ULEV) with only a
compliance margin difference.
We believe that the early credit
provision will help us realize both our
first and second goals presented above.
For example, a manufacturer certifying
their federal fleet to Tier 2 Bin 4 will
earn 50 mg/mi of NMOG+NOX credits
per vehicle (i.e., 160 mg/mi minus 110
mg/mi), which we believe will
encourage manufacturers to certify a
cleaner federal fleet and provide a
reasonable opportunity for credit
generation to facilitate the ‘‘step down’’
in stringency.
At the same time, if we allowed
manufacturers to generate excessive
early credits, manufacturers might
thereby delay their compliance with the
Tier 3 program, and thus the
harmonization with LEV III, 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 proposed and
are finalizing a provision limiting the
application of the early Tier 3 credits to
the following conditions:
• Early Tier 3 credits generated as
described above could be used without
limitation in MY 2017 on the portion of
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
the fleet entering the Tier 3 program in
that MY.
• Credits used for compliance in MY
2018 and beyond will 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 scaled up by the ratio of
50-state sales to California and LEV III
required states sales. This limitation
accounts for the fact that some LEV III
credits may have begun to expire and
will no longer be eligible as a basis for
Tier 3 early credits.
By capping the available federal Tier
3 early credits, we believe that the two
programs, LEV III and Tier 3 will be at
parity in terms of relative stringency
starting in MY 2018. In addition,
because the number of Tier 3 early
credits that can be used is based on the
number of LEV III credits that the
manufacturer has generated, there may
be additional motivation for
manufacturers to over-perform in
California during the initial model
years, accelerating emission reduction
benefits.
Finally, we are adopting, as proposed,
a limitation on the life of Tier 3 early
credits to 5 years, with no discounting,
consistent with the California LEV III
program.
b. Early Tier 3 Compliance
We are finalizing, as proposed, the
requirement that manufacturers begin
the Tier 3 program in MY 2017 for
vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR and MY
2018 for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR
under the primary phase-in. The only
proposed compliance approach
available prior to MY 2017 was for
manufacturers to continue to certify
vehicles to the existing Tier 2 standards
with the opportunity to earn early
credits (see previous section) that could
be used in MY 2017 and later.
Several auto industry commenters
suggested additional provisions that
could facilitate earlier harmonization
between Tier 3 and LEV III and
streamlining of development and
certification of vehicle models.
Specifically, these commenters
requested the ability to have vehicles
certified to the Tier 3 standards in MYs
2015 and 2016. They commented that
this would allow them to develop,
certify and sell a vehicle model for all
50 states, reducing the complexity of
potentially different federal and
California requirements in MYs 2015
and 2016. Additionally, commenters
noted that the Tier 3 program provides
more flexibility in the certification bin
structure compared with the existing
Tier 2, providing them additional
opportunities to generate early credits.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
To address this concern, we are
finalizing a provision to allow
manufacturers to certify to Tier 3
standards starting in MY 2015 as ‘‘Early
Tier 3’’ vehicles. Manufacturers will
have the option to certify their vehicle
models to meet the Tier 3 emission
requirements in MY 2015 and 2016 for
all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, which
would have been required to begin in
MY 2017 under the primary program.
As an example, a manufacturer choosing
to certify a vehicle as Early Tier 3 can
bring the same vehicle models certified
to LEV III standards 324 in MY 2015 or
2016 into the Early Tier 3 program by
meeting all the same requirements
under the primary Tier 3 schedule.
There would not be a Tier 3 fleet
average requirement for FTP or SFTP in
MY 2015 or 2016 (and 2017 for vehicles
over 6,000 lbs GVWR and up to 8,500
and MDPVs) if all the same vehicle
models certified to LEV III are also
certified as the Early Tier 3 vehicles
meeting the same LEV III emission
standards and also the Tier 3 additional
requirements (high altitude, and cold
CO and hydrocarbons). These Early Tier
3 vehicles would replace any Tier 2
offering of the vehicle model consistent
with the LEV III offering replacing the
LEV II models. If a manufacturer
chooses to certify only a portion of their
LEV III vehicle models as Early Tier 3
vehicles in a given MY, they will be
required to meet the LEV III fleet
average requirements in that MY for
those models certified as Early Tier 3
vehicles. All vehicles models not
certified as Early Tier 3 vehicles must
meet all Tier 2 requirements.
c. 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. For the Tier 3 program, we
are finalizing several changes to the
existing useful life provisions that are
appropriate to the new Tier 3 standards
described above.
The auto manufacturing industry has
uniformly expressed the desire to
produce and sell a single national
vehicle fleet, including a general ability
and willingness of the industry to
certify their vehicles to a 150,000 mile,
15 year full useful life, as required by
the LEV III program. However, the CAA,
written at a time when vehicles did not
last as long as they do today, precludes
EPA from requiring a useful life value
longer than 120,000 miles (and 10 or 11
years, depending on vehicle category
and weight) for lighter light-duty
324 Including
PO 00000
Frm 00063
LEV III SFTP requirements.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23475
vehicles (LDVs and LDTs up to 3,750 lbs
loaded vehicle weight (LVW) and up to
6,000 lbs GVWR (i.e., LDT1s)).
For heavier light-duty vehicles (i.e.,
LDT2s, 3s, 4s, as well as MDPVs,
representing a large fraction of the lightduty fleet), this statutory restriction
does not apply, and we are finalizing a
150,000 mile, 15 year useful life value,
as proposed. For the lighter vehicles, we
are continuing to apply the 120,000 mile
(and 10 or 11 year, as applicable) useful
life requirement from the Tier 2
program, also as proposed. For these
lighter vehicles, manufacturers are
allowed to choose to certify to either
useful life value in complying with the
fleet average.325 In order for the Tier 3
NMOG+NOX standards to represent the
same level of stringency regardless of
which useful life value manufacturers
choose, we proposed and are finalizing
proportionally lower numerical values
(85 percent of the NMOG+NOX 150,000
mile standards based on a data analysis
in Chapter 1 of the RIA) for the
declining fleet average FTP
NMOG+NOX standards when a
manufacturer chooses the 120,000 mile
useful life. A manufacturer choosing the
120,000 mile useful life for any vehicle
must maintain separate 120,000 mile
and 150,000 mile useful life fleet
averages for purposes of FTP
NMOG+NOX fleet average compliance.
Credits generated towards the required
fleet averages are not transferable
between the two useful life fleet
averages.
We proposed that a manufacturer that
certifies any vehicle model under the
120,000 mile provision be required to
certify all their LDVs and LDT1s to the
120,000 mile useful life and associated
numerically lower FTP NMOG+NOX
fleet average standard. Comments from
the auto industry expressed a concern
that this approach would be inflexible
to manufacturers’ needs and
unnecessarily burdensome. We have
considered these comments, and we
believe that the emission benefits of Tier
3 program will not be adversely affected
if manufacturers are allowed to certify
these lighter vehicles to the 120,000
mile useful life standards on a test
group basis, and therefore we are
finalizing this approach. Standards for
all other pollutants 326 and all other test
cycles such as SFTP remain the same
regardless of whether manufacturers
325 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.
326 PM, CO, and HCHO.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23476
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
choose the 120,000 mile or the 150,000
mile useful life periods.
For emission standards other than PM
standards (e.g., NMOG+NOX standards),
as proposed, manufacturers will be
required to certify all 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 (other than vehicles not yet
required to meet a 150,000 mile useful
life during the program phase in, and
vehicles for which a manufacturer has
the option and chooses to apply the
120,000 mile useful life value). This
useful life requirement will apply as
early as MY 2017. Beginning in MY
2020, all vehicles will need to certify to
the 150,000 mile useful life for all
emissions, regardless of NMOG+NOX
certification bin, unless they are eligible
for, and the manufacturer has chosen
the 120,000 mile useful life and
associated standards. (Note that the
timing of the requirement to certify on
the new test fuel follows the same
approach as for the useful life
requirement for emission standards
other than PM standards (i.e., based on
the first year a model is certified to FTP
NMOG+NOX Bin 70 or below) as
described in the next section.) For FTP
and SFTP PM useful life requirements,
manufacturers will be required to certify
to 150,000 mile useful life for PM all
vehicles that are included in the
manufacturer’s phase-in percentage
meeting the new PM standards (other
than eligible vehicles for which a
manufacturer chooses to apply the
120,000 miles useful life value).
d. Test Fuels for Exhaust Criteria
Emissions Standards
We recognize that test fuels are an
important element of a national
program. Vehicle manufacturers have
emphasized in their comments the
desire to reduce their test burdens by
producing one vehicle that is tested on
a single test procedure and on a single
test fuel and that meets both California
and federal requirements. Although we
have been able to reasonably align the
Tier 3 program with the LEV III program
in most key respects, we recognize that
the Tier 3 and LEV III test fuels are
different, and that there may still exist
some differences in emissions
performance between vehicles tested on
the two fuels. The largest difference
between the two fuels is the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP), and other differences in
distillation properties and aromatic
levels also exist (largely related to
differences in actual in-use fuel
nationally and in California). We are
finalizing as proposed the requirement
that manufacturers certify vehicles on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
the new Tier 3 E10 test fuels 327
beginning with the first model year that
a vehicle model is certified to the FTP
NMOG+NOX Bin 70 or lower.328 This
requirement may apply as early as MY
2017 for vehicles up to 6000 lbs GVWR
and MY 2018 for vehicles greater than
6000 lbs GVWR.329 This requirement
also applies to vehicles certified at Bin
70 and lower that are brought into the
Tier 3 program under the Early Tier 3
option described in IV.A.7.b above, with
the exception of the specific provision
allowing the use of LEV III fuels
discussed below. Beginning in MY
2020, all gasoline-fueled models will
need to certify on the Tier 3 test fuels
for all exhaust emission requirements,
regardless of their certification bin.330
As discussed in Section IV.A.7.c above,
manufacturers must also meet the
150,000 mile useful life requirements
for NMOG+NOX standards for these
same vehicles as they are certified to
Bin 70 and lower.
During the transition period from Tier
2 fuel to the new Tier 3 and LEV III E10
fuels, manufacturers have indicated that
they face a substantial workload
challenge of developing and certifying
each vehicle model to the two new fuels
simultaneously. We recognize this
transitional challenge and are including
an additional option. We are finalizing
as proposed an option that vehicles
certified in MYs 2015 through 2019 to
California LEV III standards using
California LEV III E10 certification test
fuels and test procedures can be used
for certifying to EPA Tier 2 or Tier 3
exhaust emission standards, including
PM. A manufacturer may submit LEV III
test data on vehicles tested using the
new LEV III E10 fuels for Tier 2 or Tier
3 certifications. Consistent with existing
Tier 2 policy, EPA may test vehicles
certified to Tier 2 standards using LEV
III test results on Tier 2 fuel for
confirmatory or in-use exhaust testing.
For vehicles certified in MY 2017
through 2019 to Tier 3 standards using
LEV III E10 fuels, EPA will only use
LEV III E10 fuels for confirmatory and
in-use testing (except for high altitude
or cold CO and hydrocarbons testing, as
described below). Vehicles certified to
327 This includes fuels used for cold temperature
and high altitude testing and durability
requirements. See Section IV.F below.
328 The lower Bins are Bin 0, Bin 20, Bin 30 and
Bin 50.
329 Vehicles above 6000 lb GVWR choosing the
alternative phase-in schedules described in Section
IV.A.2.c above generally would begin using the Tier
3 test fuels for MY2019.
330 Diesel fueled and alternative fueled vehicles
will continue to test on the fuels used under the
Tier 2 program except for E85 fueled vehicles, for
which we are finalizing new test fuel specifications
(see Section IV.F below).
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the provisions of Early Tier 3 (Section
IV.A.7.b above) will be treated the same
as Tier 3 vehicles certified in MY 2017.
For example, for MY 2015 and 2016,
EPA will consider Early Tier 3 vehicles
to be part of the Tier 3 program for
purposes of fuel-related testing
obligations. We will not accept test
results using LEV II fuels for Tier 3
vehicle certification, including Early
Tier 3 certifications, with the exception
of the PZEV exhaust carry-over
provision described below.
California does not have fuel
specifications for high altitude testing or
cold CO and hydrocarbon testing. For
this reason, we are finalizing that for
vehicles that manufacturers choose to
certify using LEV III fuel and test
procedures, manufacturers must use
program-specific federal test fuels to
comply with these federal-only
requirements (i.e. Tier 2 vehicles will
use Tier 2 fuel and Tier 3 vehicles will
use Tier 3 fuel). Similarly, high altitude
and cold CO and hydrocarbon
confirmatory and in-use testing for these
vehicles will be performed on the
federal fuel that the manufacturer is
required to use at certification as
specified above regardless of whether
LEV III or federal fuel is used for other
testing.
We proposed the requirement that
after MY 2019, all Tier 3 certification,
confirmatory and in-use emission
testing be required to use only the
proposed Tier 3 E15 test fuel because it
was believed to be a worst case fuel for
emissions. Because we are finalizing
Tier 3 E10 test fuels which are very
similar as explained above to LEV III
E10 test fuels, and not considered a
worst case fuel, we are not finalizing the
requirement for all testing to be
performed on Tier 3 E10 test fuel.
Instead, for certifications after MY 2019,
EPA will continue to allow LEV III test
results to be submitted for certification
to Tier 3 standards, consistent with
protocol under the Tier 2 program.
However, if a manufacturer chooses to
submit certification results for
compliance with Tier 3 standards using
the LEV III test fuel, then for
confirmatory and in-use testing we will
hold vehicles to the Tier 3 standards
while using the Tier 3 fuel in addition
to the LEV III test fuel; we will not allow
new or carry-over certifications using
LEV II or Tier 2 certification test fuels
after MY 2019. CARB has indicated that
they will accept Tier 3 test data (on
federal certification test fuels) 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, since
vehicles certified to Interim or Final
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Tier 3 status using federal certification
test fuels could also obtain LEV III
certification.
Auto industry commenters noted that
the LEV III program provides an
allowance for manufacturers to carry
over PZEV-certified vehicle exhaust
data 331 from the LEV II program into
LEV III compliance in MY 2015 through
MY 2019. Thus, CARB allows these
PZEV vehicles to use emission testing
results using LEV II fuel (i.e. California
Phase II test fuel) to meet the LEV III
obligations. The commenters suggested
that EPA allow manufacturers to carry
over such PZEV 150,000 mile useful life
exhaust emission data to meet the Tier
3 standards. We agree that this approach
is appropriate during the transition, and
we are finalizing this provision for MY
2015 through MY 2019, including
allowing Early Tier 3 compliance at the
Bin 30 level as a combined NMOG+NOX
standard. EPA will hold vehicles
certified using this provision to the Tier
3 emission requirements when they are
tested on the LEV II fuel for
confirmatory and in-use. Compliance
testing of these vehicles for all other
Tier 3 obligations (i.e., high-altitude
testing and Cold CO and hydrocarbons
testing) must be performed using Tier 3
fuel, and these vehicles will be required
to meet the Tier 3 standards for Bin 30.
e. 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 highaltitude. 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), and these challenges become
more pronounced as emission standards
become more stringent. 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 can
increase. Vehicles under the Tier 2
program typically have had sufficient
compliance margins to absorb this
increase in emissions during testing
under high-altitude conditions.
However, given the extremely low
standards we are finalizing in Tier 3,
manufacturers will have less
331 California’s PZEV exhaust standards are the
same as their SULEV standards and the Tier 3 Bin
30, and are certified to a 150,000 mile useful life.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
will also provide very significant
emission control at high altitude.332
However, as explained above, unique
emission challenges exist with
operation at higher altitude, often
requiring manufacturers to design their
emission controls specifically for higher
altitude.
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.
To avoid requiring manufacturers to use
special high-altitude emission control
technologies, we are allowing
manufacturers limited relief for
certification testing at high altitude, as
proposed. Specifically, for sea-level
certifications to Tier 3 Bins 20, 30, and
50, a manufacturer could comply with
the next less-stringent bin for testing at
high altitude. For example, a
manufacturer can certify 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, manufacturers
can comply with standards 35 mg/mi
higher (e.g., 105 mg/mi and 160 mg/mi,
respectively. We are providing no high
altitude relief for vehicles certified to
Bin 160. This high altitude relief
provision applies to all Final Tier 3
vehicles for the duration of the Tier 3
program.
For intermediate altitudes that fall
between the specified low and high
altitude test conditions, the emission
performance should continue to be
representative of the controls
implemented to meet standards at the
required altitude test conditions,
consistent with Tier 2 protocol. Any
deviation in the use of these controls at
the intermediate altitudes may be
considered an AECD that must be
reported by the manufacturer and
justified as not being a defeat device.333
Table IV–9 presents the Tier 3 high
altitude standards.
332 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).
333 § 86.1809–12 Prohibition of defeat devices
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23477
TABLE IV–9—TIER 3 HIGH ALTITUDE
STANDARDS
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
160 .....
125 .....
70 .......
50 .......
30 .......
20 .......
Sea level FTP
standard
(mg/mi
NMOG+NOX)
Altitude FTP
standard
(mg/mi
NMOG+NOX)
160
125
70
50
30
20
160
160
105
70
50
30
f. 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 finalizing, as
proposed, a provision that the Tier 3
FTP NMOG+NOX standards 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 Tier 3
FTP NMOG+NOX standard for the bin at
which a manufacturer has chosen to
certify a vehicle will 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 will
simply need to ensure that the same
emission control strategies implemented
for the FTP and SFTP cycles are also
effective during the highway test cycle.
We believe that this requirement will
not require manufacturers to take any
unique technological action, will not
add technology costs, and will not add
significantly to the certification burden.
g. Interim 4,000 Mile SFTP Standards
During the period of the declining
NMOG+NOX standards, we are
finalizing the proposed requirement 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
apply to each vehicle model
individually and to each component of
the SFTP composite cycle. This
approach is designed to prevent
excessive emission levels from
individual vehicle models being masked
by the averaging of the manufacturer’s
fleet emissions. Similarly, this approach
also prevents poor performance on a
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23478
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
single cycle of the SFTP. We believe it
is appropriate to require any individual
Interim Tier 3 vehicle to at a minimum
meet the existing requirements under
the Tier 2 and LEV II programs. Table
IV–10 below presents the 4,000 mile
SFTP standards for interim Tier 3
vehicles.
TABLE IV–10—4,000 MILE SFTP EXHAUST STANDARDS FOR INTERIM TIER 3 VEHICLES
[grams/mile]
US06
NMOG+NOX
Vehicle category
LDV/LDT1 ......................................................................................................
LDT2 ..............................................................................................................
LDT3 ..............................................................................................................
LDT4 ..............................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
We believe that vehicles considered to
be Final Tier 3 vehicles (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 and so will not
apply to those vehicles. 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, and the 4,000
mile SFTP standards will no longer
apply.
h. Phase-In Schedule
As proposed, the major provisions of
the Tier 3 program phase in based on
model year and on the emission levels
to which manufacturers certify their
vehicles. As described in Section
IV.A.3, under the Tier 3 program,
manufacturers are required to certify
each vehicle model to an FTP bin,
which is then used to calculate the
NMOG+NOX fleet average of all of its
Tier 3 vehicles. Manufacturers must also
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 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.c and
IV.A.7.d above, the longer (150,000
mile) useful life value, as applicable,
and the new Tier 3 test fuel for exhaust
testing will be implemented as
manufacturers certify 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 will be
required to be certified on Tier 3 test
fuel. In addition, any vehicle certified to
Bin 70 or lower that is required to meet
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
0.14
0.25
0.4
0.6
the longer 150,000 mile useful life will
be required to do so at that point.
Independent of the Tier 3 test fuel phase
in schedule, the 150,000 mile useful life
for PM standards will be required when
the vehicle is certified to the new Tier
3 PM standards as described below in
the PM phase-in schedules. Beginning
in MY 2020, all gasoline-fueled vehicles
will be required to be certified for
exhaust emissions on the Tier 3 test
fuel, regardless of their certification bin
or applicable useful life.
Manufacturers must also 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, is independent of the
NMOG+NOX fleet average requirements
described above. The PM emission
standards for FTP and SFTP described
in Section IV.A.3 and 4 respectively will
be implemented as a percent phase-in
requirement as described below under a
primary phase-in schedule or under an
optional phase-in schedule.
Vehicle models that a manufacturer
certifies to a Tier 3 NMOG+NOX bin,
that meet the requirements of the PM
phase-in schedule, and that comply
with the other Tier 3 requirements (i.e.,
150,000 mile useful life and Tier 3 test
fuel, as applicable) will 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 will be considered
‘‘Interim Tier 3’’ compliant vehicles. At
the completion of the percent phase-in
period for PM (2021 for the primary PM
phase-in schedule and 2022 for the
optional PM phase-in schedule, as
described below), 100 percent of
vehicles will need to meet all of the Tier
3 requirements and will be considered
Final Tier 3 vehicles.
As proposed, for the PM
requirements, each model year
manufacturers must meet either the
primary PM percent phase-in or the
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
US06
CO
SC03
NMOG+NOX
8.0
10.5
10.5
11.8
0.20
0.27
0.31
0.44
SC03
CO
2.7
3.5
3.5
4.0
optional PM phase-in as described in
the following subsections. The primary
percent PM phase-in schedule is
composed of fixed annual minimum
phase-in percentages that we expect
most manufacturers to choose in order
to comply with the Tier 3 requirements.
The optional PM phase-in schedule
provides additional flexibility for
manufacturers with too few product
offerings to allow for a sufficiently
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 PM standard of 10
mg/mi and the SFTP PM weighted
composite standard of 70 mg/mi.
i. Primary PM Percent Phase-In
Schedule
It is important to note that the percent
phase-in of the new Tier 3 PM standards
and the declining fleet average
NMOG+NOX standards that we are
finalizing are separate and independent
elements of the Tier 3 program. ‘‘Phasein’’ in the context of Tier 3 PM
standards means the fraction of a
manufacturer’s fleet that is required to
meet the new Tier 3 PM standards in a
given model year. We expect that
manufacturer fleets may consist of a mix
of vehicle models 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 may be carried over into the Tier
3 program as Interim Tier 3 vehicles. A
vehicle will be considered a Final Tier
3 vehicle when it is certified to one of
the Tier 3 bins, meets the new Tier 3 PM
standards for FTP (3mg/mi) and US06
(10 or 6 mg/mi), certifies to the 150,000
useful life value (as applicable), and
certifies on the new Tier 3 test fuel.
Table IV–11 below presents the PM
phase-in schedule for Final Tier 3
vehicles.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
23479
TABLE IV–11—PM PHASE-IN SCHEDULE FOR FINAL TIER 3 VEHICLES
Model year
2017
2018
Manufacturer’s Fleet (%) .............
20 a .............................
Vehicle Types ..............................
≤ 6,000 lbs GVWR ....
2019
20
2020
40
2021
70
2022 and later
100
100
All vehicles ≤ 8,500 lbs GVWR and MDPVs
a Manufacturers
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
comply in MY 2017 with 20 percent of their LDV and LDT fleet under 6,000 lbs GVWR, or alternatively with 10 percent of their
total LDV, LDT, and MDPV fleet Optional PM Phase-in
The PM percent-of-sales phase-in
schedule described above will 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 may have to overcomply with the required percentages
earlier than will a manufacturer with
many vehicle models available for the
phase-in.
For instance, a manufacturer with
only two models that each equally
account for 50 percent of their sales will
be required to introduce (at least) one of
the models in MY 2017 to meet the PM
phase-in requirement of 20 percent in
the first year. Because it represents 50
percent of the manufacturer’s sales, this
model will 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 will
need to introduce the second Tier 3
vehicle that year. Thus the manufacturer
will have introduced 100 percent of its
Tier 3 models one year earlier than
required of a manufacturer that is able
to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet
until MY 2021 (by distributing its
models over the entire phase-in period).
To provide for more equivalent
phasing in of the PM requirements
among all manufacturers in the early
years of the program, we are finalizing,
as proposed, an optional ‘‘indexed’’ PM
phase-in schedule that can be used by
a manufacturer to meet its PM percent
phase-in requirements. A manufacturer
that exceeds the phase-in requirements
in any given year will be allowed to, in
effect, offset some of the phase-in
requirements in a later model year. The
optional phase-in schedule will 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 they are 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
optional phase-in schedule. In this
approach, manufacturers 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 mathematical equation for
applying the optional PM phase-in is as
follows: (5 × APP2017) + (4 × APP2018)
+ (3 × APP2019) + (2 × APP2020) + (1
× APP2021) = 540, where APP is the
actual phase-in percentage for the
referenced model year.
The sum of the calculation must 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 × 20%
+ 4 × 20% + 3 × 40% + 2 × 70% + 1
× 100% = 540).
Applying the optional PM phase-in
equation to the hypothetical
manufacturer in the example above, the
manufacturer can postpone its model
introductions by one year each, to MY
2018 and MY 2021. Its calculation is (5
× 0% + 4 × 50% + 3 × 50% + 2 × 50%
+ 1 × 100% = 550, and thus the phasein is acceptable.
i. In-Use Standards
i. NMOG+NOX
The Tier 3 emission standards will
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 will 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.
As proposed, to help manufacturers
address the lack of in-use experience
and associated challenges with the
expanded introduction of these
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
technologies, particularly in the larger
vehicles, we are finalizing temporarilyrelaxed in-use NMOG+NOX standards
that will apply to all vehicles certified
to Bins 70 and cleaner as Interim or
Final Tier 3 vehicles. The in-use
standards will apply during the entire
percent phase-in period (i.e., through
MY 2021). The in-use standards are 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 vehicles.
The in-use NMOG+NOX standards are
shown in Table IV–12.
TABLE IV–12—FTP IN-USE STANDARDS FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES
AND MDPVS
[mg/mi]
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
160 .................................
125 .................................
70 ...................................
50 ...................................
30 ...................................
20 ...................................
NMOG+NOX
(mg/mi)
160
125
98
70
42
28
ii. PM
As with the NMOG+NOX standards,
the introduction of new emission
control technologies or new
applications of existing technologies
(e.g., GDI, turbocharging, downsized
engines) will create significant
uncertainties for manufacturers about
in-use performance over the vehicle’s
useful life. We are finalizing as
proposed a temporary in-use FTP
standard for PM of 6 mg/mi for all light
duty vehicles certified to the Tier 3 full
useful life 3 mg/mi standard. Since the
Tier 3 FTP PM standard has a percent
phase-in schedule spread over several
years, starting in 2017 with full phasein completed in 2022, we are finalizing
the requirement 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 also proposed temporarily-relaxed
in-use US06 PM standards. As described
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23480
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
in Section IV.A.4.b above, we are
finalizing an in-use US06 PM standard
of 10 mg/mi for the intermediate years
of the program (MYs 2019 through 2023)
in response to industry concerns about
emissions variability as the new
standards become effective.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
j. FFVs
Because of the physical and chemical
differences in how emissions are
generated and controlled between
vehicles operating on different blends of
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 Tier 3 program. Historically,
under the Tier 2 program, FFVs have
only been required to meet all Tier 2
emission standards, FTP and SFTP,
while operating on gasoline (E0); 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, as the Tier
3 program is implemented, 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 will not be
significantly more challenging
technologically than compliance on
lower ethanol blends, including the E10
Tier 3 test fuel we are adopting. We are
thus finalizing, as proposed, the
requirement that in addition to
complying with the Tier 3 requirements
when operating on Tier 3 test fuel, FFVs
also comply with both the FTP and the
SFTP emission standards when
operating on E85. This includes the
requirement to meet emission standards
for both Tier 3 test fuel and E85 for the
FTP, highway test, and SFTP emission
standards at standard test temperatures
(i.e., 68 °F to 86 °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 exhaust emission
compliance demonstration purposes, we
will test on Tier 3 test fuel and on fuel
with the highest available ethanol
content.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
k. 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, as
a way of 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 are
finalizing a provision, as proposed, 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 NMOG+NOX
standard.334 As with the California
program, such a credit may not exceed
5 mg/mi NMOG.
l. Credit for Adopting a 150,000-Mile
Emissions Warranty
Under the Tier 3 standards,
manufacturers are 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, 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
334 EPA is incorporating the CARB DOR
methodology by reference.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provide additional emission reductions
by helping ensure that controls continue
to operate effectively in actual operation
through the full life of the vehicle.
We are finalizing as proposed 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.335 Because of the
significant liability that manufacturers
would be accepting, we do not expect
that the use of this credit opportunity
will 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 realworld emissions would significantly
exceed the 5 mg/mi NMOG+NOX
credit.336
We will use the same criteria for
approving such a credit as does the
parallel California program.337 Thus, in
addition to committing to customers
that failing emission controls will be
repaired or replaced for 15 years/
150,000 miles, manufacturers will also
need to accept the liability that in the
event that a specific emissions control
device fails on greater than 4 percent of
a vehicle model’s production, they will
recall the entire production of that
model for repair.
m. Averaging, Banking, and Trading of
Credits
We proposed and are finalizing an
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
program similar to those that have
historically been a part of most EPA
emission control programs. For the Tier
3 final rule, the ABT program is
consistent with the other Tier 3 program
elements, the heavy duty exhaust
emission standards and the evaporative
emission standards programs, with the
only exception being credit life during
the longer phase in for the light duty
program as described below. The ABT
program is intended to provide an
opportunity for manufacturers to deploy
their Tier 3 vehicle models more
efficiently, especially during the
transition years, and to avoid excessive
delays in the necessary technological
improvements across the fleet. We have
335 Manufacturers choosing to comply with the
standards for a 120,000 mile useful life for their
LDVs and LDT1s are not eligible for this extended
warranty credit for those vehicles.
336 Beardsley, M, et al. (2013, February). Updates
to MOVES for the Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandum to
the docket.
337 EPA is incorporating the CARB extended
emission warranty provisions by reference.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
designed the Tier 3 ABT program to
provide for credits to be generated by
certifying vehicles that perform better
than the fleet-average NMOG+NOX
standards. These credits may be used
within a company to offset vehicles that
perform worse than the standards, they
may be banked for later use, or they may
be traded to other manufacturers.
We are also finalizing limitations on
the use of credits for the light-duty fleet.
We proposed that Tier 3 credits expire
after 5 model years following the model
year they are generated and solicited
comment on the Tier 3 credit life. In
communications regarding the proposed
rule, representatives of the auto industry
expressed to EPA that the value of the
ABT program during the MY 2017–2025
phase-in of the primary program would
be improved if credits had a longer
credit life.338 We determined that, with
certain restrictions, Tier 3 credit life can
be temporarily extended with no
adverse impacts on the overall emission
reductions of the program. Specifically,
we are finalizing a credit life of 8 years
for credits generated in MYs 2017–2022
for the FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX fleet
average standards for the primary
program only. For the heavier light-duty
vehicles, the 8-year credit life begins for
credits generated in MY 2018. Note that,
as proposed, credits generated under the
Early Tier 3 Credit provision (Section
IV.A.7.a) are limited to 5-year life, and
are not affected by the longer credit life.
For credits generated in MYs 2023–
2025, the credit life declines by one year
of credit life annually, with credit life
stabilizing at 5 years for credits
generated in MYs 2025 and later. That
is, credits generated in MY 2023 have a
7-year life, in MY 2024 a 6-year life, and
in MY 2025 and later a 5-year life.
However, while credits can be
generated, banked, and used internally
for the extended time periods, credits
cannot be traded to other manufacturers
after 5 years.
After considering the views expressed
by manufacturers as well as the
implementation schedules of this Tier 3
rule and the 2017 light-duty GHG rule,
we believe that the temporary up-to-8year credit life available to
manufacturers during the phase-in
period provides substantial flexibility to
address manufacturer uncertainties
about future technology development
and product planning during
implementation of the Tier 3 program.
We also believe this longer credit life
provision will alleviate most if not all
concerns expressed by manufacturers
338 Passavant, G. (January 2014), Meetings with
Chrysler—Tier 3 NPRM Lead Time and ABT,
Memorandum to Docket.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
with respect to the challenges they may
encounter by simultaneous
implementation of the two programs.
As proposed, we are finalizing a
provision for a manufacturer to create a
credit deficit, at certification or at the
end of the production year, if its fleet
average emissions exceed the standard.
A manufacturer would be required to
use all of its banked credits, if any,
before creating a credit deficit. A credit
deficit would need to be resolved before
the fourth model year after the deficit
was created; that is, a manufacturer may
not maintain a credit deficit more than
3 consecutive model years.
n. Tier 3 Transitional Emissions Bins
During the development of the
proposed rule and in their comments,
manufacturers pointed out that they
may continue to produce some vehicles
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 to further
facilitate the transition, we will allow
manufacturers to certify to the
combined NMOG+NOX levels of these
Tier 2 bins through MY 2019. We are
finalizing two transitional Tier 3 bins,
Bin 110 and Bin 85, that have FTP
NMOG+NOX standards 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 are identical
to those for vehicles certified to the Tier
3 Bin 125. Tier 3 SFTP standards will
apply to these vehicles, and these
vehicles will be included in the Tier 3
PM percent phase-in calculations.
o. Compliance Demonstration
In general, we are finalizing
requirements that manufacturers
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3
light-duty vehicle emission standards in
a very similar manner to existing Tier 2
vehicle compliance (see § 86.1860 of the
regulatory language). However, for Tier
3, manufacturers must 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23481
and track past years’ sales in a
disaggregated way. Because the Tier 3
provisions 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.
This nationwide compliance
calculation approach applies to vehicles
as they become subject to the Tier 3
provisions, either the declining fleetaverage 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.
B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles
1. Overview and Scope of Vehicles
Regulated
After considering the comments we
received, we are adopting the Tier 3
exhaust emissions standards that we
proposed for chassis-certified heavyduty vehicles (HDVs) between 8501 and
14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR). Vehicles in this GVWR range
are often referred to as Class 2b (8501–
10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001–14,000
lbs) vehicles, and are typically full-size
pickup trucks and work vans certified as
complete vehicles.339 Medium-duty
passenger vehicles (MDPVs), although
in the Class 2b GVWR range, are subject
to Tier 3 standards discussed in Section
IV.A. To a large extent, we are also
adopting the Tier 3 certification testing
and compliance provisions that we
proposed for HDVs. There are, however,
a number of improvements we are
making in response to comments, as
discussed in detail below.
The Tier 3 program for HDVs will
bring substantial reductions in harmful
emissions from this large fleet of work
trucks and vans, a fleet that is used
extensively on every part of the nation’s
highway, rural, and urban roadway
system. The fully-phased in Tier 3
standards levels for non-methane
organic gas (NMOG) plus oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), and for particulate
matter (PM), are on the order of 60
percent lower than the current
standards levels.
339 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 these vehicles will also be subject
to the Tier 3 standards and other provisions
applicable to Class 2b vehicles discussed in this
section.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23482
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
We proposed to require that dieselfueled Class 2b and 3 complete vehicles,
like their gasoline-fueled counterparts,
be certified to the Tier 3 standards on
the chassis test; we also proposed to
include these vehicles in the Tier 3 HDV
averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)
program. Currently only gasoline-fueled
Class 2b/3 complete HDVs are required
to chassis certify.
The International Council for Clean
Transportation (ICCT) provided
comments in support of this
requirement, arguing that it is needed to
stop manufacturers from making trucks
marginally above 8500 lbs GVWR to
avoid light-duty emission standards.
The Truck and Engine Manufacturers
Association (EMA) opposed mandatory
chassis certification for any class of
engines or vehicles over 8500 lbs
GVWR, arguing that the existing
flexibility is needed to minimize
unnecessary costs and certification
burdens. EMA commented that, at a
minimum, EPA should maintain
optional certification of diesel engines
used in complete Class 3 vehicles. In
their joint comments, the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers and the
Association of Global Automakers also
requested that EPA retain the option for
complete Class 3 diesel vehicles and
engines, arguing that otherwise
manufacturers may be required to dual
certify vehicle models that include
variants both under and over 14,000 lbs.
We are sensitive to this issue but
remain concerned that the fleet average
standard program we are finalizing
would not work well if a major fleet
component, such as complete Class 3
diesel trucks, can be left in or taken out
of the fleet calculation based on what
each manufacturer considers to be most
advantageous. We believe the resulting
competitive issues and uncertainties
would be problematic, given the wide
variance in gasoline/diesel HDV sales
among the manufacturers, our provision
for averaging across each manufacturers’
entire Class 2b/3 fleet, and the
overwhelming preponderance of diesels
in the Class 3 market. It would also
create uncertainties in the Tier 3
environmental benefits, given the
pronounced difference between these
Tier 3 standards and the heavy-duty
diesel engine standards we set 13 years
ago, which we expect to remain in effect
for the foreseeable future.
As a result, we are finalizing these
provisions as proposed, except that we
are providing that manufacturers,
instead of certifying complete diesel
Class 3 HDVs, may install diesel engines
that have been engine-certified for any
model year that the engine family has
less than half of its sales being installed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
in such non-chassis-certified complete
Class 3 vehicles. For example, if a
company has a certified diesel engine
family with 10,001 sales in MY 2020, up
to 5,000 of those engines may be
installed in complete Class 3 HDVs that
are not chassis-certified for exhaust
emissions. This provision is intended to
help address manufacturers’ concern
about dual certification, while at the
same time ensuring a coherent fleetwide
standards regimen in this vehicle class.
It also better harmonizes with
California’s low-emission vehicle (LEV)
III program which does not mandate
chassis certification for diesel Class 3
vehicles. By only allowing enginecertified vehicles in the case of engines
that are primarily produced for other
purposes, we believe this approach
adequately guards against potential
abuse. In the case of complete diesel
Class 3 HDVs produced by a company
other than the engine certifier, the
responsibility for ensuring the sales
limit is not exceeded remains with the
vehicle manufacturer, who will need to
coordinate with the engine supplier to
ensure compliance.
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
will be subject to Tier 3 requirements.
We asked for comment on mandating
chassis certification of incomplete Class
2b and 3 vehicles, noting that
California’s LEV III program includes
such a requirement for Class 2b.
Commenters expressed opposition to
this extension of mandatory chassis
certification, despite their general
support for harmonization with LEV III;
as a result, we are not mandating chassis
certification for any incomplete HDVs.
The key elements of the Tier 3
program for HDVs parallel those for
passenger cars and light-duty trucks
(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, including standards for
carbon monoxide (CO) and
formaldehyde,
• PM standards phasing in separately
on a percent-of-sales basis,
• changes to the test fuel for gasolineand ethanol-fueled vehicles,
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• extension of the regulatory useful
life to 150,000 miles,
• a new requirement to meet
standards over the supplemental federal
test procedure (SFTP) that addresses
real-world driving modes not wellrepresented by the federal test
procedure (FTP) cycle alone, and
• special flexibility provisions for
small businesses and small volume
manufacturers described in Section
IV.G.
As in the light-duty Tier 3 program,
we have put a strong emphasis on
coordinating HDV Tier 3 program
elements 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. As part
of this effort, we proposed that
manufacturers of Tier 3 HDVs calculate
compliance with the fleet average
standards and percent phase-in
standards based on annual nationwide
sales, including sales in California and
in states implementing California
standards under Clean Air Act section
177. Commenters expressed emphatic
support for this approach and we are
finalizing it as a key element of the Tier
3 program.
2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards
a. Bin Standards
Manufacturers will certify HDVs to
Tier 3 requirements by having them
meet the standards for NMOG+NOX,
PM, CO and formaldehyde for one of the
bins listed in Table IV–13.
Manufacturers choose bins for their
vehicles based on their product plans
and corporate strategy for compliance
with the fleet average standards
discussed in Section IV.B.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 will gradually shift from higher
to lower bins.
As in the past, there are 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 standards levels
for both Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs are
significantly higher than those being
adopted for light-duty trucks due to
marked differences in vehicle size and
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
capability, and to our requirement to
test HDVs in a loaded condition (at the
adjusted loaded vehicle weight
(ALVW)). By conducting emissions
testing with loaded vehicles, the heavyduty program ensures that emissions
controls are effective when these
vehicles are performing one of their core
functions: hauling heavy loads. This is
a key difference between the heavy-duty
and light-duty truck programs. The bin
structure and standards levels are
consistent with those in California’s
LEV III program. We requested comment
23483
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, but commenters saw
no need for these.
TABLE IV–13 FTP STANDARDS FOR HDVS
NMOG+NOX
(mg/mi)
PM
(mg/mi)
CO
(g/mi)
Formaldehyde
(mg/mi)
Class 2b (8501–10,000 lbs GVWR)
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
395 (interim) ..............................................................................................
340 (interim) ..............................................................................................
250 .............................................................................................................
200 .............................................................................................................
170 .............................................................................................................
150 .............................................................................................................
0 .................................................................................................................
395
340
250
200
170
150
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
0
6.4
6.4
6.4
4.2
4.2
3.2
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
7.3
7.3
7.3
4.2
4.2
3.7
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
Class 3 (10,001–14,000 lbs GVWR)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
630 (interim) ..............................................................................................
570 (interim) ..............................................................................................
400 .............................................................................................................
270 .............................................................................................................
230 .............................................................................................................
200 .............................................................................................................
0 .................................................................................................................
The NMOG+NOX standards levels for
the highest bins in each class (Class 2b
Bin 395 and Class 3 Bin 630) are equal
to the sum of the current non-methane
hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOX
standards levels 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 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 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 will 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) will be considered ‘‘interim
Tier 3’’ vehicles, and the bins
themselves will be considered ‘‘interim
bins.’’
To facilitate their use in this carryover
function, the interim bins do not require
manufacturers to meet Tier 3 exhaust
emissions standards on the SFTP, over
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
630
570
400
270
230
200
0
the longer useful life, or with the new
gasoline test fuel discussed in Section
IV.F, although testing on this fuel will
be allowed. These requirements do
apply in all other bins.
In the context of these relaxed
requirements for the interim bins, we
proposed two additional measures to
help ensure these bins are focused on
their function of helping manufacturers
transition to the long-term Tier 3
emissions levels. First, we proposed that
the interim bins would be available only
in the phase-in years of the program;
that is, through model year (MY) 2021,
as is appropriate to their interim status.
Second, vehicles in the interim bins
would meet separate NMOG and NOX
standards rather than combined
NMOG+NOX standards. The goal was to
ensure that a manufacturer does not
redesign or recalibrate a vehicle model
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.
Industry commenters objected to both
the proposed sunsetting of the interim
bins and the proposed separate NOX and
NMOG standards, arguing that they
overly restrict manufacturer flexibility
and work against harmonization with
LEV III. However, commenters did not
address EPA’s concern regarding
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
increased NOX emissions at the interim
bin levels.
After considering the comments, we
believe a modified approach to the
interim bins can at least partly address
the industry concerns regarding
harmonization while still precluding
backsliding on NOX levels. We are
finalizing the interim bins with
combined NMOG+NOX standards as
requested by the commenters, but are
adopting a restriction on deteriorationadjusted NOX levels in certification
testing, to the levels allowed under the
current standards in 40 CFR 86.1816–
08. These are 0.2 and 0.4 g/mi for Class
2b and Class 3, respectively. This
restriction will not apply to vehicles in
use, and does not impose a parallel
NMOG restriction. Given our continuing
concerns about NOX increases that
would be allowed by the combined
standards at the interim bin levels, we
believe that this approach and the
associated certification burden are
reasonable, noting that manufacturers
already must obtain NOX test results in
certifying to an NMOG+NOX standard,
and the differing NOX and NMOG
deterioration mechanisms will likely
dictate that they be considered
separately in obtaining deteriorated
NMOG+NOX levels for certification.
We believe that making the interim
bins available indefinitely would run
counter to their limited purpose as an
aid to making the transition to Tier 3
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23484
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emissions levels. Making these bins
permanent would, we believe,
necessitate that they take on other key
elements of the Tier 3 program such as
longer useful life, SFTP compliance,
and the use of Tier 3 test fuel. These
requirements in turn would negate the
usefulness of these bins in helping to
carry over some pre-Tier 3 vehicle
designs during the transition years in
which the declining fleet average
standard levels are high enough to
accommodate their continued sale. By
MY 2022, the fleetwide standard will be
stringent enough to effectively eliminate
the ability of manufacturers to use
interim bins while meeting the
declining fleet average standard levels.
We are therefore adopting the sunsetting
of the interim bins as proposed, making
them available only through MY 2021.
b. Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
As in the light-duty Tier 3 program,
a key element of the program we are
finalizing for HDVs 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.
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. As proposed, we are adopting
the separate Class 2b and Class 3 fleet
average standards shown in Table IV–
14, though a manufacturer can
effectively average the two fleet classes
using credits (see Section IV.B.4). We
believe this split-curve approach is
superior to a single phase-in covering all
HDVs because it recognizes the different
Class 2b/Class 3 fleet mixes among
manufacturers and the differing
challenge in meeting mg/mi standards
for Class 3 vehicles compared to Class
2b vehicles, while still allowing for a
corporate compliance strategy based on
a combined HDV fleet through the use
of credits.
We are adopting the proposed fleet
average NMOG+NOX standards. These
are consistent with those set for the LEV
III MDV program in model years 2018
and later. As proposed, we are also
adopting provisions allowing
manufacturers to voluntarily meet bin
and fleet average standards in model
years 2016 and 2017 that are consistent
with the MDV LEV III standards in those
years, for the purpose of generating
credits that can be used later or traded
to others. These voluntary standards are
shown in Table IV–14. This 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. Commenters expressed
support for this harmonized array of
HDV emissions standards.
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 for the bins they
choose for their vehicles in meeting the
2016/2017 MY fleet average FTP
NMOG+NOX standards, including SFTP
standards in the bins that have SFTP
standards. However, they do not need to
meet 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 not extending the
voluntary compliance opportunity to
the 2015 model year, based on
manufacturer comments indicating it
would be of little value.
TABLE IV–14—HDV FLEET AVERAGE NMOG+NOX STANDARDS
[mg/mi]
Voluntary
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Model Year ................
Class 2b ....................
Class 3 ......................
2016
333
548
2017
310
508
We believe that the voluntary program
provisions will benefit the environment,
the regulated industry, and vehicle
purchasers, because it has potential to
accomplish early emissions reductions
while maintaining the goal of a costeffective, nationwide vehicle program in
every model year going forward.
Although manufacturers will 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
will 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Required program
Jkt 232001
2018
278
451
2019
253
400
be representative of Tier 3-compliant
HDVs in the long term.
c. Alternative NMOG+NOX Phase-In
We believe the fleet average phase-in
described above will be flexible,
effective, and highly compatible with
manufacturers’ desire to market vehicles
nationwide, because of its close
alignment with California’s LEV III
program for medium-duty vehicles.
However, for any HDV manufacturers
seeking four years of lead time and three
years of stability as specified in Clean
Air Act section 202(a)(3)(C), we
proposed an alternative compliance
path.340 This alternative approach was
340 For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, Clean Air
Act 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 hydrocarbon, NOX, carbon monoxide,
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
2020
228
349
2021
203
298
2022 and later.
178.
247.
crafted to be equivalent to the
NMOG+NOX declining fleet average in
the above-described LEV III-harmonized
alternative in every model year, except
that the period for the voluntary
program in the alternative approach
would extend an extra model year—
through 2018. To ensure that this
approach meets the Act’s stability
requirement, instead of being structured
around an annually declining fleet
average standard, the alternative
approach requires a manufacturer to
demonstrate compliance (including
through use of credits) with a schedule
of 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
or PM can be implemented, and 3 years of stability
between changes to any such standard.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
IV–15. We are adopting the alternative
percent-of-sales phase-in largely as
23485
proposed, with limited changes
described below.
TABLE IV–15—PERCENT-OF-SALES ALTERNATIVE NMOG+NOX PHASE-IN
Voluntary
Model Year ................
Class 2b ....................
Class 3 ......................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a Special
2016
29%
21%
2017
39%
32%
Required program
2018
54%
47%
a 2019
2020
77%
73%
65%
60%
2021
88%
87%
2022 and later.
100%.
100%.
provisions apply to models with an early-starting 2019 model year.
The availability of emissions
averaging under our alternative phasein, discussed below, 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.
Commenters who disagreed with this
assessment for HDVs did not provide
their reasoning, beyond referring to
similar comments they had on the
parallel light-duty (above 6000 lbs
GVWR) alternative phase-in. However,
that proposed alternative differs from
the one we proposed for HDVs, and the
elements in it that were found
objectionable by the manufacturers are
not in the HDV alternative. (See Section
IV.A.3 for discussion of comments on
the light-duty alternative.)
Commenters objected that the
proposed percent-of-sales alternative
has not been shown by EPA to be
feasible, or in fact is infeasible because
it mandates the early phase-in of lowemitting vehicles certified to the final
standards. Such comments miss the fact
that, with ABT, every manufacturer can
produce the same mix of vehicles in any
model year to comply with either HDV
phase-in alternative, with the exception
that MY 2018 is a voluntary phase-in
year under the alternative phase-in and
a required year under the LEV IIIharmonized phase-in. The ABT
provisions enable a manufacturer to
adopt a fleet average compliance
strategy while utilizing the percent-ofsales phase-in that is identical to what
would be required under the LEV IIIharmonized phase-in’s fleet average
standards. By no means are
manufacturers forced to make only
vehicles certified to the final standards.
The percent-of-sales phase-in is thereby
no more stringent than the LEV IIIharmonized phase-in, and the feasibility
analysis provided in Section IV.B.5,
which expressly addresses the LEV IIIharmonized phase-in, serves to
demonstrate the feasibility of both
alternatives.
Some comments seem to assert that
the percent-of-sales framework for the
alternative was chosen by EPA to make
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
this alternative so stringent (by
requiring some vehicles to meet final
standards four years early) that no
reasonable company would use it. This
is incorrect, both in regard to its actual
effect (which as explained above is not
more stringent), and in regard to our
intent. The percent-of-sales framework
for the alternative was proposed and is
being adopted for the purpose of
providing manufacturers with a phasein alternative that explicitly meets the
applicable Clean Air Act stability
requirement.
We are making one change to the
percent-of-sales alternative, necessitated
by the fact that this final rule is being
signed in 2014, not 2013 as envisioned
in the proposal. HDV models for which
the 2019 model year begins before the
fourth anniversary of the signature date
of this final rule may be excluded from
the Tier 3 fleet average compliance
calculations and all other Tier 3
requirements. These excluded vehicles
would instead need to comply with the
applicable pre-Tier 3 standards and
requirements for the entire production
of these models throughout the 2019
MY. This limited allowance ensures that
the alternative meets EPA’s obligation
for four years of lead time under the
Clean Air Act. It is similar to a phasein alternative we provided in the lightduty vehicle Tier 2 rule (see 65 FR 6747,
February 10, 2000). Note that 40 CFR
86.1803–01 defines ‘‘model year’’ as
‘‘the manufacturer’s annual production
period (as determined by the
Administrator) which includes January
1 of such calendar year: Provided that
if the manufacturer has no annual
production period, the term ‘model
year’ shall mean the calendar year.’’
Additional regulations pertaining to the
definition of a model year are in 40 CFR
85, subpart X.
This allowance remains optional
within the percent-of-sales alternative—
a manufacturer may voluntarily include
these early-starting 2019 MY vehicles in
the Tier 3 program, and in this case
these vehicles would be treated no
differently under the alternative than
vehicles with a later-starting 2019 MY,
including with regard to whether
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
manufacturers choose to make them part
of the ‘‘phase-in’’ fleet (vehicles
counting toward the phase-in
percentages) or the ‘‘phase-out’’ fleet
(vehicles not counting toward the
phase-in percentages).
Although it is conceivable that
manufacturers would commence an
early start of the 2019 model year
specifically for the purpose of delaying
Tier 3 obligations, we do not think this
is likely, given the many important
constraints and decisions that typically
factor into setting this date, and the fact
that signature of this final rule is
occurring relatively early in the
calendar year, well before typical model
year start dates. We believe this is a
reasonable way to provide a viable
percent-of-sales phase-in alternative that
has four years of lead time without
making the 2019 model year voluntary
for all vehicles or putting new
constraints on the timing of a
manufacturer’s model year.
To help ensure that the percent-ofsales alternative is fully equivalent to
the LEV III-harmonized alternative in
terms of fleet-wide emissions control
and technology mix choices, we are
including some additional provisions,
as proposed. First, the Tier 3 vehicles
being phased in under the percent-ofsales alternative, in addition to meeting
the fully phased-in FTP NMOG+NOX
standards, must also meet all other FTP
and (as described below) SFTP
standards required by the LEV IIIharmonized alternative. These include
the CO and formaldehyde FTP
standards, the 150,000 mile (15 year)
useful life requirement, exhaust
emissions testing with the new test fuel
for gasoline- and ethanol-fueled vehicles
discussed in Section IV.F, and the
NMOG+NOX and CO SFTP standards in
Table IV–16. The specific 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.)
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23486
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Second, we are making an ABT
program available for the percent-ofsales alternative, structured like the one
created for the LEV III-harmonized
alternative. This involves certifying the
vehicles in a manufacturer’s HDV fleet
to the bin standards, and demonstrating
compliance with the fleet average
standards for the LEV III-harmonized
alternative in each model year,
including through the use of ABT
credits as in the LEV III-harmonized
alternative. We are using 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 establishing one
difference between the LEV IIIharmonized and percent-of-sales
alternatives with respect to ABT
provisions. Unlike in the LEV IIIharmonized alternative, manufacturers
will not have to certify all vehicles into
bins in order to take advantage of the
ABT provisions under the percent-ofsales 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 will not be subject to the Tier
3 standards or other vehicle-specific
elements of the Tier 3 compliance
program. There were no comments on
these specific compliance and ABT
provisions associated with the percentof-sales alternative.
d. Phase-In of PM Standards
Consistent with the light-duty Tier 3
program discussed in Section IV.A, we
are phasing in the PM standards for
HDVs as an increasing percentage of a
manufacturer’s production of chassiscertified HDVs (combined Class 2b and
3) per year. 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 greenhouse gas (GHG)
standards. Therefore we are adopting
the same phase-in schedule as for the
light-duty sector in model years 2018–
2019–2020–2021: 20–40–70–100
percent, respectively. This will apply to
HDVs certified under either
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
NMOG+NOX phase-in alternative. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
is phasing in the LEV III PM standards
for HDVs on the same schedule, except
that LEV III will also involve a 10
percent PM phase-in in the 2017 model
year. We asked for comment on our
adding this to our voluntary program for
2017, but received no comments on it
and are not including it in the Tier 3
program.
For manufacturers choosing the
declining fleet average NMOG+NOX
compliance path, the PM phase-in
requirement for HDVs will be
completely independent of the
NMOG+NOX phase-in, with no
requirement that both phase-ins be met
on the same vehicles. As a result,
vehicles certified to any of the bin
standards for NMOG+NOX need not
necessarily meet Tier 3 PM standards
before the 2021 model year. Instead, the
current 0.02 g/mi PM standard will
apply for those vehicles not yet phased
into the Tier 3 PM standards. We are
requiring that manufacturers choosing
the percent-of-sales phase-in alternative
for NMOG+NOX meet the PM phase-in
requirements with only those vehicles
certified to the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX
standard, except in the 2019 and earlier
model years when the standards,
including the PM standards, are
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. This
is appropriate given the ability of
manufacturers to build ‘‘phase-out’’
vehicles (those not counting toward the
phase-in percentages) under the
percent-of-sales NMOG+NOX alternative
that are certified entirely to pre-Tier 3
standards while still participating in the
Tier 3 ABT program, discussed above.
We will consider any vehicle under
either compliance path that is not
certified to Tier 3 standards for PM and
NMOG+NOX (as well as the other,
concomitant Tier 3 standards and
requirements such as the extended
useful life), an ‘‘interim Tier 3’’ vehicle.
This term also applies to vehicles
certified in one of the interim bins, as
discussed above.
Note that compliance with Tier 3
evaporative emissions requirements
follows a separate phase-in schedule as
described in Section IV.C. As a result,
a vehicle in an exhaust emissions family
that the manufacturer has phased in to
the new useful life and test fuel
requirements may be in an evaporative
emissions family that has not yet phased
in the Tier 3 useful life and test fuel for
evaporative emissions compliance and
testing.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
i. Optional PM Phase-In
The percent-of-sales phase-in
schedule for the PM standard, described
above, will allow manufacturers with
multiple vehicle models to determine
and plan the phase-in of those models
based on anticipated sales volumes of
each model. However, manufacturers
certifying only a few vehicle models
may not be able to take meaningful
advantage of this schedule. This is
because their limited number of models
may force them to over-comply to reach
the required minimum percentages,
compared to a manufacturer with many
vehicle models available from which to
choose a phase-in pathway.
For instance, a manufacturer with
only two models that each equally
account 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 redesign of
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
adopting the proposed optional
‘‘indexed’’ phase-in schedule that could
be used by a manufacturer to meet the
phase-in requirements. A manufacturer
that exceeds the phase-in requirements
in any given year will be allowed to, in
effect, offset some of the phase-in
requirements in a later model year. The
optional phase-in schedule will 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 they are obligated to
under the normal phase-in schedule,
while ensuring that the overall
population of complying vehicles at the
end of the phase-in is roughly the same
as under the fixed percentage approach.
In this alternative approach,
manufacturers will weight Tier 3 PMcompliant vehicles in the earlier years
by multiplying their percent phase-in by
the number of years prior to MY 2022
(that is, the second year of the 100
percent phase-in requirement).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The mathematical equation for
applying the optional phase-in is as
follows:
(4 × APP2018) + (3 × APP2019) + (2 ×
APP2020) + (1 × APP2021) ≥ 440,
where APP is the actual phase-in
percentage for the referenced model
year. The sum of the calculation will
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 ×
20% + 3 × 40% + 2 × 70% + 1 × 100%
= 440). Commenters supported this
optional PM phase-in approach.
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 wellcovered 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
23487
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 will also help make the HDV
program more consistent with the
heavy-duty engine program, which for
several years has included ‘‘not-toexceed’’ 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 SFTP standards levels are
provided in Table IV–16. These are
consistent with those adopted in the
LEV III program.
TABLE IV–16—SFTP STANDARDS FOR HDVS
NMOG+NOX
(mg/mi)
Vehicles in FTP bins
PM
(mg/mi)
CO
(g/mi)
Class 2b with hp/GVWR ≤ 0.024 hp/lb a
FTP Bins 200, 250 ...........................................................................................................
FTP Bins 150, 170 ...........................................................................................................
550
350
7
7
22.0
12.0
800
450
10
10
22.0
12.0
550
350
7
7
6.0
4.0
Class 2b
FTP Bins 200, 250 ...........................................................................................................
FTP Bins 150, 170 ...........................................................................................................
Class 3
FTP Bins 270, 400 ...........................................................................................................
FTP Bins 200, 230 ...........................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a These
standards apply for vehicles optionally tested using emissions from only the highway portion of the US06 cycle.
We are linking Tier 3 SFTP
implementation for HDVs 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 phases in on a separate
schedule, we will require that SFTP PM
compliance be linked to the same
schedule. That is, an HDV certified to
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. CARB expressed support
in its written comments for this
approach to linking FTP and SFTP
requirements and an intent to propose
aligning LEV III with it once the Tier 3
program is finalized.
There are no SFTP requirements for
the interim Tier 3 bins in each class
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
(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 help facilitate the
transition to Tier 3, and therefore are
not intended to take on new
requirements that might prompt a
redesign. These implementation
provisions are consistent with the
approach taken in the LEV III program,
except that California applies more of
the Tier 3 requirements for SFTP and
extended useful life to vehicles in the
interim bins.
To help ensure a robust SFTP
program that achieves good control over
a wide range of real world conditions,
we proposed to use a weighted-average
composite SFTP cycle, with
NMOG+NOX emissions 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. However, at proposal, we
determined that the full US06
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
component of the composite cycle,
along 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.
Therefore, as discussed in the
proposal, SFTP testing of Class 2b
vehicles with power-to-weight ratios at
or below 0.024 hp/lb, may, at the
manufacturer’s 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. HDVs so tested will
be subject to the correspondingly lower
SFTP standards levels shown in the
table above. These vehicles will be
driven during the test in the same way
as the higher power-to-weight Class 2b
vehicles (over the full US06 cycle),
using best effort (maximum power) if
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23488
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
the vehicle cannot maintain the driving
schedule. The large majority of Class 2b
vehicles—those with power-to-weight
above 0.024 hp/lb—will be required to
include emissions over the full US06
cycle in the composite SFTP. We
believe that this approach provides 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. Any testing
conducted by EPA would follow the
manufacturer’s test path for the vehicle.
For Class 3 vehicles, which range up
to 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 lightduty 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 a manner that is 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 will produce more robust
results for use in SFTP evaluations.
Therefore we are adopting the proposed
LA–92 cycle for use in place of the
US06 component of the composite SFTP
for Class 3 HDVs.
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 providing HDV
manufacturers with the option to
substitute the FTP emissions levels for
the SC03 emissions results for purposes
of compliance. However, we will retain
the ability to determine the composite
emissions using SC03 test results in
confirmatory or in-use testing. We
received no adverse comments on this
proposed approach.
The set of composite SFTP cycles and
standards we proposed and are adopting
for HDVs is consistent with the MDV
LEV III program. We received no
adverse comments on them, except with
regard to in-use testing as discussed in
Section IV.B.6.a.
b. Enrichment Limitation for SparkIgnition Engines
To prevent emissions from excessive
enrichment in areas not fully
encountered in the SFTP cycles, we
proposed and are adopting limitations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
in the frequency and magnitude of
enrichment episodes for spark-ignition
HDVs. These limitations are identical to
those for light-duty vehicles. See
Section IV.A.4.c for discussion of the
requirements and relevant comments
received.
4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking,
and Trading
This section describes how exhaust
emissions credits may be earned and
used. See Section V.C for similar
provisions that apply for evaporative
emissions. We are continuing the
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 the
Tier 3 ABT program for HDVs that are
different from the existing program.
First, instead of separate NMHC and
NOX credits, manufacturers earn
combined credits, consistent with the
form of the standards.
Second, manufacturers may accrue a
deficit in their credit balance. Deficits
incurred in a model year may be carried
forward but a manufacturer will not be
permitted to have a negative overall
HDV credit balance in more than 3
consecutive model years. Manufacturers
will have to use any new credits to
offset any shortfall before those credits
can be traded or banked for additional
model years. Credits not used within 5
years after they are earned will be
forfeited. These 5/3-year credit/deficit
life provisions are consistent with our
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 new requirement
for chassis certification of complete
diesel HDVs, we are allowing the
chassis-certified diesel HDVs to
participate in the Tier 3 ABT program
without restriction. Prior to Tier 3 they
have not been allowed to earn or use
ABT credits. We are not restricting or
adjusting 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.
Credits earned by a chassis-certified
Tier 3 HDV may be used to demonstrate
compliance with NMOG+NOX standards
for any other chassis-certified Tier 3
HDV, regardless of size and without
adjustment. This effectively allows
manufacturers to plan a comprehensive
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
Industry commenters argued that EPA
should align the HDV credit provisions
with the light-duty program by allowing
early Tier 3 credits to be generated in
MYs 2016 and 2017, calculated relative
to the highest Class 2b and Class 3 bin
NMOG+NOX levels (395 and 630 mg/mi,
respectively), and capped at a level
proportional to the California level in
MY 2018. However, these highest bin
levels correspond to those of the
existing HDV standards for NMHC and
NOX, and are significantly higher than
the MY 2016 and 2017 LEV III levels.
Thus vehicles designed to just meet the
LEV III standards in these years could
generate a large preliminary number of
credits under the industry’s Tier 3 early
credits proposal, credits they would not
earn in LEV III, thereby potentially
thwarting the harmonization of the two
programs. Truncating that credit bank
for each manufacturer in 2018 such that
it is proportional to their LEV III balance
could perhaps, with additional
restrictions on trading and banking,
restore a harmonized credit status in
that year. However, it constitutes an
unnecessarily complex and uncertain
pathway to the same result as that
achieved under EPA’s early opt-in
provisions.
Commenters requested that we
provide for the conversion of pre-Tier 3
HDV credits for use in Tier 3. However,
as discussed in the proposal, we are not
including provisions for doing so. We
believe that by providing an early Tier
3 opt-in program for HDVs, capable of
generating credits for two model years
before the mandatory standards take
effect (even longer under the alternative
percent-of-sales phase-in approach), we
are giving ample opportunity for the
manufacturers to accumulate early
credits.
Manufacturers commented that the
proposed fleet average compliance
approach is incongruous with
California’s LEV III method based on
vehicle equivalent credits (VECs).
Although expressing that they have no
preference for the method since the
stringency is equivalent, they
recommended that EPA foster
harmonization by providing a
compliance option based on VECs. We
believe that such an option would add
unnecessary complexity to the Tier 3
program, and is made even more
unnecessary by the intent expressed in
CARB’s written comments to propose a
fleet average option for LEV III that is
identical to EPA’s approach.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
In the past we have set upper bounds,
called family emission limit (FEL) caps,
on how high emissions can be for creditusing vehicles, regardless of how many
credits might be available. Under our
Tier 3 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. Thus the standard for
NMOG+NOX in the highest allowable
bin serves the purpose of the FEL caps
in previous programs.
Consistent with our proposal, we are
not creating an averaging program for
the HDV SFTP program, because we
believe that the bin structure and FTPcentered 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 emissions control on a vehicle
that lacks commensurate FTP control,
could prove at odds with the primary
goal of the supplemental test for HDVs.
5. Feasibility of HDV Standards
The feasibility assessment, discussed
in more detail in Chapter 1 of the RIA,
recognizes that the 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 new exhaust emissions
requirements include stringent
NMOG+NOX and PM standards for the
FTP and the SFTP, that will as a whole
require new emissions control strategies
and hardware in order to achieve the
standards. The type of new hardware
that will be required will vary
depending on the specific application
and emissions challenges. Additionally,
gasoline and diesel vehicles will require
different emissions control strategies
and hardware. The level of stringency
for the SFTP NMOG+NOX standards
will 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 will
require more precise control of engine
operation on gasoline vehicles while
diesels already equipped with diesel
particulate filters will 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. For this final rule, we also
reviewed certification records for 2012
and 2013 MY vehicles, and determined
23489
that these primarily involve carryover
engines and emission control hardware.
Therefore we did not update the NPRM
analysis however any new or updated
certification results in the 2012 or 2013
MYs are included in the RIA chapter 1
discussion. 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 4000 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 useful life of
the Tier 3 program. Deterioration factors
to adjust the values to the Tier 3 useful
life standard of 150,000 miles were not
available. However, deterioration factors
to adjust to 120,000 miles useful life,
and their implications for performance
at higher miles, are discussed in the RIA
Chapter 1.
The analysis also reflects the
importance of the combined
NMOG+NOX standard approach, where
diesels and gasoline HDVs can balance
their combined 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
Gasoline ..............................
Class 2b ..............................
Class 3 ................................
NMOG
0.050
0.080
NOX
0.052
0.083
CO
0.041
0.073
NMOG+NOX
1.648
2.373
0.092
0.156
NMHC+NOX
Class 2b ..............................
Class 3 ................................
0.037
0.019
........................
........................
0.138
0.249
0.195
0.158
0.174
0.268
Combined Class 2b .............................................................
Combined Class 3 ...............................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Diesel ..................................
0.043
0.050
0.026
0.041
0.089
0.161
0.922
1.265
0.133
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
deleterious effects of sulfur and other oil
and fuel contaminants. To meet the
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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23490
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emission levels considerably from the
levels indicated in this data set,
particularly for diesel vehicles.
However, as discussed above, these
emission results do not include the
expected emissions deterioration which
will be determined by manufacturers
during development and certification
testing. Therefore, manufacturers will
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 heavyduty 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.341 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).
With regard to the ability of the
heavy-duty fleet to meet the PM
standards for the FTP and the SFTP, we
based our conclusions on some testing
of current heavy-duty gasoline vehicles
(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 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 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 set for Tier 3.
The SFTP test data from the same two
heavy-duty vehicles described above
indicates that gasoline vehicles can
achieve the standards for SFTP
341 76
FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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, LA–92, and SC03).
Therefore, although the limited testing
results had a high degree of variability,
several tests met the PM standards for
the high power-to-weight Class 2b
vehicles. Consistent with light-duty,
vehicles that are demonstrating high PM
on the US06 will need to control
enrichment and oil consumption from
engine wear. Recently manufacturers
have already 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 HDV exhaust
emissions standards, discussed below,
we consider the lead time available
before the standards take effect under all
of the 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 program
incorporates a number of phase-in and
alternative compliance provisions that
will ease the transition to final
standards without disrupting heavyduty pickup and van product redesign
cycles. Among these is an alternative
phase-in that does not begin mandatory
standards until model year 2019.
Comments we received on the
proposed HDV standards did not
specifically address our analysis of their
technical feasibility. The Manufacturers
of Emission Controls Association
(MECA) outlined diesel and gasolineengine technologies that they expect
will be used to achieve the Tier 3
standards cost-effectively, generally
consistent with our draft RIA. Vehicle
and engine industry commenters argued
that the case we made for feasibility
relied too heavily on extending lightduty truck test data, supplemented by
testing of only two HDVs, neither of
which were fully aged or representative
of future vehicles designed to meet our
new GHG standards. However,
commenters did not question the
feasibility, durability, implementability,
or effectiveness of the technologies we
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
identified, or their ability to achieve the
proposed standards. Instead, the focus
of these comments was on statutory
provisions for lead time and stability,
and on how relaxed standards for in-use
testing and testing at high altitudes
would help to implement the standards
within the allotted lead time. These
issues, including changes we are making
in response to the comments, are
addressed in Sections IV.B.2.c, IV.B.6.a,
and IV.B.6.f.
i. Technologies Likely To Be Applied
The technologies expected to be
applied to vehicles to meet the lower
standards levels will 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 °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 will 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 Platinum Group Metal
(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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
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 will
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 will also help reduce
emissions levels.
6. Other HDV Provisions
a. In-Use Emissions
The proposal requested comment on
the need for relaxation of NMOG+NOX
and PM standards for in-use vehicle
testing. The LEV III program includes
these on an interim basis in the more
stringent bins in both FTP and SFTP
testing. However, in its written
comments, CARB expressed the view
that the technologies required for SFTP
compliance are well-established, and
that sufficient lead time is provided
such that interim in-use standards for
SFTP are not needed. As a result, CARB
expressed an intent to propose aligning
the LEV III program with the approach
EPA proposed on this matter after the
Tier 3 program is finalized. The
manufacturers commented that relaxed
interim in-use standards are needed in
the HDV sector, both for FTP and SFTP
standards. The reasons cited were a
need to harmonize with LEV III, the
scarcity of data on which to establish
standards that apply over the full useful
life, the extension of that useful life to
150,000 miles, the need for
manufacturers to address customer
concerns with new products and
technologies, uncertainties that
accompany the new SFTP cycles and
part 1066 testing requirements
(especially for PM), and the
introduction of innovative technologies
required to meet GHG standards in the
same timeframe.
After considering the comments we
have concluded that relaxed interim inuse standards are appropriate for HDVs,
both for FTP and SFTP testing. We are
adopting HDV in-use standards levels
that are identical to those adopted for
LEV III, as shown in Table IV–18. We
consider these levels reasonable, in line
with relaxed in-use standards adopted
in past programs, and helpful toward
harmonization. We are not applying
interim in-use NMOG+NOX standards to
the interim (two highest) bins for the
FTP standards, because these bins are
23491
intended for carry-over of existing
designs, and there should be little
uncertainty over their in-use emissions
performance. Interim bin vehicles
certified to the Tier 3 PM standards
shall, however, be subject to the relaxed
in-use PM standards in the same way as
for HDVs in other bins. Bin 0 standards
are driven by specific zero-emissions
technologies for which in-use margins
would not be appropriate, and so we are
not setting in-use standards for Bin 0.
We are also adopting the general
approach taken in LEV III of making
these interim standards available during
the phase-in period (model years 2016–
2022) for the first two model years that
a test group is newly certified to a Tier
3 NMOG+NOX or PM standard. Test
groups subsequently recertified to a
more stringent NMOG+NOX bin
standard may begin the two year cycle
over again. A test group that is first
certified into a Tier 3 bin in model year
2022 or later may not take advantage of
the relaxed interim in-use standards.
LEV III adopted somewhat different
applicability years, for the most part
ending earlier, in model year 2020.
However, we believe that the modest
extension is appropriate to facilitate the
Tier 3 phase-in. If a vehicle test group
is certified into a Tier 3 bin, but not yet
to the Tier 3 PM standard, the in-use
standard for PM shall apply for the first
two model years it is first certified to the
PM standard. In order to better
harmonize with LEV III, the availability
of these in-use standards includes the
voluntary model years.
TABLE IV–18—INTERIM IN-USE STANDARDS FOR HDVS
FTP (mg/mi)
NMOG+NOX
SFTP (mg/mi)
PM
NMOG+NOX
PM
Class 2b
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
(a)
(a)
370
300
250
220
(a)
16
16
16
16
16
16
( a)
(a)
(a)
b 770/1120
b 770/1120
b 490/630
b 490/630
( a)
(a )
(a )
b 12/15
b 12/15
b 12/15
b 12/15
(a )
(a)
(a)
600
400
340
300
(a)
395 (interim) ..............................................................................
340 (interim) ..............................................................................
250 .............................................................................................
200 .............................................................................................
170 .............................................................................................
150 .............................................................................................
0 .................................................................................................
20
20
20
20
20
20
( a)
(a)
(a)
770
770
490
490
( a)
(a )
(a )
12
12
12
12
(a )
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Class 3
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
Bin
630 (interim) ..............................................................................
570 (interim) ..............................................................................
400 .............................................................................................
270 .............................................................................................
230 .............................................................................................
200 .............................................................................................
0 .................................................................................................
a No
relaxed interim in-use standard.
lower value applies to low power-to-weight vehicles optionally certified using only the highway portion of the SFTP US06.
b The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23492
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
b. 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
extending the useful life to 150,000
miles or 15 years, whichever occurs
first. This change better reflects the
improvements in vehicle durability and
longevity that have occurred in the
several years since the 120,000 mile
useful life was established, and
maintains consistency with the LEV III
MDV program and with our Tier 3
program for large LDTs, for which the
same useful life period is being adopted.
The new useful life requirement
applies 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 will 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 model year
2016 or 2017. For manufacturers
choosing the alternative percent-of-sales
NMOG+NOX alternative, the new useful
life requirement applies to all HDVs
counted toward the phase-in
requirement, resulting in a generally
equivalent useful life phase-in rate to
that of the LEV III-harmonized
alternative.
See Section IV.F.5 for further
discussion of useful life requirements
with regard to GHG standards.
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 PM standards.
We received no adverse comments on
these useful life provisions.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
c. Heavy-Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicles
As in the light-duty program,
manufacturers must demonstrate heavyduty flexible 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 must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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. We
received no adverse comments on these
provisions.
d. Existing Provision To Waive HDV PM
Testing
EPA’s existing program includes a
provision for manufacturers to waive
measurement of PM emissions in nondiesel heavy-duty vehicle emissions
testing. As proposed, we are eliminating
this provision. We believe that the Tier
3 PM standards for these vehicles are of
sufficient stringency that routine waiver
of testing is not appropriate. The CARB
LEV III program also 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. We received no adverse
comments on this change.
e. Meeting HDV Standards in Fuel
Consumption and GHG Emissions
Testing
As with the light-duty Tier 3 program,
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 requirement is design
forcing. Rather, we are creating this
requirement to ensure that test vehicle
calibrations are not set by manufacturers
to minimize fuel consumption and GHG
emissions, at the expense of causing
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 mandating that PM emissions
testing be included in this requirement.
We received no adverse comments on
these proposed provisions.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
proposed that HDVs be required to meet
the FTP bin standards (but not the SFTP
standards) at high altitudes, and
expressed our expectation that
compliance with the FTP standards
would require neither the use of special
hardware nor adjustment to the level of
the standards.
The manufacturers argued in their
comments that the reasons EPA cited in
proposing relief at high altitudes for
light-duty vehicles apply for HDVs as
well, and requested that relaxed
NMOG+NOX standards be adopted in
the more stringent bins for testing of
HDVs at high altitudes. Ford argued that
the challenges could be even greater for
HDVs because they are designed to
operate at high altitudes with heavy
payloads and towed trailers, and this
may necessitate the locating of
emissions systems farther from exhaust
manifolds, thereby increasing catalyst
lightoff delays.
Although we agree to a certain extent
about the performance of gasolinefueled HDVs at high altitudes and their
similarity to LDVs, the comments did
not alter our view that the compliance
margins provided in the HDV FTP bin
standards compared to what the control
technologies can achieve, and the
freedom manufacturers have to shift to
the more stringent bins gradually as the
program phases in, are adequate to
account for these effects at altitude. The
manufacturers provided no data to
counter this view.
We note that our adoption of relaxed
interim in-use standards for vehicles in
these bins will be directionally helpful
to address any remaining concerns by
manufacturers regarding emissions at
altitude (Section IV.B.6.a). This is
because testing at high altitudes is often
not required for certification (typically
manufacturers use an engineering
analysis instead), and thus the relaxed
in-use standards will help to facilitate
Tier 3 implementation for any HDV
designs in which in-use problems at
high altitudes surface in the initial
model years.
C. Evaporative Emissions Standards
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. Evaporative emissions which
occur daily from gasoline-powered
vehicles are primarily functions of air
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and fuel temperature, fuel vapor
pressure, and vehicle driving. 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 which address
resting losses (e.g., permeation).
Onboard refueling vapor recovery
(ORVR) requirements for control of
refueling emissions first began to phasein 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 most of these vehicles
for many years, evaporative emissions
still contribute 30–40 percent of the onroad mobile source hydrocarbon
inventory. The rate of these emissions in
grams/day (hot soak and diurnal),
grams/mile (running loss) or grams per
gallon (refueling) depends on (1) the
stringency of the applicable emission
standards, (2) ambient and fuel
temperature, (3) fuel vapor pressure,
and (4) the presence/state of repair of
the fuel/evaporative control system.
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
further evaporative emission controls on
gasoline-powered highway motor
vehicles.
This section discusses the vehicle
evaporative emission standards and
related provisions for LDVs, LDTs,
MDPVs, and HDGVs. The evaporative
emissions program has six basic
elements: (1) The early allowance
program (MY 2015–2016), (2) the
transitional program (MY 2017), (3) the
Tier 3 evaporative emission phase-in
program (MY 2018–2021), (4) the fully
phased-in standards (MY2022+), (5)
requirements for HDGVs including
ORVR for the 2018MY, and (6) a leak
standard and test procedure which
become mandatory for Tier 3 vehicles in
the 2018MY. As discussed below, we
are finalizing more stringent standards
that will apply for the 2- and 3-day
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
evaporative emissions tests, a canister
bleed test procedure and emission
standard, and a new certification test
fuel specification.342 As discussed in
section IV.D, we are also adding a fuel/
vapor system leak standard and test
procedure for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs.
EPA is not changing any existing lightduty running loss or refueling emission
standards with the Tier 3 FRM, with the
exception of the certification test fuel
specification and the addition of a
refueling emission controls for complete
HDGVs over 10,000 lbs gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR). This section also
describes phase-in flexibilities, credit
and allowance programs, and other
issues related to evaporative emissions
control.
In this rule, the vehicle
classifications, LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs,
and HDGVs, remain unchanged from
Tier 2 (see 40 CFR 86.1803–010). For
purposes of this discussion of the 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) as early as 2014 MY, (3)
vehicles meeting the Tier 3 evaporative
emissions program requirements using
the Tier 3 certification test fuel (9 RVP
E10), and (4) transitional vehicles
meeting existing EPA evaporative
requirements on Tier 2 certification test
fuel (9 RVP E0).343 344 For ease of
reference these four categories may be
referred to as PZEV evap, LEV III evap,
Tier 3 evap, and Tier 2/MSAT evap in
this section.345
1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission
Standards
a. Final Standards
The Tier 3 program for evaporative
emissions builds on previous EPA
requirements as well as the evaporative
emissions portion of CARB’s recent LEV
III rule which starts mandatory phase-in
with the 2018 MY. The level of the
342 Certification fuel provisions for evaporative
and refueling emissions testing for flexible fuel
vehicles (FFVs) are discussed separately below.
343 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).
344 See Section IV.F for a discussion of the final
certification fuel provisions, including discussion
of options for and implications of the certification
test fuel having 10 percent ethanol.
345 ‘‘PZEV evap’’ as discussed here refers only to
the evaporative emission and useful life
requirements of the PZEV program, not the exhaust
emission requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23493
standards, the timing of their
implementation, and related provisions
are designed in great measure to allow
manufacturers to design, certify, and
build one control system for each
evaporative/refueling family to meet
CARB and EPA requirements so that
these vehicles can be sold in all 50
states. Commenters supported this
approach and no commenter opposed
the stringency or timing of the
evaporative emission standards and
related test procedures. We believe the
program is appropriate since it will
require new more stringent evaporative
emissions control technology in new
vehicles and also achieve improved inuse system performance.
Section IV.C.1.a.i, which follows,
describes the basic emission standard
levels for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and
HDGVs. Section IV.C.1.a.ii, describes a
new canister bleed standard and testing
requirement for measuring emissions
from the evaporative canister. Section
IV.C.1.a.iii discusses the optional use of
the CARB LEV III Option 1 evaporative
emission standards during a transition
period. Next, Section IV.C.1.a.iv
discusses interim use of CARB PZEV
zero evap data based on CARB Phase II
fuel. Finally section IV.C.1.a.iv,
discusses the ongoing requirement to
meet running loss emission standards.
i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standards
The Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal
emission 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 hot soak plus diurnal emission
standards we are adopting (presented in
Table IV–19) are designed to be met
with technology that limits Tier 3
vehicles to essentially zero fuel vapor
emissions. For the Tier 3 evaporative
emissions program, we are not changing
the basic 2-and 3-day evaporative
emission test procedures other than the
certification fuel requirements. The
level of the standards primarily
accommodates 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23494
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 typically allocate for
vehicle certification or with the
techniques normally used for vehicle
pre-conditioning. Provisions related to
vehicle pre-conditioning before
evaporative emissions certification
testing are discussed further below.
In the past EPA has set relatively
uniform (but not identical) evaporative
emission standards for LDVs and LDTs
and somewhat higher values for MDPVs
and HDGVs. The Tier 3 hot soak plus
diurnal emission standards follow this
approach, because in general the
vehicles have higher levels of non-fuel
background emissions as they get larger.
As described in more detail in Section
IV.C.2.d below, EPA is finalizing a
program that will allow manufacturers
to demonstrate compliance with the hot
soak plus diurnal evaporative emission
standards using averaging concepts. A
manufacturer 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 standards are discussed in
Section IV.C.2.
b Note that the standards are the same for
both tests; existing 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 finalizing
a new canister bleed emission test
procedure and standard as part of the
Tier 3 program. The canister bleed test
procedure is described in Section IV.C.6
below. EPA is adopting the canister
bleed standard because it is an
important tool in moving Tier 3
evaporative emissions control toward
zero fuel vapor emissions. No
commenter opposed the canister bleed
standard or commented on the test
procedure. The new test and standard
align with the California LEV III
requirements and help to ensure that
near-zero fuel vapor emissions are being
emitted by vehicles from the fuel tank
through the evaporative emission
canister. Manufacturers will be required
to measure diurnal emissions over the 2day diurnal test procedure from just the
fuel tank and the evaporative emission
canister using Tier 3 certification fuel
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.3 below. The canister bleed test
TABLE IV–19 FINAL EVAPORATIVE
and standard drives canister design
EMISSION STANDARDS
elements such as total gasoline working
capacity, internal architecture, and the
[g/test] a b c
type of carbon used. These are also key
Highest hot soak +
elements of canister design for the hot
Vehicle category/
diurnal level
soak plus diurnal emission standards.
averaging sets
(over both 2-day and
The canister bleed standard will be
3-day diurnal tests)
implemented differently than the hot
LDV, LDT1 ............
0.300 soak plus diurnal standard. EPA is not
LDT2 .....................
0.400 applying the averaging program to this
LDT3, LDT4,
new bleed test standard as compliance
MDPV ................
0.500 is relatively straightforward and low in
HDGVs ..................
0.600
cost. Therefore, each evaporative/
a The standards are in grams of hydrorefueling emission family certified by
carbons as measured by flame ionization de- manufacturers will need to demonstrate
tector during the diurnal and hot soak emission tests in the enclosure known as the compliance with their respective
sealed housing for evaporative determination standard. As discussed below, the
(SHED).
canister bleed standard will not apply at
high altitude, but proportional control is
expected. Since the performance of the
canister is also evaluated in the hot soak
plus diurnal evaporative emissions
sealed housing for evaporative
determination (SHED) test the canister
bleed emission standard will not be
included in the In-Use Verification
Program of under 40 CFR 86.1845
through 1853, but it must be met in use.
We will not have canister bleed specific
family criteria for certification but the
test will have to be completed and the
standard met for each evaporative/
refueling family including potentially
twice if there are two canisters used. A
deterioration factor will not be required,
but the manufacturer must certify that
the standard will be met for the full
useful life. As mentioned above, the
standard will have to be met in-use and
could be evaluated in EPA confirmatory
testing.
The canister bleed standard will have
to be met using the same fuels and test
procedures used for the hot soak plus
diurnal standards. We will accept
results on either CARB or EPA test
fuels/test temperatures for the canister
bleed test provided the same are used
for the hot soak plus diurnal test.
iii. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standard
With the Fuel System Rig Test
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–20.
TABLE IV–20 CARB—OPTION 1 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS
Highest hot soak + diurnal level
(over both 2- and 3-day diurnal tests)
(g/test)
Vehicle category
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Vehicle SHED
Passenger Car .................................................................................................................
LDT ≤ 6,000 lbs GVWR ...................................................................................................
All other vehicles > 6,000 lbs GVWR ..............................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Rig SHED
0.350
0.500
0.750
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
Running loss
(g/mile)
28APR2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.05
0.05
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The Option 1 standards include
evaporative emission standards (hot
soak plus diurnal) that are slightly
higher numerically than our final
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 SHED test of
the vehicle fuel system (rig test) that
pre-dates development of the canister
bleed emission standard. The rig SHED
test is discussed in Section IV.C.6. From
a practical perspective, this test is 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 ≤ 54 mg fuel vapor
emissions.346 While one commenter was
in favor of permanently including
Option 1 in the EPA final rule based on
what it viewed to be favorable preproduction engineering design features
of the rig SHED test, EPA is including
Option 1 only as interim compliance
alternative for a limited period of time
but not as a permanent option in the
Tier 3 evaporative emission program.
While we see the value to vehicle
manufacturers of the rig SHED test as an
engineering design and development
tool, by its very nature, the rig SHED
test and standard is not implementable
as an enforceable standard because a
fuel system cannot be removed from a
vehicle and reconstructed in a SHED for
testing without compromising its
fundamental structural and mechanical
integrity as it existed on the vehicle. We
believe that the hot soak plus diurnal
SHED test and standard and the canister
bleed test and standard will accomplish
the objective of keeping fuel vapor
emissions to a minimum while doing so
in an enforceable manner.
EPA believes most manufacturers will
prefer to certify to the averaging based
standards in Table IV–1 (similar in
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 will
allow compliance with the CARB
Option 1 standards as an acceptable
interim alternative to compliance with
the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards if the model is certified by
CARB to LEV III requirements before the
2017 MY. These vehicles could then be
346 Any
value < 54mg rounds down to zero under
the regulations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
certified using carryover provisions
through the 2021 MY as part of the
evaporative emissions phase-in
described below. This is two model
years longer than in the proposal, but
this extension is reasonable given the
life cycle of most fuel/vapor control
systems and the goal of aligning with
the LEV III program for a national
program where possible.347 As noted in
the following sections, vehicles certified
under this provision will count toward
the phase-in percentage requirements
and could earn allowances as discussed
below, but the vehicles will not be
eligible to earn or use credits for the
evaporative emissions averaging
program. Carryover vehicles will have to
meet the EPA leak standard and the
high altitude emission standard to be
counted toward the sales percentage
requirements for 2018 and later model
years.
iv. Interim Carryover of PZEV Evap Data
for Tier 3 Certification
To earn credits toward compliance
with the CARB Zero Evaporative
Emissions (ZEV) program requirements,
many manufacturers have certified
LDVs and LDTs to 150,000 mile useful
life emission standards similar to those
found in Table IV–20. These vehicles
have used CARB Phase II fuel (E0) and
met the rig SHED test requirement in
lieu of the canister bleed standard, but
otherwise have employed the same
basic technology EPA expects for the
LEV III and Tier 3 programs. EPA is
permitting data generated from
certification of these vehicles in the
2015 and 2016 MYs to be used for Tier
3 evaporative emissions purposes
through the 2019 MY.
v. Running Loss Emission Standards
EPA has required vehicles to meet
running loss emission standards since
the 1996 model year. These
requirements, which are specified in 40
CFR 86.134–96, apply to all gasolinepowered highway motor vehicles. EPA
is not changing either the test
procedures or emission standard for the
running loss test. However, the change
in certification test fuel will apply to
testing for such standards. This is
appropriate based on the rationale for
implementing a certification fuel change
and is necessary since the running loss
test is part of the overall test sequence
for the 3-day hot soak plus diurnal test.
EPA does not anticipate that the change
in certification test fuel will impact the
stringency of the running loss test and
347 EPA is incorporating by reference the CARB
Option 1 test procedures and emission standards for
this interim period.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23495
standards or the manufacturers’ ability
to comply as part of Tier 3.
b. High-Altitude Requirements
Prior to this rule, the most recent
vehicle evaporative emission standards
were adopted in 2007.348 The new
standards adopted in 2007 apply only to
testing under low-altitude conditions.349
In the 2007 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,
accounting 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
density and vapor concentrations at
altitude. 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 2-day low altitude
evaporative emission standards and
requirements for high-altitude
testing.350 The vehicle categories for the
high altitude standards in this rule are
the same as for the low altitude
standards. The standards are presented
below in Table IV–21. This will both
reduce evaporative 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. The leak
standard presented in Section IV.D
below will apply equally at low and
high altitude testing as compliance is
not dependent on air density and vapor
concentrations.
348 See
72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).
altitude conditions means a test altitude
less than 549 meters (1,800 feet). High-altitude
conditions means a test altitude of 1,620 meters
(5,315 feet) plus or minus 100 meters (328 feet) or
equivalent observed barometric test conditions of
83.3 kPa (24.2 inches Hg) plus or minus 1kPA (0.30
inches Hg) See 40 CFR 86.1803–01.
350 See Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements 66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001 and
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile
Sources, 72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007.
349 Low
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23496
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
apply equally at low and high altitude.
We are keeping the same basic
requirement but will allow for a
[g/test]
downward adjustment of 5 °F in the
temperatures related to the running loss
Highest hot soak +
test within the 3-day test cycle. Thus,
diurnal level
Vehicle category
(over both 2-day and
the applicable ambient temperatures at
3-day tests) (g/test)
§ 86.134–96 (f) and (g) will be 90±5 °F
instead of 95±5 °F for high altitude
LDV, LDT1 ............
0.65
LDT2 .....................
0.85 testing, and the entire fuel temperature
LDT3, LDT4 ..........
1.15 profile from § 86.129–94(d) shifts down
MDPV ...................
1.25 by 5 °F. EPA believes this is appropriate
given the differences in atmospheric
HDGVs ≤ 14,000
lbs GVWR .........
1.75 conditions at low versus high altitude
HDGVs > 14,000
and will still result in equivalent control
lbs GVWR .........
2.3 of running loss emissions at higher
altitudes. EPA requested comment on
A few additional points should be
the alternative approach of keeping test
noted about our Tier 3 high altitude
temperatures the same, but omitting the
evaporative emissions control program.
3-day test cycle for testing at high
First, EPA does not expect
altitude. This was supported by one set
manufacturers to produce vehicles with of commenters, but at this time EPA
high-altitude only evaporative control
does not have the data needed to drop
systems. Given the nature of evaporative such a fundamental test requirement.
emission control technology, there
As mentioned above, emission data
should be emission reductions at high
from vehicles meeting the current CARB
altitude proportional to those achieved
PZEV zero evap and CARB LEV III
at lower altitudes. We are not applying
Option 1 requirements could be used to
the canister bleed test and emission
qualify that vehicle to meet the Tier 3
standard at high altitude, but we expect evaporative emission regulations for the
similar emission reductions to those
2017–2021 MYs. To qualify for a federal
which will occur at low altitude. These
certificate, the vehicle will also have to
vehicles will have to meet the canister
meet the Tier 3 high altitude
bleed emission standard at low altitude
evaporative emission requirements.
and canister bleed emission reductions
CARB does not require vehicles to meet
at high altitude should be proportional
EPA high altitude requirements, so for
as is the case with the low altitude hot
these vehicles we are giving the
soak plus diurnal standards. Any
manufacturers the option to certify
adjustment to meet the standard at high either by providing SHED test data or
altitude to account for canister
based on an engineering demonstration
adsorption and desorption effects of
using data and analysis and the
higher altitudes would result in
application of good engineering
fundamentally the same technology
judgment. For the 2015–2017 MYs,
with an increase in the testing burden
manufacturers can use data based on
but not necessarily more emissions
either Tier 2 or Tier 3 test fuel.
control. Therefore, we believe the lowBeginning in the 2018 model year, for
altitude canister bleed test is sufficient
Tier 3 vehicle certification to the high
for achieving the level of emission
altitude standard, the data must be
control for operation in both lowbased on Tier 3 fuel.
altitude and high-altitude conditions.
Second, for vehicles certified with FELs c. Useful Life
above or below the applicable standard
Trends indicate that vehicle lifetimes
for testing at low altitude, the same
are increasing. It is important that
differential will apply to the FELs for
emission control systems be designed to
high-altitude. For example, if an LDV
meet requirements while vehicles are in
was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g
use. As discussed in Section IV.A.7 and
instead of the 0.300 g standard, the
IV.B.6 of this preamble, along with the
high-altitude FEL will be 0.75 g
new emission standards, we are
(0.65g+0.10g). This high-altitude FEL
finalizing a longer useful life of 150,000
will not be used for any emission-credit miles/15 years, whichever comes first,
calculations, but it will be used as the
for LDTs up to 6,000 lbs GVWR but over
emission standard for compliance
3,750 lbs loaded vehicle weight (LVW)
purposes. Third, gasoline RVP for
(LDT2s), all LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR
certification test fuel will be set at 7.8
(LDT3/4), MDPVs, and HDGVs. The
RVP with 10 percent ethanol, as
longer useful life will apply to all
specified in Section IV.F. Finally, we
certifications to the Tier 3 evaporative
are finalizing a minor adjustment to the
emission standards (see Table IV–19
high altitude test procedures. The
and Table IV–20 above). For an
existing 2- and 3-day test procedures
evaporative/refueling family certified to
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
TABLE IV–21—FINAL HIGH-ALTITUDE
EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
150,000 miles/15 year useful life for
evaporative emissions this useful life
will also apply to the hot soak plus
diurnal, running loss, canister bleed,
fuel system rig, refueling, leak, and high
altitude standards. 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.7,
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 will apply for all Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements as
listed in the previous paragraph.
During the early, transition, and
phase-in program periods and until the
final year of the allowed phase-in period
for the Tier 3 evaporative emission
program (MY 2015–2021) the
differences between the 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 (or CARB equivalents) but
not necessarily to the Tier 3 evaporative
emission requirements.351 In those
situations, the final rule provides 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 since the vehicle
does not yet meet Tier 3 evaporative
emission requirements. 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
existing useful life for exhaust
emissions. However, by the 2022 MY
the useful life for all of these
351 By the 2022 MY, all Tier 3 evaporative system
emissions certifications must use Tier 3
certification test fuel and test procedures or
equivalent CARB test procedures, certification and
emission standards. This affects evaporative (hot
soak plus diurnal), running loss, and canister bleed
emission standards certification. Refueling, spit
back and leak standards are only to be met using
Federal certification test fuel.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
requirements will 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 or CARB equivalents.352
OBD regulations call for the systems
to operate effectively over the useful life
of the vehicle. We are not changing that
requirement, but rather want to clarify
that during the early, transition, and
phase-in years of the program (MY
2015–2021), 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.
d. What requirements must a vehicle
meet to qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for
evaporative emissions?
As mentioned above, there are three
different revised or new evaporative
emision requirements applicable to Tier
3 vehicles. These are the hot soak plus
diurnal standards, the canister bleed
standard, and the leak standard. In
addition the refueling, running loss, and
spit back standards are unchanged but
will have to be met on Tier 3
certification fuel. Compliance with
these requirements is potentially
complicated by the fact that the CARB
ZEV and LEVIII programs will bring
zero evap technology into the market
place before or at the same time that
Tier 3 implementation begins but with
test fuel and test procedure differences.
In order to qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for
23497
evaporative emission purposes the
vehicle must meet all applicable
requirements on the specified fuel.
Unless otherwise specified (e.g., HDGV
refueling spit back), if a vehicle does not
meet all evaporative emission program
requirements, including both the
applicable standards and test fuel then
it does not qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for
evaporative emission purposes. Table
IV–22, below summarizes the
requirements that vehicles in various
categories must meet to qualify as a Tier
3 vehicle for evaporative emission
purposes as a function of model year.
The entries in the cells of the table
specify the required test fuel. The table
is for reference of the reader in
reviewing subsequent sections of this
preamble. Refer to the regulatory text for
specific requirements for the various
programs.
TABLE IV–22—REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICLE TO QUALIFY FOR TIER 3 EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS PROGRAM AND TEST
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
Model year
HS+DI/running
loss
Program/zero evap stds
Canister bleed
Rig
Leak (except
HHDGV) *
High altitude &
refueling/spit
back **
MY 2017 TRANSITION PROGRAM
2017 ...................
2017
2017
2017
2017
...................
...................
...................
...................
2017 ...................
2017 ...................
2017 ...................
2017 ...................
Percentage—PZEV zero evap
(carryover).
Percentage—LEV III Opt. 1 ......
Percentage—LEV III Opt. 2 ......
Percentage—Tier 3 ...................
PZEV zero evap only (carryover).
20/20—PZEV zero evap (carryover).
20/20—LEV III Opt. 1 ................
20/20—LEV III Opt. 2 ................
20/20—Tier 3 .............................
CA Ph. 2 ..........
CA Ph. 2 ..........
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
CA Ph. 3 ..........
Tier 3 ...............
CA Ph. 2 ..........
CA Ph. 3 ..........
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 2 ..........
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
EPA Tier 3 .......
N/A ...................
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CA Ph. 2 ..........
CA Ph. 2 ..........
N/A ...................
EPA Tier 3 .......
CA Ph. 3 ..........
CA Ph. 3 ..........
Tier 3 ...............
CA Ph. 3 ..........
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier
Tier 3.
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
Tier 3.
EPA Tier
Tier 3.
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
Tier 3.
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
Tier 3.
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
...................
...................
...................
...................
2 or
3.
3.
3.
2 or
2 or
3.
3.
3.
MY 2018–2021 PHASE-IN PROGRAM
2018–2019 .........
PZEV zero evap (carryover) ......
CA Ph. 2 ..........
CA Ph. 2 ..........
N/A ...................
2018–2021 .........
2018–2021 .........
2018–2021 .........
LEV III Opt. 1 ............................
LEV III Opt. 2 ............................
Tier 3 .........................................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
CA Ph. 3 ..........
Tier 3 ...............
CA Ph. 3 ..........
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
EPA Tier 3 .......
2 or
3 .......
3 .......
3 .......
2 or
3.
3.
3.
MY 2022+ FULLY PHASED-IN PROGRAM
2022+ ................
2022+ ................
LEV III Opt. 2 ............................
Tier 3 .........................................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
Tier 3 ...............
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier 3.
EPA Tier 3.
* LHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR equal to or less than 14,000 lbs; HHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a
GVWR in excess of 14,000 lbs.
** Incomplete HDGVs without ORVR may defer demonstrating compliance with the spit back requirement on Tier 3 fuel until the 2022 MY.
2. Program Structure and
Implementation Flexibilities
As proposed, the final Tier 3
evaporative emission standards will be
phased in over a period of six MYs
2017–2022. Manufacturers supported
the proposed phase-in schedule and
there were no issues raised with regard
to lead time for any vehicle class. As
discussed below, there will be three
options for the 2017 MY. For the 2018–
2019 MYs, the requirement will apply to
352 The only exception here will be for vehicles
not meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission
requirements in the 2022 MY as a result of the use
of previously earned allowances.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a. Percentage Phase-In Requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
60 percent of a manufacturer’s
nationwide sales of all LDVs, LDTs,
MDPVs, and HDGVs (including vehicles
sold in California and the section 177
states). This will increase to 80 percent
for MYs 2020 and 2021 and by MY 2022
it will apply to 100 percent of sales in
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23498
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
these four categories. Beginning in MY
2018 any vehicle included in the
percentage phase-in, except vehicles
that had earned allowances, will have to
meet the leak standard discussed in
section IV.D.
Evaporative emission requirements
for the MY 2017 apply only to LDVs,
LDT1s, and LDT2s as defined in 40 CFR
86.1803–01. To be consistent with the
start date for Tier 3 exhaust standards,
phase-in requirements will not include
vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR until the
2018 MY. The manufacturers will have
three options. The first, which we are
calling the ‘‘primary’’ or ‘‘percentage’’
option, requires that a value equal to 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 40 percent is calculated
based on vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs
GVWR but compliance can be based on
vehicles regardless of their GVWR. The
second which we are calling the ‘‘PZEV
zero evap only’’ option, requires 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 specific vehicle
models/configurations in any state
whose vehicles are covered by the Tier
3 evaporative emission standards. Thus,
this will apply to sales in any state
except for California and states that
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 will 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 third option, which we are
terming the 20/20 option, requires that
20 percent of a manufacturer’s LDVs,
LDT1s, and LDT2s (e.g., equal to or less
than 6,000 lbs GVWR) sold outside of
California and the states that have
adopted the CARB ZEV or LEV III
programs meet the Tier 3 evaporative
emission requirements on average and
that this 20 percent or another 20
percent of vehicles in the three groups
listed above meet the leak standard
discussed in section IV.D. Each
percentage requirement must be met,
(i.e., there is no flexibility to permit
meeting shortfalls of the hot soak plus
diurnal or leak standard percentages
with higher values from the leak
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
standard category). However, as was the
case with the 40 percent option above,
compliance can be based on vehicles
regardless of their GVWR. The third
option was supported by several
commenters as a means to address 2017
MY transition issues related to phaseout of current products and phase-in of
future products. EPA believes that for
these vehicles the leak standard will
provide emission reduction benefits
comparable in magnitude to the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards. Thus,
under this approach, the manufacturers’
product transition concerns can be
addressed while achieving the overall
evaporative emission reductions from
2017 MY vehicles. It should be noted
that these vehicles must also meet the
0.020 inch evaporative system leak
monitoring requirement which also
takes effect in the 2017 model year.
As discussed below, beginning in the
2018 MY, to be counted toward the
percentages needed to meet the Tier 3
phase-in percentages (e.g., 60% in 2018
and 2019 MYs) a Tier 3 compliant
vehicle must also meet the leak
standard.
At the time of certification,
manufacturers will identify which
families will 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 (Table IV–19) as
well as vehicles meeting CARB’s PZEV
zero evap or LEV III Option 1 standards
(Table IV–20) and could also include
earned allowances as discussed below.
The manufacturers will use projected
sales information for these families plus
allowances as desired and available, to
show how they expect to meet the
phase-in percentage requirements for
the model year of interest. At the end of
the model year reconciliation the
manufacturers will be expected to show
that the percentages were met. If the
percentages are not met, the
manufacturers will either use additional
allowances and/or bring more vehicle
families/vehicles into the calculation
until the sales percentage is met. This
step is being required because the initial
demonstration of compliance with the
fixed percentage at certification is based
on projected sales. If the manufacturers
did not have to demonstrate that the
fixed percentages were met, the
percentage would then be a goal and not
a requirement and there would be no
means to capture the emission reduction
shortfalls. This step is unique to the
evaporative emission program relative
to the NMOG+NOX and PM programs
because the evaporative program
involves both fixed percentages and
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ABT. The NMOG+NOX program
involves ABT but does not involve fixed
percentages and the PM program
involves fixed percentages but does not
involve ABT.
The additional vehicles added to meet
the percentage could only be meeting
the Tier 2 hot soak plus diurnal
requirements. In this case, use the larger
of the 2- or 3-day hot soak plus diurnal
certification emission levels. Adding
these vehicle families/vehicles into the
calculations (discussed below) may
result in a credit deficit for that model
year for a given averaging set. A
manufacturer could not have an
unresolved deficit for more than three
consecutive model years as discussed
below. The deficit would have to be
eliminated with positive credits not
later than the ABT calculation and
credit reconciliation which occurs after
the fourth model year.
As discussed above for exhaust
emissions, while unlikely, it is possible
that a manufacturer could in its annual
certification preview meeting with EPA,
indicate that its technology mix is such
that it will have a credit deficit when
the sales percentages requirement is
met. This could occur if the fleet
average evaporative emission value for
Tier 3 vehicles did not meet the Tier 3
hot soak plus diurnal standard for the
Tier 3 vehicles in any given averaging
set. Also, a manufacturer could have a
deficit from a previous model. In these
situations, certifying with a projected or
actual deficit would require EPA
approval after submission of a plan from
the manufacturer which explains how it
will eliminate the deficit within the
model years permitted. Even if a
manufacturer had projected or actual
deficits for two or three consecutive
model years, all accrued deficits would
have to be eliminated by the
reconciliation which occurs after the
fourth model year. Within this plan,
which would have to be submitted and
approved at each annual certification
preview meeting, EPA would expect to
see progress toward compliance as
indicated by such factors as improved
emissions performance for future test
groups, a substantiated trend toward a
more favorable fleet technology sales
mix, no backsliding in projected fleet
average values, and perhaps other
situation specific criteria.
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
after the end of the model year is
necessary for determining compliance
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
with the requirements of the standard.
This is discussed in Section IV.C.2.d.iii.
As discussed further below, validated
sales information will also be used for
earning early allowances and to show
compliance with the alternative phasein schedule approach.
For these purposes, vehicles included
in the phase-in percentage could be: (1)
Families which certified to PZEV zero
evap or CARB LEV III Option 1
requirements in MYs 2015 and 2016, (2)
families certified to meet Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements, (3)
any vehicle family certified to the CARB
LEV III Option 2 hot soak plus diurnal
evaporative emission standards, and (4)
vehicles from the early allowance
program. To qualify as a Tier 3
certification for evaporative emission
purposes, any new evaporative/
refueling emission family certifications
will have to meet the EPA Tier 3
certification requirements for both test
procedure and certification test fuel for
the evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal
and canister bleed, running loss),
refueling, and spit back emission
standards. The leak standard will apply
in the 2018 and later MYs to all Tier 3
vehicles except HHDGVs and those from
the early allowance program.
Furthermore, assuming the EPA
provisions related to carryover of
emissions data are met, 2015–2016 MY
CARB PZEV zero evap evaporative
emissions certifications could be carried
over until the end of the 2019 MY and
included as compliant vehicles within
the Tier 3 program if they meet the other
applicable Tier 3 requirements. The
same is true for CARB LEVIII Option 1
certification, except carryover would be
permitted through the 2021 MY if they
meet the other Tier 3 requirements. See
Table IV–4 for more detail on the
program options and fuel requirements
by model year.
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 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 12 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.353
b. Alternative Phase-In Percentage
Scheme
As part of program flexibility, we are
allowing manufacturers to demonstrate
compliance with the phase-in
23499
percentage requirements of the
evaporative emissions program by using
a manufacturer-determined alternative
phase-in percentage scheme. The
alternative phase-in percentage
provisions allow manufacturers to use a
phase-in more consistent with product
plans such as beginning with a lower
percentage(s) than required under the
primary phase-in during 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 different phase-in schedules
for meeting Tier 3 exhaust and
evaporative emission standards. As
explained further below, with some
limitations, allowances could be used
toward compliance with the alternative
phase-in scheme values for any given
model year.
This approach, which was widely
supported in comments by the
manufacturers, would be available
beginning in the 2017 MY for all
manufacturers, except for any
manufacturer which used the ‘‘PZEV
zero evap only’’ nationwide option for
the 2017 MY for whom the approach
would be available beginning in 2018
MY. Vehicle and fuel eligibility
requirements for the program are
summarized in Table IV–23. Refer to the
regulatory text for specific requirements.
TABLE IV–23—VEHICLE QUALIFICATIONS FOR 2017–2022MY ALTERNATIVE PHASE-IN PERCENTAGE SCHEMES & TEST
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
Model year
Program zero evap stds.
HS+DI/running
loss
Rig
Canister bleed
Leak (except
HHDGV) *
2017 ...................
PZEV evap (carryover) ..............
CA Ph. 2 ..........
CA Ph. 2 ..........
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
2017 ...................
2017 ...................
2017 ...................
2018–2019 .........
LEV III Opt. 1 ............................
LEV III Opt. 2 ............................
Tier 3 .........................................
PZEV evap ................................
(carryover) .................................
LEV III Opt. 1 ............................
LEV III Opt. 2 ............................
Tier 3 .........................................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
CA Ph. 3 ..........
Tier 3 ...............
CA Ph. 2 ..........
CA Ph. 3 ..........
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 2 ..........
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
EPA Tier 3 .......
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
CA Ph. 3 ..........
Tier 3 ...............
CA Ph. 3 ..........
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
CA Ph. 3 ..........
EPA Tier 3 .......
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
N/A ...................
EPA Tier 2 or
Tier 3.
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier 3 .......
EPA Tier 3 .......
2018–2021 .........
2018–2022 .........
2018–2022 .........
High altitude &
refueling/
Spit back **
EPA Tier
Tier 3.
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
Tier 3.
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
EPA Tier
2 or
3.
3.
3.
2 or
3.
3.
3.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
* LHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR equal to or less than 14,000 lbs; HHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a
GVWR in excess of 14,000 lbs.
** Incomplete HDGVs without ORVR may defer demonstrating compliance with the spit back requirement on Tier 3 fuel until the 2022 MY.
Under this approach, before the 2017
MY (2018 MY for a manufacturer which
used the ‘‘PZEV zero evap only’’
nationwide option for the 2017 MY), a
manufacturer will present a plan to EPA
which demonstrates that the sum of the
products of a weighting factor and the
percentages of their U.S. vehicle sales
for each model year from 2017 (2018)
through 2022 is greater than or equal to
1280 if the program started in the 2017
MY (or 1040 if the program started in
the 2018 MY). The 1280 and 1040
numerical values are equal to the sum
of the product of the weighting factors
and the percentage requirements for MY
2017 or 2018 start dates, respectively, as
applicable through MY 2022. These are
calculated in the following manner:
[(6)(2017MY%)+(5)(2018MY%)
+4(2019MY%)+3(2020MY%)
353 See http://driveclean.ca.gov/searchresults_by_
smog.php?smog_slider_value=9&x=12&y=12, (last
accessed on December 6, 2013).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23500
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
+2(2021MY%)+(1)(2022MY%)]. The
2017 MY portion of the calculation
would not be included if the
manufacturer used the ‘‘PZEV zero evap
only’’ nationwide option and thus
started the alternative phase-in scheme
in the 2018 MY. Under the regulations,
EPA has the authority to question
elements of the plan and to seek
clarifications and potential changes as
needed. EPA could disapprove the plan
and potentially not allow the use of an
alternative phase-in scheme for the
model year of interest if the
manufacturer does not present a viable
explanation and rationale as to how the
required numerical sum for the phasein would be achieved.
EPA also sought comment on
including the 20 percent value hot soak
plus diurnal value from the 20/20
option described above for 2017 MY in
this calculation. Manufacturers
generally supported including the 2017
MY in the calculation but did not
clearly state whether the 40 percent or
20/20 option approach or both were
supported. EPA has decided to include
both options for the 2017 MY in the
alternative phase-in percentage scheme;
40 percent as described above or 20
percent, with the stipulation that any
vehicle used to meet the 20 percent
requirement in the 2017 MY would also
have to meet the OBD evaporative leak
monitoring requirements and the leak
standard. In other words, the flexibility
of using different vehicles as allowed for
the 20/20 option in the primary phasein scheme is not included in the
alternative phase-in. Including this
restriction avoids the complexity that
would be added if two different sets of
vehicles were allowed to meet the two
elements of the 20/20 option for the
2017 MY, as in the primary phase-in
(e.g., expanding the calculation and
tracking requirements and incorporating
leak standard compliance and OBD
evaporative system monitoring as part of
the alternative phase-in scheme). If a
manufacturer’s hot soak plus diurnal
value exceeded 20 percent then that
larger value could be used in the
alternative phase-in calculation.
However, the leak standard value
cannot be less than 20 percent and for
the first 20 percent the hot soak plus
diurnal and the leak must be on the
same vehicle and that vehicle must meet
the 0.020 inch OBD evaporative system
leak monitoring requirement.
Compliance would be calculated in the
following manner: [(6)(2017MY%)
+(5)(2018MY%)+(2019MY%)
+3(2020MY%)+2(2021MY%)
+(1)(2022MY%)]. If choosing the 20/20
option approach for MY 2017, the value
to be met or exceeded in the alternative
phase-in would be 1160 which is based
on substituting the required phase-in
percentages for MYs 2017–2022 in the
equation. Under this option as above,
before the 2017 MY, the manufacturer
would have to submit a plan to EPA
which demonstrates that the sum of the
products of a weighting factor and the
percentages of their U.S. vehicle sales
for each model year from 2017 through
2022 is greater than or equal to 1160. A
manufacturer that over complies with
the targets (i.e., 1040, 1160, 1280) may
not trade the excess to another
manufacturer. Also, a manufacturer
must include all of its affected products
in program, not just specific vehicle
categories or subcategories.
A manufacturer’s alternative phase-in
plan must be approved by EPA prior to
the start of production for a given model
year and will have to be reviewed with
EPA each subsequent model year to
confirm that the manufacturer’s target
percentages are being met. This would
be expected to occur at the annual
certification preview meeting.
Manufacturers not meeting their target
goals must present revised plans for
EPA approval to show how the target
percentages and equivalent emission
standards will be met. Manufacturers
using the alternative phase-in
percentage scheme must still show
compliance with the hot soak plus
diurnal standards in each year as
discussed in Section IV.C.2.d.iii even if
they fall short of their individual target
goal percentages for a given year. EPA
is not requiring that manufacturers
include Tier 2 vehicles in the
calculation for a given model year if
they fall short of projections (e.g., if a
manufacturer projects 25% in a given
model year but only achieves 22%)
because it will have to be made up in
a subsequent year using a lower
multiplier.
c. Allowance Program
We are finalizing incentives for early
introduction of vehicles compliant with
the Tier 3 evaporative emission
regulations. Manufacturers can 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. Vehicle
eligibility requirements for the
allowance program are summarized in
Table IV–24. Refer to the regulatory text
for specific provisions.
TABLE IV–24—VEHICLE ELIGIBILITY TO EARN ALLOWANCES & TEST FUEL REQUIREMENTS
Model year & program
Rig
HS+DI/running
loss
Vehicle category
Canister bleed
High altitude &
refueling/
spitback *
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
2015–2016 PZEV zero evap carryover.
2015–2016 LEV III Option 1 ...............
2015–2016 LEV III Option 2 ...............
2015–2016 Tier 3 ................................
2017 ‘‘PZEV evap only’’ carryover .....
2017 ‘‘Percentage’’ option—LEV III
Option 1.
2017 ‘‘Percentage’’ option LEV III—
Option 2.
2017 ‘‘Percentage’’ option Tier 3 ........
2017 ‘‘20/20’’ and all MY alt phase-in
schemes.
2018+ LDV, LDT, MDPV & HDGV .....
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
LDV, LDT .............
CA Ph. 2 ..............
CA Ph. 2 ..............
N/A .......................
EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
LDV, LDT .............
All .........................
All .........................
LDT 3&4 ...............
LDT3 &4 MDPV,
HDGV.
LDT3/4 MDPV,
HDGV.
LDT3/4 MDPV,
HDGV.
Not available. .......
CA Ph. 3 ..............
CA Ph. 3 ..............
Tier 3 ....................
CA Ph. 2 ..............
CA Ph. 3 ..............
CA Ph. 3 ..............
N/A .......................
N/A .......................
CA Ph. 2 ..............
CA Ph. 3 ..............
N/A .......................
CA Ph. 3 ..............
Tier 3 ....................
N/A .......................
N/A .......................
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
CA Ph. 3 ..............
CA Ph. 3 ..............
CA Ph. 3 ..............
EPA Tier 3.
Tier 3 ....................
EPA Tier 3 ...........
EPA Tier 3 ...........
EPA Tier 3.
Not available. .......
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
2/Tier 3.
2/Tier 3.
3.
2/Tier 3.
3.
23501
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV–24—VEHICLE ELIGIBILITY TO EARN ALLOWANCES & TEST FUEL REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Model year & program
Vehicle category
Rig
Canister bleed
High altitude &
refueling/
spitback *
..............................
..............................
..............................
EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
..............................
..............................
..............................
EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
..............................
..............................
..............................
EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
HS+DI/running
loss
ORVR **
2015–2017 Early ORVR .....................
2015–2021 Early ORVR .....................
2015–2021 ORVR ...............................
Complete HDGV
>10,000 but
≤14,000 lbs.
GVWR.
Complete HDGV
>14,000 lbs.
GVWR.
Incomplete HDGV
>8,500 lbs.
GVWR.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
* LHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR equal to or less than 14,000 lbs; HHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a
GVWR in excess of 14,000 lbs. Incomplete HDGVs without ORVR may defer demonstrating compliance with the spit back requirement on Tier 3
fuel until the 2022 MY.
** All ORVR certifications must use Tier 3 fuel by the 2022 model year.
As described below, manufacturers
can earn ‘‘allowances’’ for selling any
vehicle meeting the Tier 3 evaporative
emission program requirements as
specified in Table IV–22 earlier than
required. The vehicles may be LDVs,
LDTs, MDPVs, or HDGVs. Specifically,
the allowance program includes the
following: (1) For MYs 2015 and 2016,
any LDVs and any LDTs meeting the
Tier 3 evaporative emission program
requirements as specified in Table IV–
22 which are 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
program requirements as specified in
Table IV–22 early and sold in any state,
(3) for MY 2017, any LDT3/4 meeting
the Tier 3 evaporative emission program
requirements as specified in Table IV–
22 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 complete or
incomplete HDGV with a GVWR greater
than 10,000 lbs meeting the EPA
refueling emissions regulations and sold
outside of California and the states that
have adopted CARB’s LEV III program.
EPA asked for comment on extending
the ORVR requirement to all HDGVs,
complete and incomplete. As discussed
in section IV.C.4.b, we are extending
ORVR to all complete vehicles over
14,000 lbs GVWR, but are not including
incomplete vehicles over 8,500 lbs
GVWR in the ORVR requirement at this
time. However, we are permitting
complete vehicles over 14,000 lbs
GVWR and incomplete HDGVs meeting
the refueling emission standard to earn
allowances through the 2021 MY. Any
complete or incomplete HDGV eligible
to earn allowances for the model years
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
and areas discussed above will earn
them at a 1:1 rate for refueling emissions
compliance purposes and at a 2:1 rate
for Tier 3 evaporative emissions
purposes because the refueling emission
reductions are much larger.
Furthermore, for the 2017 MY,
manufacturers choosing EPA’s
‘‘percentage’’ option (see Section
IV.C.2.a) could earn allowances for sales
of LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs
that meet the CARB LEV III or Tier 3
evaporative emission standards and
related requirements assuming their
LDV, LDT1/2 sales meet the 40 percent
requirement. Similarly, manufacturers
choosing EPA’s ‘‘PZEV zero evap only’’
option could earn allowances in MY
2017 for LDT3/4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs
that meet the ‘‘PZEV zero evap’’
evaporative emission standards, CARB
LEV III, or EPA Tier 3 evaporative
emission standards and related
requirements. EPA has decided not to
include allowances for the 2017MY for
any manufacturer using the 20/20
option since it would involve
identifying not only the vehicles
exceeding the 20 percent for the Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements but
also the vehicles exceeding the 20
percent for the leak standard and these
may be different vehicles. For both the
‘‘percentage’’ and ‘‘PZEV zero evap
only’’ options for the 2017 model year,
to avoid double counting, the
allowances will be earned only for those
vehicles sold outside of California and
the states that have adopted CARB’s
LEV III/ZEV program requirements.
To qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for
evaporative emission allowance
purposes the vehicle must meet the
requirements summarized in Table IV–
22. Manufacturers will earn one
allowance for each qualifying vehicle
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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. Since credits
and allowances serve primarily the
same purpose and allowing for splits of
allowances/credits greatly complicates
program implementation, the final rule
provides that manufacturers can only
earn allowances in MYs 2015–2016 for
any LDVs and LDT1/2s meeting the Tier
3 evaporative emission regulations
which are sold outside of California and
the states that have adopted CARB’s
ZEV or LEV III programs and for MYs
2015–2017 for any qualifying LDT3/4,
MDPV, and HDGV.354
Allowances will be used in the
compliance determination in the
following manner. Vehicles qualifying
for allowances can be used in the fleet
average evaporative emission standard
calculation for any year during the
phase-in. This applies to the primary
phase-in and alternative phase-in
programs. Allowance vehicles will be
entered into the compliance calculation
with an emission value equivalent to the
evaporative emission standard for their
vehicle category from Table IV–19 even
if it was certified to CARB PZEV zero
evap or LEV III Option 1 standards
(Table IV–20). For the percent phase-in
requirement in either the primary or
alternative phase-in schemes, allowance
vehicles will count for one vehicle for
each allowance used within their
vehicle category. For the primary
scheme this will be counted as one
354 LDVs and LDT1/2 sold in California and states
which have adopted the LEV III or ZEV programs
cannot generate allowances because these programs
will already require zero evap technology vehicles
in those states in MYs 2015–2016.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23502
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
vehicle, but for the alternative phase-in
option the value will be multiplied by
the weighting factor (6 for 2017, 5 for
2018, 4 for 2019, 3 for 2020, etc). Within
the alternative phase-in scheme the
manufacturer will 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 2017–2022). EPA believes
this limitation is appropriate since early
use in the alternative phase-in scheme
is multiplied and 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 phasein progresses. The allowances are
designed primarily to facilitate
manufacturer transition during the
program phase-in. As such, they may
not be traded between manufacturers
and unused allowances will expire after
the 2022 MY.
An example here may be helpful in
demonstrating how allowances will
work. Take a hypothetical manufacturer
who earned a total of 10,000 allowances
in MYs 2015 and 2016 and sells 100,000
units per year. In MY 2018, the
manufacturer will 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 without
restriction. For the alternative phase-in
scheme assume the manufacturer set its
alternative phase-in value at 60 percent
for the 2018 MY. The final regulations
limit the use of allowances to 10
percentage points of the 60 percent or in
this case 10,000 vehicles out of 60,000.
Without a multiplier this will require
the use of all 10,000 allowances in 2018,
but with the multiplier of 5 for MY 2018
only 2,000 allowances are needed to
reach the 10 percentage point
maximum. Using a similar calculus, the
manufacturer could use another 10
percentage points in MY 2019, but it
will require 2,500 allowances to reach
this level since the multiplier is 4
assuming sales remain at 100,000 units
per year. The number of allowances to
reach the 10 percentage point level will
increase each year as the multiplier
decreases.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
d. Evaporative Emissions Averaging,
Banking, and Trading
i. Introduction
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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.
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 individual 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 such as useful life. The
average of all emissions for a particular
manufacturer’s production within a
vehicle 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 proposed and is finalizing an
emissions ABT program for the Tier 3
hot soak plus diurnal evaporative
emissions standards. The evaporative
emissions ABT program is generally
structured and operates the same as that
for exhaust emissions as discussed in
Section IV.A.7.m. The major difference
is the added requirement to reconcile
compliance with the fixed percentage
requirement as discussed in detail in
Section IV.C.2.a. Also, there is a five
year credit life for evaporative emissions
as opposed to the longer interim values
for NMOG+NOX FTP and SFTP credits.
This is the EPA’s first averaging type
program for evaporative emissions from
light-duty or heavy-duty vehicles. It
does not apply to the canister bleed
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standard or the leak standard because it
is the low altitude ‘‘zero evap’’ hot soak
plus diurnal standard which will drive
the fundamental approach used to
comply with all of these requirements.
We sought comment on the value of
including trading in the program. The
comments from the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers and the
Association of Global Automakers very
generally supported the inclusion of
trading but provided no detail. Upon
follow-up from EPA no manufacturer
provided any further explanation on the
need for the program or how they might
use it.355 In past similar programs for
exhaust emissions there have been only
a few trades, but incorporating trading
within the program adds a degree of
flexibility if a manufacturer finds itself
in a credit deficit situation. Thus, we
have decided to include trading, but
credit trades are limited based on the
same averaging set restrictions as
discussed below for averaging and
banking.
The evaporative emissions ABT
program will start with the 2017 MY for
the percentage and 20/20 options. Prior
to the 2017 MY and for other options as
discussed in Section IV.C.2.b,
manufacturers may earn allowances.
The programs will continue for the 2018
MY and beyond for all manufacturers
regardless of their 2017 MY option and
will not sunset, as does the allowance
program. Vehicles generating ABT
credits in the 2017 MY or later will 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 establishes the basis
within which evaporative emission
families can be averaged for purposes of
compliance as well as credit and deficit
determinations. As proposed, we are
finalizing four averaging sets and the
applicable emission standard for each of
the averaging sets as shown in Table IV–
19. Except as noted in Section IV.C.2.d.2
below, credit exchanges between
averaging sets will not be permitted.
Participation in ABT is voluntary since
a manufacturer could elect to certify
each family within the averaging set to
its individual standard as if there were
no averaging program.
An evaporative emission ABT
calculation and assessment involves two
distinct steps. The first is the
determination of the credit/deficit status
of each family relative to its applicable
355 See Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
and Association of Global Automakers comments
on the NPRM (dated July 1, 2013) and Passavant,
G. (June 2013) EPA and Auto Industry Meeting
Related to Tier 3 Evap and OBD NPRM.
Memorandum to the docket.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
standard from Table IV–19. The second
is the role of ABT calculations in the
overall compliance demonstration
which is discussed in Section IV.C.2.d.
ii. Family Emission Limits
A manufacturer choosing to
participate in the evaporative emissions
ABT program will certify each emission
family to an FEL that applies for the hot
soak plus diurnal standard for low
altitude testing. The FEL selected by the
manufacturer becomes the emission
standard for that emission family.
Emission credits (or deficits) are based
on the difference between the emission
standard that applies (by vehicle
category) and the FEL. The vehicles will
have to meet the FEL for all emission
testing. As mentioned in Section
IV.C.1.b., above, for vehicles certified
with FELs above or below the applicable
standard for testing at low altitude, the
same differential will apply to the FELs
for high-altitude. This high-altitude FEL
will not be used for any emission-credit
calculations, but it will be used as the
emission standard for compliance
purposes.
The final rule provides that the FELs
selected by the manufacturer must be
selected at 0.025 g/test increments
above or below the applicable Tier 3
evaporative emission standards for each
vehicle category. For example, for LDVs
the increments for the FELs would be +/
¥ 0.025 from 0.300 g/test (e.g., 0.225,
0.250, 0.275, 0.300, 0.325, 0.350, 0.375
. . . 0.500). The FEL is used in the
compliance demonstration not the
certified level. The certified level must
be below the FEL, but the FEL could be
a higher value than the closest
increment value. For example, a
certified value of 0.235 g/test could
support an FEL of 0.250 g/test or any
other higher increment value. One
commenter asked that the gradation be
finer than 0.025 g/test, but EPA believes
this is the appropriate increment, since
the standard itself is the sum of two
values and rounding of the measured
values is involved.
FELs are capped such that they
cannot 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 applicable
under EPA’s existing regulations. While
we asked for input on these FEL caps
and vehicle groupings, no party
provided comment.
Total evaporative emission credits (or
deficits) under the Tier 3 hot soak plus
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
diurnal ABT program will be calculated
differently in the 2017 model year and
the 2018 and later model years. For
2017 calculations will 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 will be based on all
50 states. Calculations will use the
following equation: Credits = (fleet
average standard¥fleet average FEL) ×
‘‘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–19.
The sales number used in the 2018 and
later MY calculation will 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.
Emission credits banked under the
evaporative emission ABT program will
have a five year credit life and will not
be discounted. This means the credits
will 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 will
expire and cannot be used by the
manufacturer. We are limiting 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 will have an FEL
equivalent to the EPA emission standard
(Table IV–19) for their respective
vehicle category.
iii. Compliance Demonstration
Demonstration of compliance with the
evaporative emissions standards is done
after the end of each model year. There
are two steps. In the first step, as
discussed above, manufacturers must
show compliance with the applicable
phase-in percentages from the primary
phase-in scheme (i.e., 40, 60, 80, and
100), the 20/20 option for MY 2017, or
an alternative phase-in percentage
scheme. It is sales from these families
together with their respective FELs
which will be used to make the
demonstration of compliance with the
emission standard on average within
each vehicle averaging set. Compliant
vehicle types for these purposes are the
same as described in Section IV.C.1.c
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 this calculation but
would not be subject to the canister
bleed or leak standard requirements.
In the second step, using the FELs,
manufacturers calculate the sales-
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23503
weighted average emission levels within
each of the four vehicle categories using
sales for each family.356 Manufacturers
are 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 must be at or below
the emission standard for that vehicle
category as shown in Table IV–19,
(unless credits from ABT are used). If
the difference between the standard and
the sales-weighted average FEL is a
positive value this could generate
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 which could be covered by
previously banked credits. Credit
deficits will be allowed to be carried
forward through negative banking.
However, manufacturers are required to
make up any deficits within the three
subsequent model years with credits
from vehicles in the same averaging set,
except as described below. That is, after
calculations for the fourth model year
are complete, all previous deficits from
the preceding model years will have to
be resolved by credits generated by the
manufacturer or acquired through
trading from vehicles within the same
averaging set. As an illustration, a credit
deficit accumulated in MY 2017 would
have to be eliminated not later than the
time that the 2020 MY ABT calculation
is submitted to EPA. In no case will a
manufacturer be permitted to carry a
deficit (negative credit balance) for more
than three consecutive model years.
Using a similar illustration, all credit
deficits accumulated in MYs 2017,
2018, and 2019 would have to be
eliminated not later than the time that
the 2020 MY ABT calculation is
submitted to EPA.
As discussed above, manufacturers
are required to identify and include in
the calculations for each of the four
averaging sets, vehicle families from
each of the vehicle categories (see Table
IV–19) until the total annual nationwide
sales in the given model year equals or
exceeds the prescribed percentages.
This could include non-Tier 3 vehicles.
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. Credits from
356 For MY 2017 calculations will 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
will be based on all 50 states.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23504
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
banking and trading can be used to
cover deficits at any time within the
appropriate averaging set.
Allowances can 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 enter into the
evaporative emissions compliance
calculation as having an emission rate
equivalent to the standard for that
category of vehicle. Thus, allowance
vehicles can help in demonstrating
compliance with the percentage phasein requirement (up to ten percentage
points per model year in the alternative
phase-in scheme) and can help in
reducing deficits since their calculation
value is equivalent to the level of the
standard.
As presented in detail above, during
the 2017–2021 MYs EPA is allowing
manufacturers limited flexibility to meet
the percentage phase-in requirements
using carryover certification data from
vehicles certified to CARB PZEV zero
evap and CARB LEV III Option 1
standards in the 2015 or 2016 model
years. These vehicles may have
certification values slightly higher than
those of EPA’s Tier 3 program for the
given vehicle and vehicle category.
Since the emission standard values in
Table IV–19 and Table IV–20 are very
similar for any given vehicle category,
for purposes of simplification during the
phase in, EPA in the final rule provides
that any CARB PZEV zero evap or CARB
LEV III Option 1 vehicles used in the
2017–2021MYs 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. However, we are
not allowing manufacturers to generate
emission credits for families certified
with EPA based on carryover CARB
PZEV zero evap or CARB LEV III Option
1 evaporative emissions data as
provided for in Table IV–20. We are not
including 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 zero
evap offerings, allows for a different
number of PZEV sales as a function of
manufacturer size and CARB LEV III
Option 1 does not permit averaging.
As mentioned above, we are limiting
use of credits to only within a defined
averaging set. Cost effective technology
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
is available to meet the hot soak plus
diurnal emission standards on average
within each of the vehicle categories in
the averaging sets, especially since the
standards are designed to accommodate
nonfuel hydrocarbon background
emissions. Thus, further flexibility is
not needed. Moreover, we are
constraining averaging to within these
sets because of equity issues for the
manufacturers. We are concerned that in
the absence of such constraints 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 is considered,
since larger more diverse manufacturers
have more models and thus more
evaporative families.
Nonetheless, manufacturer use of
credits from different averaging sets to
demonstrate compliance is 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 will have to use credits from
the same averaging set during the next
three model years to make up the
deficit. However, if a deficit still exists
at the end of the third year (i.e., the
deficit has existed for three consecutive
model years), we are incorporating
provisions to permit a manufacturer to
use banked or traded credits from a
different averaging set to cover the
remaining deficit in the fourth model
year’s ABT calculation, with the
following limitations. Manufacturers are
able to use credits from the LDV and
LDT1 averaging set to address remaining
deficits in the LDT2 averaging set, and
vice versa. Furthermore, manufacturers
are 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 is allowed. These
restrictions are being finalized because
of equity concerns caused by the
different nature and size of various
manufacturer product lines.
For both the percentage phase-in and
sales-weighted average calculation steps
above, we are basing the calculation on
nationwide sales (excluding California
and the section 177 states which have
adopted the LEVIII/ZEV programs) in
the 2017 MY since the anti-backsliding
provisions of the LEV III evaporative
emissions program are in place through
the 2017 MY. The program uses annual
nationwide sales beginning in the 2018
MY. We believe this approach is
consistent with the manufacturers’
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
plans for 50-state vehicles. A program
design which enables a nationwide
program has been an important premise
of this rulemaking. 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
the manufacturers on a national fleet
versus a bifurcated approach such as
exists today (California and the section
177 states which have adopted the
LEVIII/ZEV programs separate from the
rest of U.S. sales) may not yet have been
made. The CARB LEV III and EPA
phase-in requirements are identical
beginning in 2018, so EPA sees little
need for concern that a nationwidebased 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.
As discussed above, manufacturers
not meeting the percentage phase-in
requirements will need to include nonTier 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. These non-Tier 3 vehicles
would not be subject to leak standard or
canister bleed standard requirements.
The additional vehicles could only be
meeting the Tier 2 hot soak plus diurnal
requirements and adding these vehicle
families/vehicles into the calculation
may result in a credit deficit. A
manufacturer could not have an
unresolved deficit for more than three
model years as discussed below. The
deficit would have to be eliminated
with positive credits not later than the
ABT calculation and credit
reconciliation which occurs after the
fourth model year.
Resolving this sales percentage
shortfall problem becomes a bit more
complicated for the 2017 MY 20/20
option because it requires that 20
percent of vehicles meet the Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements and
that 20 percent meet the leak standard.
These may or may not be the same
vehicles. As a means to resolve this
potential problem, EPA is requiring that
any shortfall of either of the 20 percent
values (Tier 3 evaporative or leak
standard) for the 2017 MY be covered by
allowances or by future sales of vehicles
meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission
requirements in excess of the
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
evaporative emission percentage sales
requirement for that MY or some
combination of MYs. For example, if a
manufacturer was five percentage points
short of either the 20 percentage points
for the hot soak plus diurnal or the 20
percentage points for the leak standard
in the 2017 MY, then it will 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.). These vehicles as Tier 3
vehicles in MY 2018 or later would also
have to meet the leak standard.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
e. Small Volume Manufacturers
As flexibility, we are establishing
provisions for small volume
manufacturers and for those small
business manufacturers and
operationally independent small
volume manufacturers with average
annual nationwide sales of 5,000 units
or less.357 These manufacturers would
be permitted to delay meeting the Tier
3 evaporative emission standards,
including the requirement to use EPA
certification test fuel, until the 2022
MY. See pages 29892 and 29998–29999
of the preamble to the NPRM and
Section IV.G.5 below for a discussion of
the 5,000 vehicle threshold. This
includes the hot soak plus diurnal
standards, the canister bleed emission
standard, and the leak standard. In the
interim, these vehicles must meet the
existing evaporative and refueling
emission standards. The initial
determination of whether a
manufacturer is under the 5,000 unit
threshold will 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
exceed 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 exceed 5,000 units per
year in any three consecutive model
years they will have to meet the Tier 3
evaporative requirements in the third
model year thereafter. For example, if a
new market entrant in 2015 projects
nationwide production of 4,000 units
per year and the average of actual values
in 2015–2017 exceeds 5,000 units per
year they will have to meet Tier 3
357 See
40 CFR 86.1838–01(d).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
evaporative requirements by the 2020
MY.
3. Technological Feasibility
Evaporative/refueling emission
control systems are an integral part of
the overall vehicle engine and fuel
system. EPA is establishing two revised
and three new standards in this rule (2/3-day hot soak plus diurnal standards,
high altitude standards canister bleed
standards, fuel rig SHED standard, leak
standard) and a new test fuel which
applies to these standards as well as the
current running loss, refueling, and spit
back emission standards.
Hot soak plus diurnal emissions are
fuel vapors which arise from the fuel
system when it is parked immediately
after operation (hot soak) and during
daily ambient heating and cooling or by
means of permeation when the vehicle
is at rest. Control of hot soak plus
diurnal emissions is primarily achieved
by routing fuel vapors to a canister filled
with activated carbon. These vapors are
stored on the carbon and purged in the
engine during vehicle operation. Hot
soak plus diurnal emission rates vary
with fuel vapor pressure, temperature,
and fuel system design. Permeation
emissions have been reduced by
improving fuel tank and fuel line
materials. Permeation emissions are
sensitive to the gasoline ethanol
content. While EPA has required
ethanol in the fuel used for assessing
evaporative system durability since
2004, Tier 3 is the first rule to require
the certification test fuel for gasolinefueled vehicles to include ethanol (E10).
Canister bleed emissions are fuel
vapors which 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, the size
and architecture of the canister and the
characteristics of the carbon itself.
While the biggest effect of this vapor
redistribution is a uniform vapor
concentration within the canister, it can
also cause vapors to escape through the
canister vent even without continued
canister loading resulting from fuel tank
heating.
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. Control of leaks is especially
important to achieving full useful life
emission control system performance.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23505
In Tier 3, the emissions test fuel is
changing from 9 RVP E0 to 9 RVP E10.
EPA does not expect the change in
emissions test fuel to affect refueling,
spit back, or running loss compliance
technology or strategies.
While these elements of the
evaporative/refueling program are
separate requirements for compliance
purposes, the integrated nature of the
design and operation of the evaporative/
refueling control systems and the
vehicle engine/fuel systems often leads
to co-benefits when technology is added
or upgraded. In some cases technology
to meet one of the new or revised
evaporative emission requirements will
either help in efforts to meet other
evaporative type requirements or
enhance durability. For example,
technology used to address the canister
bleed standard will also reduce hot soak
plus diurnal emissions and technology
to meet the leak standard will reduce
hot soak plus diurnal emissions and
enhance durability.
Based on review of current
certification data and the
documentation in current professional
literature, there is no doubt that the
technology is available to meet the final
evaporative emission standards
described in this rule.358 There are at
least 50 vehicle models which met the
requirements in 2013.359 There are
many technologies manufacturers can
consider which will reduce emissions
and enhance durability. Manufacturer
compliance options and cost
considerations are also addressed by the
phase-in flexibilities and as the ABT
program.
In the NPRM we described a variety
of technology approaches and
calibrations which manufacturers could
use to meet the Tier 3 evaporative
emission requirements. No comments
were provided on the stringency of the
standards, the technologies, the
feasibility of the standards, or the costs
of compliance. Nonetheless, we updated
our technology analysis in light of new
certification data and vehicle
technology projections. As in the
analysis supporting the NPRM, we
identified technologies on the basis of
their control effectiveness and cost to
implement. Not every model will use
every technology described below.
Rather we expect manufacturers to
apply the technologies needed on any
given model to meet the compliance
target level. The technologies could be
broadly grouped into two segments. The
358 Passavant, G. (December 2013). Assessment of
2013 MY Evaporative Emission Results.
Memorandum to the docket.
359 See Chapter 1 of the RIA for more detail.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23506
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
first are those expected to see
widespread use based on their
effectiveness and cost to implement.
The second are those which are in
relatively widespread use today, but
could be optimized if necessary to
achieve further reductions. In many
cases the reductions available from this
second group are relatively small and
the costs are slightly higher than for the
other strategies. The anticipated control
technologies to comply with the hot
soak plus diurnal, canister bleed/rig,
and leak standards are described briefly
below and are grouped in these two
basic segments. A more detailed
analysis for each vehicle category is
found in Chapter 1 of the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA).
a. Technologies expected to see
widespread use: Engine/fuel system
conversion: As projected in our RIA for
the 2017–2025 light-duty GHG
emissions final rule, EPA projects a
significant movement from port fuel
injection (PFI) engines to gasoline direct
injection (GDI) engines. This ranges
from 60–100 percent of products for all
categories except gasoline-powered
trucks over 14,000 lbs GVWR. This
reduces air induction systems emissions
by 90 percent.
Air Induction System (AIS) Scrubber:
For vehicles/engine models not
converted to GDI, EPA projects the use
of an AIS scrubber as is now used on
some PZEV models. These would
reduce air induction system emissions
by 85 percent.
Canister honeycomb: This is a lower
gasoline working capacity activated
carbon device designed to load and
purge very easily and quickly. This
device reduces canister bleed emissions
by 90 percent but also provides control
for the hot soak plus diurnal test.
Reduce leaks from connections and
improve seals and o-rings: Vapor leaks
from connections and the emission rates
from these leaks is exacerbated if poor
sealing techniques or low grade seal
materials are use in connectors such as
o-rings. Reducing connections in the
fuel and evaporative systems and
improving techniques and materials
would reduce these emissions by 90
percent. This would reduce hot soak
plus diurnal emissions, improve
durability, and help to assure
compliance with the leak standard.
Move parts into the fuel tank: Another
means to reduce leak-related vapor
emissions is to move fuel evaporative
system parts which are external to the
fuel tank to the inside. Emissions from
these parts would be completely
eliminated. This would reduce hot soak
plus diurnal emissions, improve
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
durability, and help to assure
compliance with the leak standard.
OBD evaporative system leak
monitoring: Beginning in the 2017
model year, the OBD system will need
to be able to find, confirm, and signal
a leak in the evaporative system of 0.020
inches cumulative diameter or greater.
This is currently done on most vehicles
less than 14,000 lbs GVWR as a result
of the manufacturers’ response to
meeting CARB requirements, but will be
mandatory under EPA regulations.
b. Technologies expected to be
optimized if necessary to achieve
further reductions:
In the NPRM, EPA discussed a
number of other technologies with the
demonstrated potential to further reduce
evaporative emissions. These included:
(1) Upgrading the activated carbon
canister and optimizing purge
calibrations (especially for larger
displacement engines), (2) upgrading
fuel line materials to reduce permeation,
(3) improving the fuel tank barrier layer
to reduce permeation, (4) improving fuel
tank manufacturing processes to reduce
tank seam permeation emissions, (5)
upgrading the fuel tank fill tube material
to reduce permeation, and (6) improving
the security of the fill tube connection
to the fuel tank. While each of these
approaches reduces evaporative
emissions, they are to large degrees in
use today. Thus their further application
may be limited to specific situations. It
is worth noting, that the use of these
technologies has contributed to the
relatively large compliance margins
under the existing hot soak plus diurnal
standards.
The reductions required and cost of
compliance for any given vehicle model
will depend on its current certification
level and the type of evaporative
emission control technology applied.
The baseline emission values for 2-day
hot soak plus diurnal evaporative
emission certification for current
models range from 0.42–0.96 grams per
test (g/test). Achieving the desired
compliance targets (at least 25 percent
below the Tier 3 standard) would
require reductions ranging from 0.12 g/
test for LDT2s to 0.51 g/test for
HDGVs.360 EPA estimates 2025MY costs
in the range of $9–15 per vehicle with
a fuel cost savings of about $2 over the
vehicle life. The application of the
technologies expected to see widespread
use under Tier 3 will create the margins
need for compliance and in some cases
360 Passavant, G. (December 2013). Assessment of
2013 MY Evaporative Emission Results.
Memorandum to the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
create excess reductions which could be
used to generate credits for ABT.
4. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV)
Requirements
a. Background on HDGV
HDGVs are 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.361 HDGVs are predominantly but
not exclusively commercial vehicles,
mostly trucks and other work type
vehicles built on a truck chassis. EPA
often discusses HDGVs in three basic
categories for regulatory purposes
according to their GVWR class. These
are 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 subcategorized into complete and
incomplete vehicles.362 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.
HDGVs have been subject to
evaporative emission standards since
the mid 1980s. Recently, the timing of
the standards has lagged requirements
for LDVs and LDTs by several years, but
the standards are of comparable
stringency when vehicle size and fuel
361 MDPVs also meet the definition of HDVs, but
they are classified separately for evaporative and
refueling emission purposes. See 40 CFR 86.1803–
01.
362 Heavy-duty vehicles may be complete or
incomplete. 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) when it leaves
control of the manufacturer of the engine.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
tank volume are considered. The most
recent 2/3 day hot soak plus diurnal
standards for HDGVs took effect in
2008. Refueling control requirements
apply to complete Class 2b vehicles
only. These requirements phased-in
over the period from 2004–2006.
b. HDGV Evaporative Emission Control
Requirements
As discussed above, EPA is including
HDGVs within the Tier 3 evaporative
emissions program. The hot soak plus
diurnal and canister bleed test emission
standards that will apply to these
HDGVs are presented in Table IV–19
and-Table IV–20 and the high altitude
standard is presented in Table IV–21.
These vehicles will be included in the
averaging calculation beginning in the
2018 MY and will be eligible for
creating and using allowances and
credits.
Furthermore, for the reasons
discussed below, EPA is requiring that
all complete HDGVs regardless of their
GVWR be required to meet the refueling
emission standards and use the test
procedures currently required for LDVs
and LDTs and complete Class 2b
vehicles. (See § 86.1813–17). In their
comments, manufacturers expressed
concern about the amount of gasoline
used in the development and
certification of refueling emission
control systems for HDGVs (due to the
larger fuel tanks). To address this
concern, EPA will permit manufacturers
to certify using two separate processes
for vehicles with tanks of 40 gallons or
larger. The first will be the engineering
evaluation of canister and purge data
from lighter weight HDGVs certified in
the SHED to show that similar or scaledup systems on heavier HDGVs have the
purge volume and canister working
capacity to pass the refueling standard.
This could include a comparison of
control system design elements such as
canister shape, canister internal
architecture, total canister volume, and
total gasoline working capacity as well
as purge air volume over the Federal
Test Procedure. This would be subject
to the application of good engineering
judgment. The second is application of
the provisions of 40 CFR 86.153–98 (a)
through (b)(1) on a bench set up for a
tank of the appropriate volume in lieu
of a vehicle test to show the efficacy of
the fill neck seal. Such a test could be
conducted in a conventional SHED.
The ORVR requirement applies to
complete Class 3 vehicles by the
2018MY and all other complete HDGVs
by the 2022MY. EPA proposed these
requirements for Class 3 HDGVs and
asked for comment on extending the
requirements to all HDGVs. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
manufacturers expressly commented
that HDGV ORVR requirements should
be limited to complete HDGVs.363 There
are only four manufacturers of HDGVs.
Of these, three offer complete products
in the Class 3 weight range and none
offer complete products in the Class 4
and above weight range. As mentioned
above, Class 3 vehicles have largely the
same vehicle chassis and fuel system
configurations as Class 2b vehicles. The
manufacturers of complete Class 2b
vehicles indicated to the CARB and EPA
that they carry across their Class 2b fuel
evaporative control system designs onto
Class 3 and this includes the onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) system
used for control of refueling emissions.
Thus, applying refueling emission
controls to complete Class 3 vehicles
adds no cost and has little additional
emission reduction benefit. However, it
does set a requirement to continue these
controls in future model years. There
are no complete Class 4 and above
HDGVs and neither manufacturer who
certifies incomplete HDGVs above
14,000 lbs GVWR objected to
establishing an ORVR requirement for
complete HDGVs.364 This sector is made
of incomplete HDGV chassis and dieselpowered products. However, setting a
requirement for potential future Class 4
and above designs establishes certainty
for manufacturers but brings no near
term cost burden or emission
reductions.
Incomplete HDGVs make up 15–20
percent of all HDGV sales. Of this,
approximately 80 percent are Class 2b/
3 and 20 percent are Class 4 and above.
EPA is not extending the refueling
emission control requirement to
incomplete HDGVs at this time. The
control system designs would be
essentially the same as on complete
HDGVs, but manufacturers have
indicated to EPA that they would have
to establish additional measures to
ensure that the steps taken to complete
the vehicle by the secondary
manufacturer do not compromise the
integrity and safety of the fuel/
evaporative control system (including
ORVR) and that the ORVR system
continues to perform properly with
regard to emissions control. While there
are relatively few of these vehicles, their
contributions to the inventory are larger
than might be expected due to their
363 See comments of Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers and Association of Global
Automakers in the public docket at EPA–HQ–OAR–
2011–0135–4451.
364 Passavant, G., (September 2013). EPA and
General Motors Meeting on Issues Related to Tier
3 NPRM and (September 2013). EPA and Ford
Meeting on Issues Related to Tier 3 NPRM.
Memorandums to the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23507
lower fuel economy. Given these
contributions, EPA may consider
proposing to apply ORVR to incomplete
HDGVs in a future action.
EPA is also including a provision that
manufacturers be permitted to comply
with the refueling emission standard as
early as the 2015 MY to earn on a oneto-one basis allowances which could be
used to phase-in the Class 3 refueling
emission control requirement or as an
allowance on a 2:1 basis 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. This would also
apply to any incomplete HDGV a
manufacturer voluntarily certified to the
refueling emission standards. Any
certifications, including those done
early, must use EPA Tier 3 test
procedures and certification test fuels or
CARB LEV III equivalents.
c. Other Program Elements for HDGVs
In the NPRM, EPA sought comment
on several provisions related to Tier 3
certification test fuel and evaporative
emission control requirements.
First, EPA sought comment on
whether heavy-duty gasoline engines
(HDGEs) not subject to new Tier 3
exhaust emission standards (those
certified for exhaust emissions using an
engine dynamometer) which are used in
HDGVs subject to Tier 3 evaporative
emission standards should certify for
exhaust emissions on Tier 3 emissions
test fuel.365 Manufacturers responded by
asking that the use of Tier 3 fuel for
HDGE exhaust emissions certification be
voluntary, but agreed that the use of
Tier 3 certification fuel would not
change the stringency of the current
dynamometer-based emission standards
or the costs of compliance. Based on
consultations with manufacturers, EPA
has decided to require that all HDGEs be
certified on Tier 3 fuel by the
2022MY.366 To provide flexibility for
very unique applications or
circumstances, EPA will allow up to
five percent of a manufacturer’s
365 EPA also sought comment on whether to
require HDGVs to use Tier 3 emissions test fuel for
evaporative emissions standards even if we did not
adopt the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards and whether to allow Class 4 and above
HDGVs to earn allowances or credits if EPA did not
adopt the Tier 3 standards for these vehicles. These
have been superseded by our decision to apply the
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards to all HDGVs
as described above.
366 Passavant, G. (September 2013). EPA and
General Motors Meeting on Issues Related to Tier
3 NPRM and (September 2013). EPA and Ford
Meeting on Issues Related to Tier 3 NPRM.
Memorandums to the docket.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23508
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
dynamometer-certified HDGE sales in
any given model year to be certified
using Tier 2 certification fuel. This
flexibility is limited to certification
based on carryover data beginning in the
2022MY.
Second, as discussed in Section IV.F.5
for light-duty vehicles, we are
committed to the principle of ensuring
that any change in test fuel for heavyduty gasoline vehicles/engines will not
affect the stringency of either the fuel
consumption or GHG emissions
standards. As part of the separate
rulemaking discussed in Section IV.F.5,
we 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 finalizing provisions to
permit evaporative emissions
certification by engineering analysis for
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR
(instead of above 26,000 lbs GVWR as
permitted in the existing regulations).
We are also finalizing regulatory
language to clarify how these provisions
are to be implemented. This applies to
the hot soak plus diurnal, running loss,
and canister bleed standards. These
HDGVs will remain subject to the
emission standards when tested using
the specified procedures. This is the
same cut point allowed by CARB and
will allow for one certification method.
Even though it was supported by one
commenter, we are not including
specific provisions for design-based
certification for HDGVs over 14,000 lbs
GVWR. EPA believes that the option to
certify using engineering analysis and
data serves the same purpose.
Fourth, we are finalizing 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
HDGEs.
Fifth, EPA is finalizing regulatory
language permitting 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 require
these HDGVs to meet all the
requirements applicable to the group in
which they are being included (e.g.,
useful life, OBD, etc.).
Finally, the regulations at 40 CFR part
86, subpart M, describe how to test
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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. We are eliminating subpart M
and replacing it with a simple
instruction to test these heavy-duty
vehicles using the procedures of subpart
B, with a small number of appropriate
modifications noted as exceptions to the
light-duty test procedures. Relying on
references to subpart B instead of largely
copying them into subpart M eliminates
many pages of unnecessary regulatory
text and makes it easier to maintain a
consistent set of requirements. Changing
a provision in subpart B in the future
will automatically apply for evaporative
testing of both light-duty and heavyduty vehicles unless otherwise provided
in the particular rulemaking.
In response to comments received, we
are specifying that heavy-duty vehicles
above 14,000 lbs GVWR must use the
same drive schedules and test fuels that
apply for light-duty vehicles. Subpart M
already allows light-duty drive
schedules and certification test fuels as
an alternative to using those for heavyduty vehicles, and most if not all
manufacturers of these vehicles already
use the light-duty drive schedules,
which facilitates testing simplicity and
coordination of design parameters with
light-duty vehicles. The heavy-duty
drive schedule generally involves less
driving, which makes this the more
stringent test option for designing purge.
Omitting this more stringent option
therefore does not change the effective
stringency of the applicable standards.
With these changes from the proposed
rule, there are only two aspects of
testing that are different for heavy-duty
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR. First,
the regulations specify that the exhaust
emission measurements are not required
for the driving portion of the test
between canister pre-conditioning and
diurnal testing. Exhaust emission
standards in this vehicle size range
apply based on engine testing only.
Second, wider engine speed tolerances
apply. This is captured in part 1066 by
specifying wider engine speed
tolerances for any testing that does not
require exhaust emission measurements
since the greater allowance has no effect
on emissions measurements. This
applies, for example, for preconditioning drives for light-duty
vehicles, and it also applies for preconditioning related to evaporative
emissions of heavy-duty vehicles above
14,000 lbs GVWR.
There are some differences in the
existing test provisions in subparts B
and M that we are not preserving. Some
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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).
Also, we are not retaining distinctions
in subpart M related to 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 the
content of § 86.1235(b) through (i)
related to dynamometer operating
procedures, which were inadvertently
removed in an earlier rulemaking.
5. Evaporative Emission Requirements
for FFVs
A flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) as
defined in 40 CFR 86.1301–01 means
any motor vehicle engineered and
designed to be operated on a petroleum
fuel and on a methanol or ethanol fuel
or any mixture of the petroleum fuel
and methanol or ethanol. Many
manufacturers have one or more FFVs
in their product offerings. These include
many different LDV and LDT vehicle
chassis styles including passenger cars,
mini-vans, pick-ups, sport utility
vehicles and even a few HDGVs.
The EPA regulations implementing
the FFV provisions for ethanol FFVs,
including those in 40 CFR 86.1811–04
and 86.1811–09, have been applied
primarily for FFVs capable of operating
on gasoline/ethanol mixtures up to E85.
As a matter of policy, EPA has not
required certification testing for
evaporative and refueling emissions on
the full range of E0–E85 fuel blends, but
instead has allowed the option to use a
blend created when Tier 2 fuel (9 RVP
E0) is splash blended with ethanol to a
10 percent gasoline/ethanol blend. This
simulates what often occurs in the
vehicle fuel tank when Tier 2 fuel (9
RVP E0) is dispensed into a tank
containing mostly E85. This yields a
blend which has a Reid vapor pressure
of about 10 psi. Nearly all
manufacturers have certified using this
option. The California ARB LEV III
program has no special evaporative or
refueling emission test fuel
requirements for FFVs.
In the Tier 3 NPRM, EPA proposed to
revise the certification test fuel for
evaporative emissions, to revise the hot
soak plus diurnal emission standard,
and to add a canister bleed emission
standard and a leak standard. These
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
standards apply to FFVs and non-FFVs.
EPA proposed to revise the ethanol
content of the certification test fuel for
refueling emissions but did not
otherwise propose to change the fuel
vapor pressure, the level of the refueling
emission standard or the test procedure.
Furthermore, in the NPRM, EPA sought
comment on leaving unchanged the
basic approach to FFV certification test
fuel for Tier 3 evaporative and refueling
emissions, except that the certification
test fuel would be 9 RVP E0 splash
blended with E15 such that the blend
would have a 10 psi vapor pressure, i.e.,
the RVP of the evaporative emissions
test fuel used by nearly all
manufacturers. Manufacturers
commented that the Tier 3 certification
test fuel should be the same for FFVs
and non-FFVs and that carryover should
be permitted from Tier 2 to Tier 3. EPA
met with several manufacturers to
clarify their comments and to discuss
issues affecting the evaporative and
refueling emissions certification fuel for
FFVs.367
For FFVs, EPA has several factors to
consider for evaporative and refueling
emission certification test fuel. First,
EPA is finalizing a 9 RVP E10
certification test fuel for non-FFVs for
evaporative and refueling emissions.
This is consistent with our broader
policy objective to allow the
manufacturers to sell the same vehicles
in all 50 states. Second, 10 psi RVP
certification test fuel for the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards for FFVs
could result in more evaporative
emission reductions than a 9 psi RVP
test fuel, but this would be counter to
the broader policy objective regarding a
national program since CARB has no
separate FFV evaporative emission
standards and likely would affect the
stringency of the final evaporative
emission standards. Specifically,
finalizing 10 psi RVP certification test
fuel for the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards as applied to FFVs would
increase the stringency of the
evaporative emission standards for FFVs
both compared to the Tier 3 evaporative
emission standards with 9 psi RVP test
fuel for non-FFVs and compared to the
Tier 2/MSAT evaporative emission
standards with 10 psi RVP test fuel for
FFVs. Third, we are not changing the
level of the refueling emission standard
(though we are adding ethanol to the
test fuel and extending ORVR to
complete Class 3 HDGVs) and we did
not examine how a potential change
367 Passavant,
G. (September, 2013). EPA, GM,
Ford, and Chrysler Meeting on Tier 3 Certification
Fuel for Evaporative and Refueling Emission
Standards for FFVs. Memorandum to the docket.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
from the existing 10 psi RVP test fuel for
FFV refueling would affect in-use
emission reductions or the stringency of
the refueling standard for FFVs. A
change in the test fuel vapor pressure
likely would likely lead to a change in
the stringency of the refueling emission
standard as they are now applied to
FFVs. Retaining the current
requirements for refueling emissions for
FFVs does not affect the national
program since CARB currently follows
Federal Test Procedures and test fuels
for ORVR.
Balancing all of these factors, EPA is
adopting a bifurcated scheme for
evaporative and refueling emission
certification for Tier 3. Evaporative
emission requirements for the hot soak
plus diurnal, canister bleed, running
loss, spit back, and leak standards will
be based on Tier 3 certification fuel (9
RVP E10) for FFVs. This will permit
reciprocity between the LEVIII and Tier
3 evaporative emission standards
programs and subject the manufacturers
to only one set of evaporative emission
tests for FFVs and non-FFVs. However,
for the refueling emission standard, EPA
is retaining the 10 psi certification test
fuel requirement for FFVs because the
worst case in-use RVP conditions when
E0 and E85 are commingled will still be
possible. In current systems, the fuel
vapor pressure in the refueling emission
test drives the total gasoline working
capacity of the activated carbon canister
that is necessary in the integrated
evaporative/refueling control system.
Although a 10 psi RVP certification fuel
for evaporative emissions control could
be viewed as more stringent, we believe
that keeping the fuel vapor pressure at
10 psi in the refueling test, which is
what was proposed for comment, will
help to assure that the in-use emission
reduction benefits of current
evaporative systems on FFVs are
retained. We expect that total canister
gasoline working capacities will still be
driven by the 10 psi RVP fuel used in
the refueling test and therefore the
higher in-use RVP conditions which
impact evaporative emissions will still
be addressed.
EPA is specifying a 10 RVP E10 test
fuel specification for FFV refueling
emissions certification. However, as a
compliance alternative EPA will
continue to permit certification based
on in vehicle fuel tank blending of two
different fuels (i.e., vehicle fuel tank
filled to 10 percent of capacity with E85
and then refueled to at least 95 percent
of capacity with (9 RVP E0). Either of
these approaches will also meet CARB
certification test fuel requirements as
the test fuel vapor pressure would be
higher than with EPA’s 9 RVP E10 or
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23509
CARB’s 7 RVP E10 test fuel. In addition,
we are not changing existing
requirements that all IUVP testing for
evaporative and refueling tests are done
on the non-FFV fuel (i.e., Tier 2 IUVP
vehicles are tested on 9 RVP E0 and Tier
3 IUVP vehicles are tested on 9 RVP
E10.
In their comments on the Tier 3
NPRM, manufacturers asked that EPA
allow carryover of certification emission
data from Tier 2 to Tier 3. Since the
regulatory approach for refueling
emissions is basically the same as what
is currently being used by the
manufacturers, we believe there should
be opportunity for carryover of refueling
emission data under the current
regulatory program. Manufacturers also
expressed concern that the refueling
emission standard would require them
to keep a 10 RVP E10 or 9 RVP E0 test
fuel solely for refueling emission
standard certification purposes. To help
address this concern, in certification
testing, EPA would consider approving
other refueling test fuel blends with 10
percent ethanol and 10 psi such as a
refueling event where a tank is filled
initially with 10 percent E85 and during
refueling test is filled with 90 percent 9
RVP E0. EPA would also permit
manufacturers the option to seek EPA
approval to certify by attestation using
alternative procedures or through
engineering analysis based on similar
evaporative/refueling emission system
configurations and emission test results
and data on similar vehicles showing
that the vehicle could pass the refueling
emission standard and meet the
requirements in use on 10 psi RVP E10
fuel. They would remain subject to
confirmatory testing on 10 RVP E10.
Both of these options could only be
implemented with approval of the
Administrator.
6. Test Procedures and Certification Test
Fuel
a. Review and Update of Testing
Requirements
EPA adopted the current test
requirements for controlling evaporative
emissions in 1993.368 Those changes
included: (1) Diurnal testing based on
heating and cooling the ambient air in
the SHED 369 instead of forcing fuel
temperatures through a specified
temperature excursion; (2) repeated 24hour diurnal measurements to capture
both permeation and diurnal emissions;
(3) high-temperature hot soak testing; (4)
368 58
FR 16002 (March 24, 1993).
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.
369 SHED
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23510
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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.
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 ‘‘2day 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 ‘‘3day 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 is also
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).370 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.
In the nearly 20 years since adopting
these test procedures, manufacturers
370 59
FR 16262 (April 6, 1994).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 changing
the test procedures for demonstrating
compliance with the Tier 3 emission
standards. As described above, we are
adopting a new standard based on
measured values over a canister bleed
test, and a fuel system rig test. These are
intended to measure only fuel vapors
which diffuse from the evaporative
canister or permeate/leak from a fuel
system. CARB developed these
procedures as a means for setting
standards that are not affected by
nonfuel background emissions. The
canister bleed test 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), with a
conventional SHED approach or by
collecting emissions in a bag and
measuring the mass. Rather than
repeating CARB’s regulations, we are
incorporating those regulations by
reference into the CFR.371 This will
avoid the possibility of complications
related to minor differences that may
occur with separate test procedures. The
fuel system rig test is a bench test where
a complete vehicle fuel system (without
the vehicle chassis) is constructed in the
SHED and evaluated over the 3-day
cycle in both a ‘‘wet’’ and ‘‘dry’’ state.372
CARB adopted the 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 EPA
requirements which include the canister
bleed test and emission standard instead
of CARB LEV III Option 1 which
includes the rig test and emission
standard. However, since we are
371 For a description of the canister bleed test
procedure (BETP), see pp.III–51 to III–55 of
http://www.arb.ca.gov/db/search/search_
result.htm?cx=006180681887686055858%3
Abew1c4wl8hc&cof=FORID%3A11&q=
BETP&siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arb.ca.gov
%2Fhomepage.htm (last accessed on January 13,
2014).
372 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/macs/
mac0503/mac0503.pdf for a description of the rig
test standard and test procedure (last accessed on
January 13, 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
accepting PZEV zero evap and CARB
LEV III Option 1 certifications for the
2017–2018 MYs and 2017–2021 MYs,
respectively, we are also incorporating
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 adopting a new leak test procedure
which will be used to measure leak rates
for the leak standard. The leak test
standard test procedure is contained in
the regulatory text.
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 inuse 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.
In the NPRM, we requested 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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. EPA sees
merit in further consideration of such
test procedure flexibilities, but auto
manufacturers did not provide support
these concepts in their comments and
we are not adopting the proposed
optional adjustment.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
b. Test Fuel for Certification
EPA is changing the certification test
fuel specifications as described in
Section IV.F. Here we discuss some
implications for evaporative and
refueling emissions testing beyond those
discussed above for FFVs. We are
revising the certification test fuel
specification in conjunction with the
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. Although we
received unsolicited comment asking
that we set durability test fuel
specifications for evaporative and
refueling emission control systems to be
the same as those for the certification
test fuel (9 RVP E10 in this final rule),
we are not changing durability fuel
specifications in this rule other than to
remove minimum sulfur content
requirements. In particular, we are not
changing the existing requirement that
‘‘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’’. See §§ 86.1824–
08(f)(1) and 86.113–04(a)(3)(i). EPA
believes this is prudent policy to ensure
that emission control systems are
designed for the fuels with the potential
to adversely affect durability and there
is no reason to change the existing
approach especially since E15 fuel is
now legally permissible and
commercially available for appropriate
vehicles and there is potential for its
market penetration to increase in the
future. Any bench aging using E15 fuel
must simulate the effects of alcohol inuse fuels on evaporative emission
system components.
Since there are already vehicles in the
market which employ the technology
needed to meet the new hot soak plus
diurnal requirements, EPA is taking a
flexible approach to the phase-in of the
certification test fuel. This is
summarized in Table IV–22.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
To accommodate vehicles already
designed to meet CARB PZEV zero evap
evaporative emission requirements,
EPA’s phase-in provides that PZEV zero
evap vehicles which qualify for
carryover can use CARB Phase 2 fuel for
evaporative emissions (hot soak plus
diurnal and running loss standards) and
rig test certification for MYs 2015–2019.
For CARB PZEV zero evap vehicles,
high altitude, refueling, and spit back
standard certification may use either
EPA Tier 2 or Tier 3 fuel in MYs 2015–
2019. For the leak standard in the 2018
and later MYs, they must use Tier 3 test
fuel. Beginning in the 2017 MY, the use
of PZEV zero evap data is limited to
carryover of data from 2015 or 2016 MY
certifications.
Those using CARB LEV III Option 1
can use CARB Phase 3 fuel for
evaporative emissions (hot soak plus
diurnal and running loss standards) and
rig test certification for MYs 2015–2021.
For CARB Option 1, high altitude,
refueling, and spit back standard
certification must may use Tier 2 or Tier
3 fuel in MYs 2015–2016 but in the
2017 and later MYs all LEV III option 1
certifications for the high altitude,
refueling, spit back, and leak standards
must use EPA Tier 3 fuel.
CARB LEV III Option 2 evaporative
emission vehicles may use CARB Phase
3 fuel to meet evaporative (hot soak plus
diurnal and running loss standards) and
canister bleed standards beginning in
2015 MY and following. High altitude,
refueling, and spit back may use Tier 2
or Tier 3 fuel in model years 2015 and
2016. For 2017 and later model years
CARB LEV III option 2 evaporative
families must use Tier 3 test fuel for
high altitude, refueling, spit back, and
leak standard certifications.
Tier 3 evaporative emission vehicles
must use Tier 3 fuel to meet evaporative
emission (hot soak plus diurnal and
running loss standards), high altitude,
canister bleed, and refueling/spit back
emission standards beginning in the
2015 MY and following. Beginning in
the 2018 MY, Tier 3 vehicles must use
Tier 3 emission test fuel to demonstrate
compliance with the leak standard
requirements.373
When the program is fully phased-in,
any Tier 3 evaporative emission
certification will have to use Tier 3
certification test fuel and test
procedures or CARB equivalent test
procedures and fuels. This could be
done as early as the 2015 MY and will
373 This provision applies in 2017 MY for
vehicles meeting the Tier 3 requirements using the
20/20 option and does not apply to HDGVs with a
GVWR greater than 14,000 lbs. Incomplete HDGVs
have until the 2022 MY to meet the spit back
standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23511
be required for all vehicle models by the
2022 MY.374 As indicated above and in
Table IV–22, we are further applying 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
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards
(using Tier 3 or LEV III fuel), they will
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), spit back, canister bleed,
running loss, and high altitude emission
standards. Any family that is not yet
captured within the Tier 3 phase-in
percentage may remain on Tier 2
certification fuel through the 2021 MY.
By the 2022 MY all evaporative and
refueling emission certifications will
have to be on EPA test procedures and
certification fuels or CARB equivalents
as identified in the regulations. Policies
regarding test procedures and test fuels
for EPA confirmatory and other post
certification testing are discussed in
Section IV.C.6.e below.
Finally, we are including provisions
to allow any vehicle certified to the
refueling spit back standard separately
(mostly incomplete HDGVs)to continue
to do so using Tier 2 current
certification fuel until the 2022 MY
even if its evaporative 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. The
manufacturers must meet this
requirement through testing, as the
engineering evaluation flexibility
available for HDGVs over 14,000 lbs
GVWR does not apply to this standard.
c. Correction for Ethanol Portion of the
SHED Measurement
Another 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 underreporting 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
374 The only exception here would be if a vehicle
uses allowances in the 2022 model year to meet the
Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23512
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
activated carbon in the canister. We
proposed to address this issue by the
use of a prescribed correction 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 at the time of the NPRM
suggested that a value of approximately
1.1 would be appropriate for E15.375 For
an E10 certification fuel, California ARB
finalized a value of 1.08.
In their comments, the manufacturers
supported the use of a correction factor,
but stipulated that the value put forth by
EPA was too large and they should be
given the option to measure the ethanol
fraction of the vapor in the SHED
through procedures and instrumental
approaches prescribed in the regulations
(see 40 CFR 1065.269, 1065.369, and
1065.805) instead of using a fixed
correction value. Two manufacturers
provided data based on testing with E10
test fuel which generally showed lower
ethanol fractions than represented by
the 1.1 value proposed by EPA for hot
soak plus diurnal emissions, and
uniformly showed very low ethanol
fractions for refueling measurements.376
EPA has reviewed the data provided
by the manufacturers and has
considered their comment that they
should be given the option to measure
the ethanol fraction and adjust the
SHED results rather than be required to
use a fixed correction factor. Based on
these considerations, EPA is
establishing the following approach
with regard to ethanol corrections. First,
EPA will permit measurement or the use
of a fixed correction factor on an
evaporative family by evaporative
family basis. However, once the
manufacturer selects an approach for
any given evaporative family, that
approach must be used in all
subsequent testing of all vehicles
certified using that data including carry
over. For example, if a manufacturer
chooses to measure the ethanol fraction
for purposes of certification of a test
group in a given model year, that same
method must be used in any
manufacturer confirmatory testing as
well as IUVP or IUCP testing of all
vehicles in that test group.
Alternatively, if a manufacturer uses the
fixed correction factor in certification it
must also use it for all evaporative
emission tests covered by the
requirement for a given test group and
375 Moulis, C. (2012, January). SHED FID
Responses for Ethanol. Memorandum to the docket.
376 Passavant, G. (2013, October). Manufacturer
Data on Ethanol Measurements in the SHED.
Memorandum to the docket.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
for all follow on testing. Second, the
decision on measurement or correction
factor must be uniform on a test group
basis for all evaporative emission
standards covered by the correction
requirement. In this case this includes
hot soak, diurnal, high altitude, running
loss, and rig test measurements. Third,
in terms of a fixed correction factor,
EPA believes that the 1.08 value
adopted by California is consistent with
the data and is specifying that value for
hot soak plus diurnal (low and high
altitude), running loss, and rig test
measurement corrections for any testing
conducted with 10 percent ethanol.
Based on the data provided by the
manufacturers, EPA is not requiring a
fixed correction value or measurement
for refueling, spit back, or canister bleed
measurements for testing conducted
with 10 percent ethanol. This aligns
with the expectation that ethanol
concentrations will be very low with
FID-based measurements and that massbased measurements will capture any
ethanol adequately without a need for
correction. Finally, EPA will use the
method selected by the manufacturer in
any confirmatory or surveillance testing.
However, since corrections will always
be zero or greater, no correction is
needed to make a failure determination
if the FID value exceeds the emission
standard or FEL. With regard to the
1.08, EPA remains open to future
revisions to this value, in coordination
with CARB, if a fuller data set
representative of various vehicle
models, SHED FID ethanol response
values, FID designs (analog vs. digital),
ethanol calculation approaches (photo
acoustic and impinger), and test sites
demonstrates that a different value
would be technically appropriate and
adequately conservative relative to the
direct measurement methods permitted
in 40 CFR 1065.
For higher ethanol blends (such as
E85), the regulation already specifies
measurement and calculation
procedures to adjust for this effect. We
are not making any changes to these
procedures.
d. Vehicle Preconditioning for Nonfuel
Hydrocarbon Emissions for the Tier 3
Evaporative Emission Standards
The 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 fuel rig, canister bleed,
and leak standards are not influenced by
nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions from the
vehicle. Nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions
from the vehicle are measured as part of
SHED emission testing, and are
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
indistinguishable from 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 with larger size vehicles. These
nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions are
usually highest with newly
manufactured vehicles and decrease
relatively quickly over time.
Currently, manufacturers normally
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 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 is warranted. Providing some
recognition of and allowance for this
practice will 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 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 will 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 °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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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 specifying standardized
pre-conditioning practices or protocols
with regard to addressing nonfuel
hydrocarbon emissions before
evaporative emission certification
testing. However, we are finalizing
general provisions in four areas. First,
we specify in the regulations that
preconditioning for the purpose of
addressing nonfuel hydrocarbon
emissions is permitted. Second, we
specify that any preconditioning is
voluntary. Third, we 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 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. EPA’s goal in these
discussions is to gain certainty that
manufacturers are not preconditioning
vehicles so severely that they create a
level of nonfuel hydrocarbons that is
artificially low and would not occur in
use and thereby creating a false
additional compliance margin for fuel
hydrocarbons in the certification test.
Fourth, except as discussed below we
are providing in the regulations that no
pre-conditioning is permitted for testing
of any vehicle aged more than twelve
months from its date of manufacture.
This restriction for vehicles older than
12 months includes certification,
confirmatory and in-use testing for any
vehicle certified to the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards. For
these vehicles, nonfuel hydrocarbon
emissions will 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
maintenance will presumably be
encompassed within the margin below
the standard created by this natural offgassing.
EPA received several comments
concerning the proposed restriction on
pre-conditioning of vehicles older than
12 months from the date of
manufacture. The Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers and the
Association of Global Automakers asked
that baking be permitted if such a
vehicle is found to have identifiable
contamination due to causes such as a
fuel spill, refrigerant leak, or washer
fluid leak and that the manufacturer be
given the option to age the tires (tires
only) from any vehicle where the tires
are less than twelve months from
manufacture as indicated on the
sidewall. CARB asked that EPA only
allow the use of an aged spare tire in
any testing and not spare tire removal.
EPA generally agrees with these
commenters and is finalizing provisions
for limited flexibility subject to EPA
approval. Under these provisions
manufacturers may be permitted to
clean any spills or leaks but not to bake
the entire vehicle. Baking of tires less
than 12 months old may also be
permitted with EPA prior approval.
Vehicles must be tested with a spare tire
in place since emissions from the spare
tire were considered as the standard was
developed. Manufacturers may
exchange a new spare tire for one that
is baked or aged. Finally, one
manufacturer indicated that there may
be circumstances where the base chassis
for a certification vehicle was used in
previous certification but that this base
chassis was modified for a new model
year and cleaned, reconfigured, and
recertified with new components which
affect background emissions.377 While
EPA believes this would be a rare
occurrence, regulatory provisions in this
rule allow EPA to approve additional
pre-conditioning for vehicles in this
situation upon manufacturer request
and justification.
e. 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
°F. CARB adopted the same basic
procedures, but specified that testing
should occur with 7 psi RVP gasoline at
temperatures of up to 105 °F. EPA and
377 See public comment EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–
0135–4299 and Passavant, G. (2013, October). VW
Email to EPA Regarding Vehicle Preconditioning.
Memorandum to the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23513
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 and related test fuels. CARB
always specified EPA test conditions for
refueling as they were deemed worst
case. CARB recently changed their
certification test fuel to a 7 RVP gasoline
with 10 percent ethanol and as
discussed in Section IV.F, we are
changing the Federal certification test
fuel specification to a 9 RVP gasoline
with 10 percent ethanol.
During the development of this FRM
we carefully considered the practice of
CARB/EPA reciprocity with regard to
certification test fuels, hot soak plus
diurnal test procedures, running loss
test procedures, and emission test
results when it comes to evaporative
emissions certification. Based on these
considerations and the alignment of the
ethanol content for the EPA and CARB
certification fuels, we have decided to
retain our current approach with regard
to CARB/EPA reciprocity for
evaporative and refueling emissions.
EPA and CARB have agreed to continue
accepting emission test data on each
other’s test fuels and temperature
conditions for certification such that a
uniform national program for
certification test fuel will be able to
exist. For model years during the
evaporative emissions standard phase-in
discussed above (ending after the 2021
MY), EPA will conduct any post
certification testing on any vehicle in
the Tier 3 program manufactured in the
2015–2021 MYs using the fuel and
temperatures used by the manufacturer
for certification. This approach covers
families certified using carry over PZEV
evaporative emissions data (through the
2019 MY) and LEV III Option 1
certifications (through the 2021 MY).
Our program flexibility in the area of
test fuels for hot soak plus diurnal,
running loss and SHED rig/canister
bleed emission standards is summarized
in Table IV–25. After the 2021 model
year, EPA will retain the option to test
on either set of temperatures/fuels. This
applies to all evaporative emission
standards (hot soak plus diurnal,
running loss, and canister bleed). For
the other emission standards (refueling,
leak, spit back, and high altitude hot
soak plus diurnal) EPA will use the test
fuel used by the manufacturer through
the 2019 model year. For the 2020
model year and later we may use Tier
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23514
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
3 fuel or California Phase 3 if its use is
permitted for certification. Please refer
to the regulatory text for specific
provisions.
EPA will review all Tier 3 program
evaporative emissions data. If the data
shows that the EPA and CARB based
test requirements give fully equivalent
results, in the future we may revise our
regulations so that a vehicle is always
tested on the fuel used for its initial
certification.
TABLE IV–25—TIER 3 EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS PROGRAM OPTIONS AND TEST FUELS
Vehicle program
Start
MY
PZEV zero evap
2015
LEV III Opt. 1 .....
2015
LEV III Opt. 2 .....
2015
Tier 3 ..................
2015
Program standards
Cert fuel
EPA test fuel for confirmatory,
surveillance & IUVP
Hot soak + diurnal, running loss & SHED
rig.
Hot soak + diurnal, running loss & SHED
rig.
Hot soak + diurnal, running loss & canister bleed.
Hot soak + diurnal, running loss & canister bleed.
CA Ph. 2 ..
Fuel used by the manufacturer ...............
CA Ph. 3 ..
CA Phase 3 through 2019 MY, after
EPA may use Tier 3 or CA Phase 3.
CA Phase 3 through 2019 MY, after
EPA may use Tier 3 or CA Phase 3.
Tier 3 .......................................................
CA Ph. 3 ..
Tier 3 .......
End MY for
use in Tier 3
After 2019
MY.
After 2021
MY.
N/A.
N/A.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
As shown in Table IV–22, to qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for evaporative emission purposes vehicles must meet the hot soak + diurnal, high altitude, rig/canister bleed, running loss, refueling, and spit back standards. The leak standard applies beginning in the 2018 MY and the SHED
rig/canister bleed tests are program specific.
Generally, a vehicle test group using
Tier 3 certification fuel and test
procedures for meeting the various
evaporative and refueling emission
standards will qualify for inclusion in
the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards phase-in. However, EPA
recognizes that the California and
federal evaporative emission standard
programs are starting from different
bases and that the transition provisions
are different in some ways. For example,
the 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 the 2017 MY and
CARB also allows early LEV III Option
1 and Option 2 evaporative emission
certifications. To capitalize on this
technology and to facilitate transition,
we are finalizing provisions that any
CARB evaporative emission test data
from MYs 2015 and 2016 PZEV zero
evap certifications (hot soak plus
diurnal and running loss) can be used
in federal certification for those
evaporative families through the 2019
MY. Similarly, we are finalizing
provisions that CARB LEV III Option 1
certifications (hot soak plus diurnal and
running loss) can be used in federal
certification for those evaporative
families through the 2021 MY.
Assuming the vehicle test groups also
meet the Tier 3 high altitude
evaporative emission standards, the
refueling emission standard, the spit
back standard, and the leak standard
when applicable, they could be
included in the percentage phase-in
calculations as Tier 3 vehicles. If the
vehicles do not meet the Tier 3
evaporative emission requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
manufacturers could potentially sell
them nationwide, but they could not be
included as Tier 3 compliant vehicles in
the percentage phase-in calculation.
Table IV–22 provides a concise
summary of the requirements a vehicle
must meet to qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle
during the program’s early, transition,
and phase-in periods.
EPA proposed a similar provision for
a manufacturer who elects to use the
CARB test procedures and test fuels to
meet the refueling emission standard.
However, no manufacturer indicated
interest in their comments and we have
decided not to include reciprocity for
this provision in the Tier 3 program.
While experimental data based on field
bench testing suggests that the CARB
test fuel RVP and dispensed
temperature together would give the
same results as the EPA test fuel RVP
and dispensed temperature there are no
vehicle test data in the record at this
time. CARB has always accepted
refueling and spit back certification on
EPA test fuel and will continue to do so
in the future. This provision would have
added another layer of complexity to the
program and was not necessary since
the refueling and evaporative tests are
done separately.
f. Evaporative and Refueling Emission
Standards for Various Fuels
The evaporative and refueling
emission standards apply in different
ways to different fuels. First, with
regard to the evaporative emission
standards, Clean Air Act section 202(k)
specifies that gasoline-fueled vehicles
must be certified to evaporative
emission standards. Section 202(a)
authorizes EPA to establish evaporative
emission standards for other fuels.
Today evaporative emission standards
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
apply to LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and
HDVs fueled by gasoline methanol,
ethanol, natural gas, and liquified
petroleum gas (LPG). For the refueling
emission standard the situation is quite
different. Section 202(a)(6) of the Clean
Air Act specifies that the refueling
emission standards apply to all LDVs
regardless of the fuel used. Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act authorizes
EPA to establish emission standards for
other fuels and classes of vehicles. Prior
to the Tier 3 final rule, the refueling
emission standards applied to all
vehicles less than 10,000 lbs GVWR
regardless of the fuel used.
In the NPRM, EPA requested
comment on applying the refueling
standards to all vehicles regardless of
fuel used. This would include all
volatile fuels.378 The evaporative
standards apply today to all volatile
fuels 379 (except for diesel) and we asked
for comment on explicitly including
dedicated ethanol as well as fuel-cell
vehicles, and electric vehicles. EPA also
requested comment on applying the
refueling and evaporative standards
only to vehicles using volatile liquid
fuels instead of all volatile fuels.
EPA received four comments on this
issue. One commenter expressed the
view that evaporative requirements
should be expanded to apply to volatile
liquid fuels plus liquified petroleum gas
(LPG) and liquified natural gas (LNG)
while the three other commenters did
not see the need to apply the
378 A volatile fuel is a volatile liquid fuel or any
fuel that is a gas at atmospheric pressure; gasoline,
methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and LPG are volatile
fuels.
379 A volatile liquid fuel is a fuel that is liquid
at atmospheric pressure and has a Reid Vapor
Pressure higher than 2.0 pounds per square inch—
gasoline, ethanol, and methanol.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
requirements to any gaseous fueled
vehicle or other vehicle using a nonvolatile liquid fuel because these
vehicle fuel systems are sealed and
rarely vent during normal operation or
never vent at all.
As is discussed further in the
Summary and Analysis of comments,
based on the comments, the fuel
properties, and current industry fuel
system design practices, EPA has
decided to retain the requirement that
the evaporative and refueling emission
standards apply to vehicles using any
volatile fuel. For gaseous fueled vehicles
(LPG and LNG/CNG vehicles), only the
Tier 3 3-day hot soak plus diurnal and
running loss standards apply. For the
other volatile fuels all of the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards apply.
For the refueling emission standard the
requirements apply to all complete
vehicles less than 10,000 lbs GVWR
regardless of the fuel used. This is not
being changed, except that the
requirement will not apply to dieselpowered LDTs and HDVs vehicles. For
vehicles over 10,000 lbs GVWR, the
refueling emission standards will apply
only to complete vehicles. This includes
LPG, CNG, LNG, and dedicated ethanol
or methanol vehicles. While the test
procedures for these standards would
apply, EPA is including regulatory
provisions to permit manufacturers to
certify based on related data,
engineering analysis, and compliance
with published consensus standards.
We are not applying these requirements
to electric or fuel cell vehicles.
For vehicles equal to or less than
8,500 lbs GVWR, the Tier 3 evaporative
and refueling emission standards for
alternative fuel vehicles apply to each
vehicle of a vehicle evaporative/
refueling family as the family is
included in the manufacturer’s phase-in
for the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards. For vehicles over 8,500 lbs
GVWR, the application of the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards depends
on the Job 1 (first build) date for the
vehicle evaporative family. If the Job 1
date for a vehicle model is before the
fourth anniversary date of the signature
of the rule then the Tier 3 evaporative
emission standards do not apply until
the next model year. If the Job 1 date is
after the fourth anniversary date, the
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards
apply in that model year. This
determines when the vehicle is to be
included in the denominator of the
percentage phase-in calculation. The
refueling emission standard applies
only to complete vehicles and we are
applying the same phase-in
requirements as for complete HDGVs.
For complete vehicles between 10,000
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
and 14,000 lbs GVWR the refueling
emission standard applies in the 2018
model year. For complete vehicles with
a GVWR in excess of 14,000 lbs GVWR,
compliance is required in the 2022
model year. Finally, for all small
businesses, the Tier 3 evaporative and
refueling emission standards do not
apply until the 2022 model year.
g. Other Changes and Future
Considerations
This rulemaking included
consideration of several amendments or
clarifications to existing requirements
related to evaporative emissions. As part
of this process, EPA has concluded that
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
standard and the recently adopted
greenhouse gas standards to vehicle
manufacturers, we believe it will be
advantageous to have the regulations
related to their certification
requirements written together as much
as possible to reduce burden and
increase efficiency. Therefore, for 2015
and later model years, we are moving
the emission standards and certification
requirements for HDGVs 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.
• 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 existing regulation the
potential for a waiver from testing
depended 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 °F. We have
examined this provision and are
withdrawing 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
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23515
temperatures above 130 °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 much cooler than the tank
fuel.
• When adopting the most recent
prior set of evaporative emission
regulatory changes we did not carry
through the changes applying
evaporative emission standards to
vehicles using methanol-fueled
compression-ignition engines. This final
rule corrects this oversight.
• We are finalizing 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 approach requires
testing complete vehicles with any
auxiliary engines (and the
corresponding fuel-system components).
Incomplete vehicles are to be tested
without the auxiliary engines, but any
such engines and the corresponding
fuel-system components will need to
meet the standards that apply under our
nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR
part 1060.
• We are removing 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
must either work with the certifying
manufacturer to include the larger tank,
or go through the effort to re-certify the
vehicle. This provision has not been
used and is better handled as part of
certification rather than managing a
separate process. We are including
corresponding changes to the emission
control information label.
• We are revising the provisions for
setting the vehicle air conditioning
controls during the running loss portion
of the evaporative emissions test cycle
to simply reference the specifications
for exhaust emission testing described
in 40 CFR part 1066. This allows test
labs to use a uniform set of test
procedures for setting up test vehicles.
This change is expected to have no
effect on the stringency of the running
loss test.
• EPA regulations at § 86.1824–01
permit manufacturers to develop their
full-useful life deterioration factors for
evaporative and refueling emission
standards based on the use of good
engineering judgment. These factors are
additive in nature, and when added to
the ‘‘undeteriorated low mileage’’ test
value the sum must be less than the
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23516
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
applicable emission standard or FEL.
Manufacturers usually certify such that
this summed value falls below the
emission standard or FEL enough to
provide a margin for in-use compliance
and to address variability and other
uncertainty. Regulations (at § 86.1824–
08) require that evaporative emissions
durability assessments 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 (currently E15). In
their comments the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers and the
Association of Global Automakers asked
to be able to use evaporative emissions
deterioration factors from Tier 2/LEV II
assessments even if the assessed or
measured full life emission value used
to determine the deterioration factor
from the Tier 2/LEV II 2 testing is above
the Tier 3/LEV III emission standard for
the vehicle category of interest. (This
situation, which is often referred to as
line crossing, is not prohibited in the
EPA regulation.) 380 Thus, EPA is
permitting the use of this data but
requires that: (1) The manufacturers use
good engineering judgment in the
testing used to develop their
deterioration factors and the assessment
and application of this data in
developing deterioration factors, (2) the
manufacturers use the evaporative/
refueling emissions test fuel as
stipulated in the regulations for Tier 3,
and (3) the addition of the deterioration
factor to the low mileage test result does
not result in an exceedance of the
emission standard or the FEL cap for
that category of vehicles.
D. Improvements to In-Use Performance
of Fuel Vapor Control Systems
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Reasons for Adding a Leak Test
Standard
As emission standards approach zero,
as in the ‘‘zero evap’’ standards
discussed above, in-use performance
becomes critical for vehicles to meet the
standards over their useful life periods
and provide the expected emission
reductions. Fuel vapor control system
leaks are not a new problem, in fact it
was one of the main reasons for
replacing the canister method for
assessing evaporative emissions with
the enclosure (SHED test) method used
380 Passavant,
G. (December 2013) Background
Information on Background Information: Carryover
of Emissions Data and Line Crossing. Memorandum
to the docket.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
today.381 However, as emission
standards have become more stringent,
test procedures have improved, and
vehicle lifetimes have increased, any
malfunction or deterioration in the
system causes significant emissions
increases. Even a small leak can cause
large amounts of HC vapor. Therefore,
the prevalence of leaks in the fleet can
have a significant effect on the average
evaporative emissions overall.
As discussed in detail in the NPRM,
recent laboratory and field data 382 show
very high emissions from vehicles with
liquid/vapor leaks. Field studies have
indicated approximately 10 percent of
overall fleet have significantly elevated
evaporative emissions. The studies
show that this frequency increases as
vehicles age. The Coordinating Research
Council (CRC) E–77 programs randomly
recruited sixteen vehicles and almost
half had some type of leak. Emissions
related to these leaks grew in magnitude
over the course of the program which
lasted a few years. In addition, the EPA
recently completed a test program to
gather information on running loss
emissions with implanted leaks of
varying sizes, locations and fuel
volatility.383 Data from this study is not
included in the modeling analysis for
this final rule, but the results show that
there are significant emissions from
leaks while driving as the fuel tank
temperature rises. Therefore the
reductions from the future prevention of
leaks will be larger than our current
estimates. These data led EPA to
examine the OBD-based evaporative
system leak data available from I/M
programs from several states to more
accurately gauge the rate of leaks above
the 0.020 inch monitoring threshold met
by most manufacturers as a result of
381 Rarick.T, ‘‘Evaporative Emission Enclosure
(SHED) Procedure Analysis of Surveillance Program
Data,’’ Evap 75–2, June 1975 and ‘‘Investigation and
Assessment of Light-Duty Vehicle Evaporative
Emission Sources and Control,’’ EPA–460/3–76–
014, June, 1976.
382 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;
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;
DeFries, T., Palacios, C., Weatherby, M., Stanard,
A., Kishan, S. (2013) Estimated Summer Hot-Soak
Distributions for Denver’s Ken Caryl I/M Station
Fleet.
383 Kishan, S., Sabisch, M., Stewart, J., Glinsky, G.
(2014) Running Loss Testing with Implanted Leaks.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
CARB’s 2004 model year OBD II
requirements.384 These are important
data because even a vehicle with a fuel/
evaporative system leak as small as
0.020 inches would be expected to fail
the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standard in a SHED test and in fact emit
4–5 times above the Tier 3 emission
standard on a daily basis due to the
number of vehicle trips per day.
We examined data for vehicles
meeting CARB’s OBDII evaporative
emission leak monitoring requirements
as well as either the CARB/EPA
enhanced evaporative emission or
Tier2/LEV II evaporative emission
standards. Since the data were gathered
by the states under different protocols
and time periods, the content of the data
sets is not identical. To provide some
degree of uniformity in our analysis, we
examined the data for model years 2000
and later, but within each state we only
looked at calendar years of data
beginning after the initial state I/M
exemption period had passed (2–6
calendar years depending on the state).
Thus the analysis focused on I/M OBD
information for calendar years 2004–
2012.
Examined together, the data generally
indicate the following.
• For all our States analyzed, the
trend lines show that between 2–4
percent of the vehicles entering the I/M
program (at about 2 years old) have a
‘‘not ready’’ evaporative monitor. The
percentage increased to between 8–11
percent as the vehicle aged to 8 years
old with a rate increase of
approximately 1 percent per year as the
vehicle ages.
• The model years and time periods
analyzed for the four States shows
approximately 0.7–2.5 percent of
vehicles overall with a ‘‘ready’’ evap
monitor had one or more stored evap
DTCs, indicating a potential evaporative
emissions-related problem as defined in
the OBD regulations.
• A further review of the data shows
that, overall, in the three States with an
enforced OBD program approximately
0.7–1.6 percent of vehicles with a
‘‘ready’’ evap monitor had one or more
stored evaporative emissions related
DTCs. The fourth State, which does not
enforce the OBD test, had a higher
percentage (2.5 percent) of evap monitor
‘‘ready’’ vehicles that had stored evap
related DTCs.
• For the same model years and time
periods analyzed for the three States
with enforced OBD programs, EPA
384 Weatherby, M., Sabisch, M., Kishan, S. (2014)
Analysis of Evaporative On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
Readiness and DTCs Using I/M Data. Note: the data
was presented in a docket memo for NPRM\ and
is now part of a peer reviewed report.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
estimates about 0.5 percent of vehicles
with a ‘‘ready’’ evap monitor evaluated
at four years old in an I/M program had
a stored DTC. This rate increased at a
rate of about 0.15 percent per year and
was about 1.1 percent for vehicles at 8
years old. For the fourth state, which
does not enforce OBD evaporative
results, EPA estimates about 1.4 percent
of vehicles evaluated at four years old
had a stored DTC. This rate increased at
a rate of about 0.5 percent per year and
was about 3.5 percent for vehicles at 8
years old.
• Analyzing each state’s data for
specific evaporative DTCs, over 50
percent of all evaporative codes were for
evaporative system leaks. The second
most common category (15–20 percent)
involved some sort of error in the
operation of the purge flow control
which could also contribute to
evaporative leaks.
• The monitor ‘‘ready’’ rates are
relatively uniform for all States
analyzed, but the percentage of
evaporative emissions related MILs
illuminated and the percentage of
evaporative system leak related DTCs
were larger in the fourth State. EPA
believes this is the case because OBD is
advisory only in this State’s I/M
program, meaning that a vehicle could
pass its I/M requirement with a MIL
illuminated and not have to repair it.
In considering this information for the
fleet as a whole, a few other factors must
be considered. First, a vehicle can pass
its I/M requirements (based on
provisions of individual State I/M
programs) with the evaporative
emissions monitor ‘‘not ready’’. Second,
the vehicle can pass with a pending
DTC. Third, it is not uncommon for
vehicle repair related to an OBD MIL to
occur just before I/M visits. Based on
factors such as these, the values
presented above are likely to be
conservative on a fleet average basis.
Beyond this, as discussed in the NPRM,
earlier research conducted by EPA and
the state of Colorado indicated that OBD
is not designed to catch every
evaporative system leak and sometimes
misses leaks it should have found but
did not for various reasons (some
determined and some unknown).385
This suggests that overall leak
prevalence is higher than indicated by
the OBD data alone.
Estimating a nationwide fleet average
leak rate is possible with the limited
data available if some informed
assumptions are made. Only about 24.5
385 Eastern Research Group (2013) Evaluation of
the Effectiveness of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
Systems in Identifying Fuel Vapor Losses from
Light-Duty Vehicles.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
percent of vehicles in the U.S. are in
I/M areas and of these only 20.8
percentage points (∼4/5) are in areas
which rely on OBD as part of the pass/
fail protocol. There is at present no data
on the prevalence of evaporative system
leaks for vehicles in areas without I/M.
However, based on these data it
reasonable to assume that the rates in
these areas are no less than for areas
with I/M (where I/M mandates repair)
and are likely similar to or larger than
those for the one state analyzed where
OBD is advisory only. Under those
assumptions, the average leak rate
across the country is much higher than
for I/M areas alone. For example, if one
considers data from the eight year age
point in the I/M data for states which
require repair, the leak prevalence rate
is about 1.4 percent and in the state
where OBD is advisory it is 3.5 percent.
Weighted by the fleet percentages given
above, this indicates a leak rate of about
3.0 percent in the fleet for the eight year
age point. This is a conservative
estimate based on historic evaporative
I/M data.386
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 3 percent of
Tier 3 vehicles have a leak(s) of 0.020
inches or greater this will cause in-use
emissions equivalent to essentially all of
the projected emission reductions from
the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards on that day.387
The leak standard we are adopting
will help technology to meet the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards and to
improve in use durability. These
technology measures (see Section
IV.C.3) coupled with the upgrade to the
OBD evaporative emissions certification
and monitoring requirements to signal
problems at smaller threshold diameters
(discussed in Section IV.E below) and
additions to the IUVP program focused
on testing a larger sample of vehicles for
fuel/evaporative system leaks in IUVP
than for evaporative emission standards
alone will help to ensure improved inuse performance of evaporative
emission control systems.
Based on the above discussion, there
needs to be an increased focus on
evaporative emissions durability.
Nevertheless, there is no question of the
value of OBD leak monitoring for
evaporative systems, especially when
386 USEPA
(2014), ‘‘Development of Evaporative
Emissions Calculations for Tier 3 FRM’’
memorandum to the Tier 3 docket.
387 See EPA memorandum: ‘‘Initial Comparison of
Emission Rates from Vehicles with Fuel/Vapor
System Leaks to Tier 3 Evaporative Emission
Reductions, December, 2013.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23517
owners complete needed repairs in
response to the DTCs set. The I/M OBD
statistics and associated in-use leak
values discussed above would be higher
without OBD evaporative system leak
monitoring. However, these data suggest
that EPA OBD regulations in place for
2004 and later model year vehicles will
not alone be sufficient to address
concerns regarding the emission effects
of vapor leaks from the fuel and
evaporative control systems.388
In the NPRM, EPA included a
substantial discussion of the work we
conducted on high evaporative emission
rates and our rationale for the need for
a leak standard to help address these
concerns. No commenter challenged the
data or the premises for our conclusion
that a leak standard was needed.
Manufacturers asked that the leak
standard be phased-in with the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards and that
use of upgraded OBDII evaporative
system monitoring capability be
included as part of the in-use
verification program (IUVP) provisions.
Both elements are contained in this final
rule. CARB fully supported the
proposed leak standard and test
procedure and indicated its intent to
adopt such provisions after the Tier 3
FRM is adopted.
2. Nature, Scope and Timing of Leak
Standard
The evaporative emission standards
in this FRM will help to promote
widespread use of improved technology
and materials which will reduce
evaporative emissions in-use. The new
requirement for a leak standard and test
procedure will help to ensure the
durability of Tier 3 evaporative
emission control systems nationwide.
As discussed in the technological
feasibility discussion in Section IV.C
above, the actions of manufacturers to
meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission
standards are expected to address fuel/
evaporative system design features
which currently have a greater
propensity for developing leaks and
thus improve in-use durability for
evaporative control systems compared
to vehicles meeting previous
evaporative emission standards. The
leak standard will provide added
assurance that as the manufacturers
design for ‘‘zero evap’’ standards they
388 Existing 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
standard value. We do not expect this value to
exceed 0.040 inches.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23518
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
also design the systems to avoid leaks
over the full useful life.
Based on the information described
above concerning evaporative emissions
in-use, we believe a leak standard is
necessary to ensure that vehicles
meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission
requirements not have evaporative
emissions in excess of the Tier 3
standards for their full useful life.
Toward that end, we are finalizing a
leak standard to be met both at new
vehicle certification and in use for IUVP
testing. The leak standard will apply
beginning in the 2017 MY to vehicles in
the 20/20 option for that year and in the
2018 MY and later model years to any
vehicle certified to the Tier 3
evaporative emission standards or a
CARB carryover vehicle counted toward
the sales percentage phase-in
requirements discussed in Section IV.C,
including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and
complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs
GVWR. The standard will be applicable
for the same useful life period as for the
evaporative emission standards that
apply to the vehicle. The standard will
apply to vehicles using volatile fuel
(e.g., gasoline, FFV, and methanol 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 rule, we
are specifying that the leak standard be
expressed in the form of a cumulative
equivalent orifice diameter. We are
finalizing a value of 0.02 inches.389 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 finalized 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
a 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. We are finalizing a leak
standard of 0.02 inches which with
rounding is a bit less stringent than the
0.020 inch OBD evaporative system leak
monitoring requirement. EPA believes
this level of precision is sufficient to
389 Existing
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
standard value. We do not expect this value to
exceed 0.040 inches.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
accomplish the air quality objective and
yet provides some compliance margin
between the standard and the monitor
requirement such as is reflected through
multipliers for the exhaust emission
standards established for other OBD
monitors. The leak standard will be
specified to one significant digit (e.g.,
0.02 inches) but will have to be
measured and reported to at least two
significant digits.
The leak standard will 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 will 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 will permit a manufacturer
to attest to compliance with the leak
standard at certification.
To implement the leak standard
within the existing regulatory structure
a few minor rule changes are being
made. First, existing EPA regulations
such as those at § 86.098–24, specify
criteria for evaporative/refueling
emission families. EPA believes this
basic structure is appropriate for the
leak 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 standard is a pass/fail
requirement and not an emission rate,
there is no requirement for the
application of a deterioration factor.
Third, EPA requires that the
manufacturers recommend two or more
leak test points for each test group. One
of these points should be near the
canister/purge valve (ideally in the
vapor line between the canister/purge
valve and the fuel tank) and the other
in the gas cap/fill pipe area. Three
points are required for vehicles with
two separate evaporative and refueling
canisters such as non-integrated ORVR
systems which employ two activated
carbon canisters and four points are
required for vehicles with dual fuel
tanks and two separate evaporative/
refueling control systems.
EPA believes that linking the timing
of the leak standard to the beginning of
the phase-in of the Tier 3 evaporative
emission standards in the 2018 model
year provides adequate lead time and is
consistent with the technical rationale
supporting the feasibility of the Tier 3
evaporative emission standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
3. Leak Standard Test Procedure
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)(1)(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 finalizing 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 regard to the test procedure we
will first discuss where the leak test can
occur in the FTP test sequence. We will
then discuss how the test is to be
conducted. EPA proposed this test
procedure as part of the NPRM and
discussed it extensively in the preamble
to the proposed rule, and provided a full
draft of the Recommended Practice for
comment as an Appendix to the RIA. No
comments were received. We are
finalizing this test procedure as
proposed.390
First, when conducted, the leak test
should be completed 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 are: (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 °F.
EPA requires that the test be conducted
with 9 RVP E10 test fuel for both
certification and IUVP.391 After
preconditioning is complete, the leak
test is conducted and the test sequence
proceeds as prescribed in subpart B or
testing is terminated if the purpose is
only to conduct leak testing. EPA
390 Smith, P. and Passavant, G., ‘‘Recommended
Test Procedure and Supporting Testing Data for the
Evaporative Emissions Leak Test’’, December 2013.
391 This is the same preconditioning that is called
for in existing 40 CFR 86 subpart B for exhaust,
evaporative, and refueling emissions testing. EPA
will consider permitting the leak standard to be
evaluated using CARB LEV III test fuel if CARB
ultimately adopts this requirement.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
believes this modest level of
preconditioning is sufficient to create
standard conditions which enable
repeatable and reliable measurement
results. Preconditioning cannot include
any prescreening for leaks nor will any
tightening of fittings or connections be
permitted.
After preconditioning is complete,
manufacturers then run the leak test. To
fully complete testing on a vehicle, two
or more test points are required
depending on the fuel evaporative
system configuration. All points must
pass for the vehicle test to be a pass. As
discussed above, one of these points
should be near the canister/purge valve
(ideally in the vapor line between the
canister/purge valve and the fuel tank)
and the other in the gas cap/fill pipe
area. Three points are required for
vehicles with two separate evaporative
and refueling canisters such as nonintegrated ORVR systems which employ
two activated carbon canisters and four
points are required for vehicles with
dual fuel tanks and two separate
evaporative/refueling control systems
such as dual tank LDTs. If the fuel/
evaporative system has an embedded
evaporative system test port then that
point can be used. Also, a manufacturer
can develop a test rig such as a ‘‘fill pipe
extension’’ which screws into the fill
pipe opening using cap threads at one
end and on the other end has threads to
screw the fill pipe vehicle cap in place.
Within this extension there must 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 must
specify the test points at the time of the
pre-certification meeting. If the
manufacturer selects an entry point
which requires the fuel cap to be
removed, then the cap will have to
undergo a separate test as is now done
in many I/M stations.392 In this case,
tests from both points combined must
pass the standard. Manufacturers
commented that only one test point was
needed, but when asked by EPA they
offered no data to counter that provided
by EPA in the NPRM which showed the
potential for different results at different
test point locations for the same vehicle.
The procedure is conducted as
follows:
• Calibrate the testing apparatus and
otherwise verify testing apparatus is
ready and able to complete the
procedure.
392 For related information see ‘‘IM240 & Evap
Technical Guidance’’, EPA 420–R–00–007, April,
2000.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
• 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 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 opening then the manufacturer must
also show evidence that the vehicle’s
fuel cap is performing properly.393
• Use two or more separate test
points, near the evaporative canister/
purge valve and the other near the fuel
cap are required. This is especially
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.
• Tests can 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.
• Leak tests at all points (2 or more
depending on the fuel tank/evaporative
system configuration) must pass for a
vehicle to pass. This includes
performance within specification for the
fuel cap if it is removed for testing.
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 will monitor these fuel
system changes and modify the test
procedure provisions as needed.
Furthermore, existing EPA regulations
(see § 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
393 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 °F and 1 atm.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23519
systems cannot be evaluated under EPA
requirements or they have an approach
deemed equivalent or better. Any such
special or alternative procedures must
be reported under § 86.004–21(b)(9).
4. Certification and Compliance
As part of the Compliance Assistance
Program (CAP 2000) in-use verification
program (IUVP) 394 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.395 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
(including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and
HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR) covers
about 1800 vehicle tests. These data
show 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 chassiscertified 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
an odometer reading of at least 75
percent of useful life (90,000 miles for
most Tier 2 vehicles). With the even
longer useful life periods under Tier 3,
attention to in-use durability for
evaporative systems becomes even more
important. Including the leak standard
within the IUVP protocol, as structured
in the discussion below, will provide
better information to EPA and
manufacturers concerning evaporative
system performance and help to focus
manufacturer efforts on using designs
394 See
395 See
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
64 FR 23906 (May 4, 1999).
65 FR 59922–59924 (October 6, 2000).
28APR2
23520
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and hardware with full useful life
durability in mind.
a. In-Use Verification Program (IUVP)
Requirements for the Leak Standard
i. Introduction
We believe it is important to identify
leaks since vehicles with leaks are
expected to have daily emission rates
above the Tier 3 evaporative emissions
standards, and the recent laboratory and
field data 382 suggest 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 is
important to capturing the emission
benefits of the Tier 3 evaporative
emission requirements.
Toward that end, EPA is including
assessment of compliance with the leak
standard within the IUVP program. In
developing the proposed rule, 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
standard because it is less burdensome
than a full evaporative emissions SHED
test and is a cost effective step toward
assessing many aspects of evaporative
emissions performance in-use.
EPA believes adding a leak test
requirement does not create an
unreasonable burden. The 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).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
ii. IUVP Test Requirements
We are requiring that the leak test be
conducted for each and every vehicle
assessed in IUVP for exhaust emissions
under 40 CFR 86.1845–04. This will
begin for 2017 MY vehicles meeting the
leak standard under the 20/20 option
and more fully in the 2018 MY
certifications for all test groups meeting
the new leak standard. The leak test
IUVP requirement includes 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
mileage/year point. We are finalizing
this approach to implementing IUVP for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
the leak standard in lieu of creating a
new set of requirements which would
require another set of vehicles to be
procured for testing. We are not
including the leak test with any
evaporative emissions test in IUVP,
since a leak will be evident in the
results of the evaporative emissions test.
The existing IUVP regulations at
§ 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 test
families and exhaust emission test
groups may cover one or more of the
same evaporative/refueling/leak
families, so we expect to receive
multiple leak 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
asked comment on extending the age
point for leak 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 believes further
consideration of longer year test points
is merited for exhaust, evaporative,
refueling and leak tests but because
such a change could potentially affect
all four tests we have decided to defer
that action to a broader IUVP program
review. Extending the time point for the
leak test alone would create a different
programmatic test burden in terms of
more vehicle procurements than the
program laid out above.
iii. Assessment of IUVP Leak Emission
Standard Test Results
The existing 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 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 leak
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
standard in assuring in-use evaporative
emissions control, we are finalizing a set
of criteria for assessing leak 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 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.
• 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
standard testing is complete. If that
vehicle does not pass the leak 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 will not be limited to
detailed system design, calibration, and
operating information, technical
explanations as to why the individual
vehicles tested failed the leak 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 standard during IUVP.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
With an adequate technical basis, the
outcome of this engineering analysis
discussion could result in an EPA
decision not to require IUCP testing.
We will operate within the basic
structure of the IUCP program in the
existing 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 test results. EPA must
approve this plan before testing begins.
As prescribed in the IUCP regulations
for exhaust, if five vehicles are tested
and all pass the leak standard then
testing will be complete. If all five
vehicles do not pass, then five more are
tested. More vehicles can be tested at
the manufacturer’s discretion but all
testing must be completed within the
time period specified in the regulations.
EPA and the manufacturer then enter
into discussions regarding
interpretation, technical understanding,
and compliance/enforcement
implications of the test results, if any.
iv. Optional Test Procedure Approach
for IUVP/IUCP
With the implementation of the OBD
regulation changes in Section IV.E
below regarding evaporative system leak
rate monitoring, EPA is finalizing an
optional approach to a portion of the
leak test procedure. This optional
testing approach is included in the
IUVP/IUCP testing program for the leak
standard, but will not be used for
certification testing for the leak
standard. EPA can also use this
procedure for conducting compliance
assessments. Under this optional
approach manufacturers will 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.
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 has
successfully completed a full OBDbased evaporative system leak
monitoring check within the last 750
miles and no evaporative system leak
problems for any diameter above 0.020
inches are indicated (no pending or
confirmed diagnostic trouble code(s)
P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, P0456, or
P0457), the vehicle would be deemed to
have met and passed the leak standard
test requirement. However, if the system
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
has not successfully completed a full
OBD-based evaporative system leak
check within 750 miles with no problem
indicated then the manufacturer will
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 OBDbased leak test in the laboratory then the
vehicle’s pass/fail results for the 0.02
inch cumulative equivalent diameter
orifice will be based on the OBD test
result. This optional protocol can apply
to every leak standard test after
certification unless not approved by
EPA for IUCP under 40 CFR 1846.01(i).
Replicate tests will not be required or
allowed but void tests could be
repeated.
Furthermore, EPA will permit the
manufacturer to run the stand alone
EPA leak test in several situations. First,
manufacturers can conduct the stand
alone test to confirm that a problem
identified by the OBD-based evaporative
system monitoring leak check is a leak
and not a problem with the OBD leak
monitor itself. Second, a manufacturer
can run the stand alone EPA leak test to
confirm that the leak value identified by
the OBD system is truly above the level
of the leak standard. Third, it can be
used for vehicles which have not
successfully completed a full OBDbased evaporative system leak
monitoring check within the last 750
miles. Fourth, it can be used to confirm
that a DTC set within the last 750 miles
actually indicates the presence of a
leak(s) greater than the standard.
However, if a manufacturer elects to use
only OBD-based evaporative system leak
based monitoring in its IUVP testing;
these results will be the basis for
decisions regarding IUCP. As required
in the existing IUVP regulations, all test
data whether OBD based or based on
EPA’s stand alone test procedure must
be reported to EPA.
There may 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 will have to be
operating to create the pressure or
vacuum and because the engine is
operating this will require the OBDbased leak test to be stand alone after
the preconditioning sequence is
complete. This will be more challenging
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23521
for natural vacuum leak detection
systems unless extended driving is
involved to create the fuel system heat
needed for a natural vacuum event or
this is done through a climate chamber
or SHED based diurnal heat build.
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 a confirmed or pending
leak DTC already set in the computer
and/or an MIL indicated. In this case,
EPA will permit the manufacturer to run
the OBD-based leak test and/or the
stand alone EPA leak test or concede
that the vehicle will not pass the leak
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 assessment, so a
manufacturer will be permitted to
correct the problem before testing and
clear this OBD code before testing or run
the stand alone EPA leak test.
E. Onboard Diagnostic System
Requirements
1. Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System
Regulation Changes—Timing
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,396 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 additional 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 existing
EPA regulations and is 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
continuing that practice and we are
updating our regulations to be
396 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).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23522
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
consistent with the latest CARB
regulations.
EPA proposed to adopt, with a few
adjustments, the CARB regulatory
requirements related to OBD II (see
California Code of Regulations (CCR)
1968.2 dated May 18, 2010). We
received comment from CARB that since
our NPRM was issued, they were s
completing an update of their OBD II
regulations and that EPA should adopt
these provisions in lieu of the May 18,
2010 provisions.397 We have reviewed
these updates and concur with the
commenters, so we are adopting the
provisions officially approved by
CARBs Office of Administrative Law on
July 31, 2013. We are also adding
provisions and continuing the
exceptions as discussed below. The
changes we are adopting do not include
any changes to requirements for engines
used in vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR
or to vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR,
except for HDGVs optionally certified
using chassis procedures. To be
consistent with the manner in which the
Tier 3 exhaust emission standards are
being implemented for the heavy-duty
vehicles between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs
GVWR, the OBD requirements will be
based on the Job 1 (first production)
date for the vehicle/engine model. If the
vehicle/engine model Job 1 date is
before the fourth anniversary date of the
signature of the Tier 3 rule the
requirements will not be mandatory in
that model year. If the Job 1 date is on
or after the fourth anniversary of the
signature date of the Tier 3 rule the OBD
requirements will apply in that model
year. The Tier 3 OBD requirements will
apply to all 8,501–14,000 lb HDVs in the
2020 model year. To be consistent with
the manner in which the Tier 3 exhaust
emission standards.
We are taking this approach to OBD
for three basic reasons. First, this is
consistent with the goal of a national
program and one vehicle technology for
all 50 states. Second, compliance with
the current CARB OBDII requirements is
now demonstrated technology,
compliance with these requirements is
common within the industry today, and
we expect that to continue in the future
with the 2013 CARB changes. Thus, the
added burden is minimal since
essentially all manufacturers certify
their CARB OBD systems nationwide
with EPA. Third, the latest OBD systems
run frequently on in-use vehicles to
identify potential exhaust and
evaporative system performance
397 The latest update of CARB’s OBD regulations
was adopted on July 31, 2013. See section 1968.2
at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/obdprog/
obdregs.htm/.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
problems, so adopting these provisions
will create the opportunity for OBD to
serve a more prominent role in ensuring
the Tier 3 emission standards are met
in-use.
Alignment with the existing CARB
OBD II requirements will be required by
the 2017 MY, except as discussed
below. Manufacturers requested a
phase-in compliance approach in lieu of
a fixed compliance date, but no specific
justification was provided by the
commenters and EPA could not
establish a need for this accommodation
since the most recent changes to CARB
OBDII regulations (2013) did not
meaningfully affect provisions regarding
vehicles/engines under 14,000 lbs
GVWR which have been in place since
2006. LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs and vehicles
under 14,000 lbs GVWR already comply
with CARB OBDII requirements and use
the CARB certification as the basis for
EPA certification.
There is an important link between
OBD provisions related to evaporative
emission control system leak monitoring
and the leak 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 leak standard prohibits leaks of
greater than 0.02 inches cumulative
equivalent diameter, while the OBD
evaporative system leak monitoring
provision requires that the OBD system
find leaks larger than 0.020 inches
cumulative equivalent orifice diameter
and notify the owner, but with no
explicit requirement to repair the
problem. Thus adopting a 0.020 inch
cumulative equivalent orifice diameter
aligns these two programs and, as
discussed above, facilitates the use of
OBD evaporative system leak
monitoring hardware/strategy as an
optional leak detection test procedure
for in-use testing.
With regard to OBD evaporative
system leak detection, EPA received
comment that we should permit a
phase-in for compliance with the 0.020
inch evaporative system leak monitoring
requirement. Even though the 0.020
inch leak monitoring requirement has
been in place since the 2004MY for
CARB OBDII, and essentially
manufacturers have met it for years, the
existing EPA regulation actually only
requires monitoring at the 0.040 inch
threshold level. After considering the
comments received, EPA is permitting a
limited and minimal phase-in for the
0.020 inch leak detection criterion for
the OBD evaporative system monitoring
requirement. We are permitting this
phase-in, because a few vehicle models
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
still only meet the 0.040 inch
monitoring threshold in their Federal
configuration and complying with the
0.020 inch CARB OBD II requirement
entails validating performance in high
altitude and cold weather regimes not
seen in California. Thus, the 0.020 inch
requirement would be new for those few
models currently certified only to the
EPA evaporative leak monitoring
requirement. We are, therefore,
implementing the following phase-in
provision for the 0.020 inch leak
detection criterion for the OBD
evaporative system monitoring
requirement. First, if a vehicle model
meets the 0.020 inch requirement in the
2016 model year it is not eligible for the
phase-in provision. No backsliding is
permitted. Second, for manufacturers
with models not meeting the CARB
OBDII evaporative system leak
monitoring requirement in the 2016 MY
(see 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(4)), they will be
permitted to delay product-wide
compliance with the 0.020 inch leak
provision of the evaporative system
monitoring requirements until the 2018
model year by engaging in a voluntary
early phase-in. This phase-in would
begin in the 2016 model year and
conclude in the 2018 model year at a
100 percent implementation rate. For
example, a manufacturer could delay
attaining 100 percent compliance with
the OBD evaporative system leak
monitoring requirement until the 2018
model year by complying in the 2016
model year using a percentage which is
at least as large as the delay for the 2017
model year (e.g., 40% in 2016 MY, 60%
in 2017MY, and 100% in 2018MY).
2. Revisions to EPA OBD Regulatory
Requirements
As discussed above, we are updating
our OBD regulations to be consistent
with current California OBD II
requirements. We are incorporating by
reference section 1968.2 of the
California Code of Regulations as
adopted July 31, 2013 (13 CCR 1968.2).
This includes 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 existing EPA OBD
requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs,
and complete HDGVs less than 14,000
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
lbs GVWR.398 399 EPA will continue to
accept certifications with CARB OBD
requirements as satisfying EPA OBD
requirements.
The most noteworthy changes we are
finalizing are summarized below. The
CCR below is the California Code of
Regulations cite for each pertinent
provision.
• EPA is adding a 0.020 inch 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 13
CCR 1968.2(e)). OBD leak monitoring
systems will have to identify, store, and
if required signal any leak(s) equal to or
greater than 0.020 inches cumulative
equivalent diameter. This will thus
include diagnostic trouble codes (DTC)
P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, P0456, and
P0457.
• EPA is incorporating by reference
the full array of rate based monitoring
requirements (see 13 CCR1968.2 (d)(3)–
(6)). 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 is incorporating by reference
provisions regarding monitoring system
demonstration requirements for
certification. We are incorporating by
reference CARB provisions in this area
and accepting submissions to CARB for
purposes of compliance demonstration
(see 13 CCR 1968.2(h)). Adopting
current CARB monitoring system
demonstration requirements assures that
monitoring systems operate as designed
when installed on certification vehicles.
• EPA is incorporating 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 13 CCR 1968.2(j)).
In addition, we are adding two new
requirements, and retaining three minor
exceptions. Each of these actions is
described separately below.
• We are adding the requirement that
before certification a manufacturer must
demonstrate the ability of its OBD leak
398 MDVs in the CARB regulations basically
incorporate MDPVs and complete HDGV less than
14,000 lbs GVWR as defined by EPA.
399 We are not changing the requirement for
incompletes and vehicles with a GVWR above
14,000 lbs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
monitoring system to detect and report
a 0.020 inch leak in the fuel/evaporative
system. Current CARB protocols within
13 CCR 1968.2(h)(3) do not require this
demonstration as part of certification.
This requirement helps to ensure the
OBD system’s capability to function as
designed and the OBD-based
evaporative system leak monitoring
hardware to be used as an optional test
procedure for IUVP testing for the leak
standard. This requirement being added
for the same vehicles that are subject to
monitoring system demonstration
requirements for certification under
CARB OBD regulations under
1968.2(h)(3).400 EPA test procedures are
contained in 40CFR 86.1806–17(b). In
the spirit of aligning CARB and EPA
OBD provisions, if CARB ultimately
adopts this demonstration requirement
and CARB’s test procedure provisions
fulfill the purpose of the EPA
requirement, EPA will strongly consider
proposing to adopt the CARB test
procedures in lieu of those in 40 CFR
86.1806–17(b).
This requirement applies to any
vehicle test group certified to the OBD
0.020 inch evaporative system leak
monitoring requirement. Since the
regulation requires only a relative few
test groups each model year per
manufacturer, we will permit the
manufacturers either to meet the
requirement for the remainder of its test
groups on production vehicles of a
previous model year which used the
identical monitoring hardware and
strategies or to certify by attestation that
each of their remaining test groups
meets the requirement based on
development, calibration, and other
information. If a manufacturer chooses
to certify by attestation for some test
groups for a given model year, the
regulations are structured such that over
several model years a manufacturer
would evaluate through testing all test
groups as new groups are selected in
subsequent model years.
• For the OBD evaporative system
leak monitoring requirement, EPA is
establishing a requirement for a scan
tool readable function (a new InfoType
$14 in Service $09 of SAE J1979DA)
which can be used to obtain the
distance traveled since the OBD leak
monitoring diagnostic was last
completed successfully, i.e., the system
passed or failed (identified any leak
above 0.020 inches) during that
monitoring event (unless it is otherwise
already required in other OBD system
400 Passavant, G. (January, 2014). ‘‘Development
of 0.020’’ Evaporative Leak Monitoring System
Demonstration Requirement Test Procedure’’.
Memorandum to the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23523
modes). The purpose of this
requirement is to facilitate
implementation of the leak standard
within IUVP, by permitting the use of
OBD evaporative system monitoring
results as a tool to make pass/fail
determinations during IUVP. As
discussed in section IV.D above, if a
vehicle successfully completed an
evaporative system leak monitoring
within the most recent 750 miles then
the manufacturer could use this result
for its IUVP requirement for the leak
standard. EPA asked for comment on
how best to implement this requirement
within the OBD system, in what model
year(s) it should be required and to
which vehicle classes it should apply.
Manufacturers supported this
requirement, and suggested a lower cost
approach which we are adopting in the
final rule. Rather than requiring that the
distance and monitoring results be
stored in NVRAM to avoid false results
based on a user induced code clear or
battery disconnect, the manufacturers
suggested that the ‘‘distance since evap
monitoring decision’’ InfoType be reset
to the maximum value ($FFFF/
65,535km) when codes are cleared or
after a reprogramming event (e.g.,
battery disconnect). The InfoType
would be reset to zero km when an
evaporative monitoring pass/fail
decision is later made, allowing the
mileage to be read directly at IUVP. In
the usual situation where no user
induced code clear or reprogramming
event (e.g., battery disconnect) occurred,
the mileage since the last decision could
be read directly. In either circumstance,
the presence of an evaporative system
leak related DTC (P0440, P0442, P0446,
P0455, P0456, and P0457 or
manufacturer specific equivalent DTC)
will indicate a failure and the lack of
such a DTC will indicate a pass. The
mileage and the pass/fail results will
then be taken together for purposes of
the 750 mile option in the IUVP
assessment for the leak standard.401
This requirement applies to all
vehicle categories subject to the leak test
including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and
complete HDGVs less than 14,000 lbs
GVWR. Manufacturers commented that
this requirement should apply only to
vehicles/test groups meeting the leak
standard. Since the leak standard
phases-in between 2018 and 2022 model
years (2017 for manufacturers using the
20/20 evaporative emission option), a
manufacturer may phase-in compliance
with this requirement as well.
401 Passavant, G. (January, 2014). ‘‘Manufacturer
Input on Distance Since Last Evaporative
Monitoring Decision’’. Memorandum to the docket.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23524
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
• The minor exceptions which are
contained in EPA’s existing OBD
regulations are 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) are not
being 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, will apply only to vehicles
equipped with variable valve timing.
For all model years, the deficiency
provisions of paragraph (i) of the
existing EPA regulations apply only to
alternative fuel vehicle/engine
manufacturers selecting this paragraph
for demonstrating compliance.
These changes, taken together will
improve the performance, reliability,
general utility, and effectiveness of OBD
systems for Tier 3 exhaust and
evaporative emission controls.
Furthermore, these changes create the
opportunity for OBD evaporative system
leak monitoring systems to serve a more
prominent role in ensuring compliance
with the leak standard. EPA believes
that they can be implemented for
minimal cost since most manufacturers
are meeting them today and will have to
for LEV III vehicles. The provisions we
are incorporating by reference give
manufacturers the flexibility to seek a
revision to the emission threshold for a
malfunction on any diagnostic required
if the most reliable monitoring method
developed requires a higher threshold to
prevent significant errors of commission
in detecting a malfunction.402 Any
decision on a potential exception would
be preceded by a consultation between
EPA and CARB.
As discussed below, the OBD
requirements will apply to small entities
in the 2022 model year, if they choose
to take advantage of one of the revised
implementation schedules for small
volume manufacturers and small
businesses. However, as is the case for
larger manufacturers, no backsliding is
permitted meaning that if they
voluntarily meet the OBD requirements
on their Federal configurations in the
2016 model year as a result of
compliance with CARB regulations they
must continue to meet the requirements
on the Federal configurations in the
2017 and later model years. Small
alternative fuel converters will still be
able to meet the OBD requirements
using the provisions of 40 CFR 85,
subpart F. Finally, it should be noted
that as CARB updates its OBD
regulations in the future EPA will
402 See
13 CCR 1968.2 (e)(17).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
consider these changes and propose to
adopt them or incorporate them by
reference, if appropriate.
3. Provisions for Emergency Vehicles
It is common for emergency vehicles
such as law enforcement, medical
response, and fire protection vehicles
operated by government entities to be
derived from similar publicly available
vehicle configurations. However, these
vehicles often have chassis
configurations, auxiliary equipment
packages, and performance
requirements different from the
standard publicly available
configurations. These emergency
response vehicles typically meet the
various EPA emission standards based
on the engineering calibrations and
emission control hardware used in the
publicly available configuration. OBD
requirements also apply to these
vehicles and occasionally their unique
design and/or operating characteristics
may prevent them from meeting one or
more of the various OBD requirements.
In comments on the NPRM, one
manufacturer raised a concern that
EPA’s proposed adoption of the current
CARB OBDII requirements for the 2017
model year would create a compliance
problem for two of their law
enforcement vehicle configurations.
These two vehicle configurations cannot
meet one element of the current CARB
OBDII requirements (CCR 1968.2
(e)(6.2.1)(C)) without compromising the
performance expected by law
enforcement personnel.403 To address
this issue CARB provided these vehicles
an exemption from this provision, by
permitting it to meet Federal
requirements as permitted by the
California Vehicle Code. This solved the
problem because the CARB OBD II
provision of interest did not exist within
the Federal OBD requirements at that
time.
This raises both a near term and a
broader policy issue related to
emergency vehicles. First, we are
incorporating a definition for emergency
vehicle that is specific to the Tier OBD
requirements.404 Second, with regard to
the two law enforcement vehicle
configurations identified by the
manufacturer, EPA has reviewed the
manufacturer’s technical information
and agrees with CARB’s previous
403 See Ford Motor Company comments on the
Tier 3 NPRM at EPA/HQ/OAR/2011/0135/4349.
404 For the Tier 3 OBD requirements, emergency
vehicle means a motor vehicle manufactured
primarily for use as an ambulance or combination
ambulance-hearse or for use by the United States
Government or a State or local government for fire
protection or law enforcement.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
assessment.405 Thus, EPA will grant the
manufacturer a three model year
exemption from the requirement as
requested by the manufacturer
(MY2017–2019 inclusive). Specifically,
we are delaying the need to comply
with the requirements of CCR 1968.2
(e)(6.2.1)(C)—incorporated by reference
by EPA—until the 2020MY for any
emergency vehicle which does not meet
the requirement in the 2016 model year.
This specifically applies to the two test
groups identified by the commenter.
Second, in a broader context, there is a
need to address the potential future
need for a deficiency or an exemption
for emergency response vehicles. If
CARB grants a deficiency for emergency
response vehicles under CCR 1968.2(k)
we would expect this to be done in
consultation with EPA. Furthermore, we
are incorporating provisions to address
a potential situation where an
emergency vehicle needs a deficiency (a
temporary or permanent allowance for
manufacturers to be non-compliant with
a specific requirement of the OBD
regulations as long as certain
requirements are met) or exemption
which is not addressed by CARB under
CCR 1968.2(k). EPA is adopting a
provision which authorizes us to
address these circumstances based on
an application from the manufacturer.
Under this provision, EPA may approve
a request for a deficiency or in extreme
circumstances a temporary or
potentially permanent exemption from a
given OBD requirement. In considering
decisions to approve/disapprove this
request, EPA will consider the
provisions of CCR 1968.2 (k)(1) plus
engineering information and vehicle
emission and performance data
provided by the manufacturer which
demonstrates significant vehicle
engineering or system performance
issues (e.g., vehicle speed, acceleration,
handling, safety, fuel economy, cost)
related to complying with the OBD
requirements.
4. Future Considerations
EPA and CARB coordinate closely on
OBD II requirements. When changes to
the requirements occur, CARB
provisions often precede those from
EPA. Since LEV III begins before Tier 3,
EPA expects that CARB will revise any
OBD II requirements related to the LEV
III before EPA would do so for Tier 3.
EPA expects to work with CARB on any
potential changes to OBD II
requirements related to LEV III and to
consider proposing such changes in a
405 Passavant, G. (January, 2014). Information
Related to CARB AFRIM OBD Requirements for
Emergency Vehicles. Memorandum to the docket.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
future action since we expect great
commonality between Tier 3 and LEV III
exhaust and evaporative emission
control systems. Two presentations
related to CARB’s initial thinking for
LEV III related OBDII revisions are
available in the docket.406 In the
interim, for any Tier 3 exhaust emission
bin which does not have a
corresponding bin value in the Tier 2
program, the threshold for the exhaust
emission malfunction criteria is that of
the next higher bin in the Tier 2
regulation as prescribed for the latest
model year in CCR 1968.2(e)(1)–(3).
In the NPRM, EPA discussed the
basics of evaporative emission control
technology and laid out concerns
regarding the loss of evaporative and
refueling emission control which occurs
if a canister is not purged. This can
potentially occur if the purge hardware
fails or if the flow of purge air through
the canister is impeded by foreign
matter collecting at the inlet port or on
the carbon itself, canister poisoning due
to fuel or water intrusion, or activated
carbon breakdown from phenomena
such as road vibration. Failure of purge
hardware is already covered by OBD
and a recent study indicates that this is
a relatively rare evaporative system
problem.407 Failure of the activated
carbon to purge due to problems such as
those mentioned above are not covered
by OBD. EPA is undertaking a study to
better characterize the causes and
frequency of such potential problems,
and may propose in a future rulemaking
an OBD-based monitoring requirement
related to activated carbon/canister
capture should the study indicate a
significant frequency of loss of canister
efficiency in-use and loss in emissions
control relative to other evaporative
system failure modes.
In the NPRM we also asked for
comment on several other issues related
to the role of OBD in future technology
fuel/evaporative control systems. This
included pursuing a monitoring
threshold less than the 0.020 inches
cumulative diameter that we are
finalizing in this rule for nonpressurized and pressurized fuel
systems. We asked about the feasibility
and cost of requiring the OBD leak
detection monitoring system to detect
and signal the presence of a smaller
diameter orifice, such as 0.010 inch
upstream of the purge valve for a
406 McCarthy, M., ‘‘CARB Light-duty OBD
Regulation Update’’, SAE 2012 Onboard Diagnostics
Symposium, Nov 2012 and Remenus, M., ‘‘CARB
Light-duty OBD Regulation Update’’, SAE 2013
Onboard Diagnostics Symposium, September 2013.
407 Weatherby, M., Sabisch, M., Kishan, S. (2014)
Analysis of Evaporative On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
Readiness and DTCs Using I/M Data.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
pressurized system with a designed inuse operating pressure threshold in
excess of 0.36 psi (10 inches water).
Also, for the pressurized system, we
asked for comment on a potential
provision to require that the fuel tank
vent to the canister at key off if the OBD
system identifies a leak. In their
comments manufacturers indicated
concerns about the need for such
provisions or their value in reducing
emissions relative to current
requirements. EPA believes both of
these provisions merit further
investigation, but at the present time we
lack the data to assess the feasibility and
emission reduction benefits associated
with each approach and so are not
taking action on them.
Finally, in the NPRM we sought input
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. In their
comments the manufacturers indicated
their view that this would be covered by
current OBD provisions, and we are not
taking further actions.
F. Emissions Test Fuel
In-use gasoline has changed
considerably since EPA last revised
specifications for the gasoline used in
emissions testing of light- and heavyduty vehicles. Sulfur and benzene levels
have been reduced and, perhaps most
importantly, gasoline containing 10
percent ethanol by volume (E10) has
replaced non-oxygenated gasoline (E0)
across the country. This trend has had
second-order effects on other gasoline
properties. In-use fuel is projected to
continue to change as refiners adjust
their gasoline production to reflect the
renewable fuel volumes required under
the RFS2 program, as well as further
sulfur reduction under the Tier 3
rule.408 As a result, we are updating
federal emission test fuel specifications
to better match in-use fuel. The revised
test fuel specifications apply for exhaust
emissions testing, fuel economy/
greenhouse gas testing, and emissions
testing for non-exhaust emissions (with
some exceptions discussed elsewhere in
this preamble, e.g., for refueling tests in
flex-fuel vehicles). The revised gasoline
specifications, found at § 1065.710 and
discussed below, apply to emissions
testing of light-duty cars and trucks as
well as heavy-duty gasoline vehicles
certified on the chassis test, where the
408 See 78 FR 49794 (August 15, 2013) for the
latest renewable fuel requirements under the RFS2
program.
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23525
vehicles are certified to the Tier 3
standards.409
1. Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel:
Ethanol Content and Volatility
a. Emission Test Fuel Ethanol Content
In the NPRM, EPA proposed that the
emissions test gasoline be changed from
E0 to E15 as a forward-looking position
based on indications following the 2011
E15 waiver decision that the market
would move in that direction.410 Since
the time when we developed the
proposal, several relevant factors have
led EPA to reconsider that position,
including limited proliferation on a
national scale of stations offering E15
and the complexities E15 test fuel
would introduce for long-term
harmonization of the Tier 3 vehicle
emission regulations with California’s
LEVIII program (which uses E10 for
emissions testing).
We received comments supporting
use of E10 as emissions test fuel from
the automotive and oil industries, as
well as states and NGOs citing the fact
that this was most representative of
current market conditions. Other
stakeholders involved in fuel marketing
and distribution cited significant
infrastructure cost and liability concerns
in making E15 widely available at
existing stations. Ethanol industry
commenters generally supported E15
certification fuel as proposed, but
provided no specific timeline on which
this blend level would become
representative of in-use fuel. The most
recent surveys of the market show that
E10 now comprises nearly 100% of inuse gasoline, with very small amounts
of E0 and E15 being sold in limited
areas where there is specific interest.411
Based on this information and
considering comments, EPA is finalizing
409 As discussed elsewhere in Section IV, we are
also generally requiring the use of 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.
410 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).410 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). For
more details, see 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
411 More detail on fuel survey data is available in
Chapter 3 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23526
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
E10 as the ethanol blend level in
emissions test gasoline for Tier 3 lightduty and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles.
We will continue to monitor the in-use
gasoline supply and based on such
review may initiate rulemaking action to
revise the specifications for emissions
test fuel to include a higher ethanol
blend level.
As discussed above in Sections
IV.A.7.d (tailpipe emission testing) and
IV.C.5.b (evaporative emission testing),
we are requiring all light-duty and
chassis-certified heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles to be certified to Tier 3
standards on federal E10 test fuel. As
described in those sections, EPA will
accept emission certification test results
performed according to CARB’s LEVIII
procedures including CARB’s E10 test
fuel. Confirmatory and in-use exhaust or
evaporative testing of vehicles certified
on CARB’s E10 test fuel will be
performed using that same test fuel
through MY 2019. After MY 2019, EPA
will continue the practice of accepting
emission data at certification on the
LEVIII test fuel; however confirmatory
and in-use testing may be performed
using Tier 3 E10 test fuel at the
discretion of the Agency.
b. Certification Fuel Volatility (RVP)
Specification
In deciding to finalize E10 as the
emissions test fuel it is appropriate to
consider whether a change in the
volatility of the test fuel is warranted,
typically expressed as in pounds per
square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP) or dry vapor pressure equivalent
(DVPE). The Clean Air Act (Section
211(h)(1)) sets a national limit on
summertime RVP in northern
conventional gasoline areas of 9.0 psi to
control ozone pollution. However,
Congress included a waiver allowance
(Section 211(h)(4)) granting an
additional 1 psi RVP to 10% ethanol
blends, meaning that E10 could have an
RVP up to 10 psi in these conventional
gasoline areas unless specifically
prohibited by state or local rules. Under
Section 211(h)(4), E15 is not covered by
the waiver and thus is restricted to 9 psi
nationwide.
The automakers submitted comments
that recommended leaving the RVP of
emissions test fuel at 9 psi on the basis
that raising the specification to 10 psi
would increase the stringency of the
proposed evaporative emission
standards significantly. We agree that
the resulting increased vapor generation
rates during the refueling test would
increase emissions (by about 10 percent
and during the hot soak, diurnal,
canister bleed, and running loss tests by
as much as 25 percent in total). While
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
the likely increase in canister volume in
response to higher certification fuel RVP
would not be difficult for automakers to
accommodate in most cases, there are
additional uncertainties regarding cost
and feasibility of strategies for removing
the larger vapor loads from the canister
during vehicle operation (vapor
‘‘purging’’). Some vehicles have
adequate engine vacuum available to
accomplish the increased vapor purge,
while others may require new or
innovative approaches to increase purge
volume or efficiency (as discussed in
the evaporative emissions technology
discussion in Section IV.C.3).
Several other commenters, such as
NGOs and environmental groups,
supported setting certification gasoline
RVP to 10 psi to be representative of the
worst-case volatility vehicles may see in
the market, making the test procedure
more stringent than in the proposed
program and further reducing
evaporative emissions.
Raising the certification test fuel RVP
to 10 psi would also impact the
equivalency of CARB and EPA hot soak
plus diurnal evaporative emission test
procedures. (California requires the use
of 7 psi RVP test fuel, which, in
conjunction with higher test
temperatures, produces equivalent
results to the federal test procedures
using 9 psi fuel.) If we were to adopt 10
psi test fuel, we would likely need to
develop and adopt new test procedure
adjustments in order to maintain the
equivalency of CARB and EPA
evaporative procedures (and allow
reciprocal acceptance of test data
generated under either agency’s
program).
In addition, the 1 psi RVP waiver for
E10 does not apply to gasoline with
higher ethanol levels; for example,
under current regulations E15 is subject
to an RVP limit of 9 psi. If EPA had
adopted 10 psi test fuel in this rule and
if gasoline with higher ethanol levels
than E10 were to become commonly
used nationwide, maintaining alignment
with in-use fuel could necessitate a
change in emissions test fuel back to 9
psi.
A review of 2011 gasoline batch data
submitted to EPA shows that just under
half of summertime gasoline was
conventional gasoline at 10 psi RVP. An
additional third was RFG at
approximately 7 psi RVP, with the
remainder having intermediate RVPs
under local volatility control programs.
A volume-weighted average of these
data is approximately 8.7 psi RVP.
Thus, an emissions test gasoline
volatility at 9 psi aligns well with the
average nationwide in-use RVP today. In
addition, virtually all of the areas that
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
have elevated summertime ozone levels
where excess evaporative VOC
emissions would be of greatest concern
already control in-use gasoline RVP to
levels less than 9 psi. Furthermore,
under section 211(a)(5), governors can
request that the 1 psi waiver for E10 not
apply in their state if it causes an
emissions increase that contributes to
air pollution. Any state exercising this
authority would have in-use E10 RVP
levels limited to 9 psi.
After considering these technical and
policy issues in the context of the
information available and comments
received, we conclude that the most
appropriate approach is to set an RVP of
9 psi for Tier 3 emissions test fuel.
c. Durability Test Fuel
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 sometimes
referred to as ‘‘certification fuel,’’ the
test fuel specifications 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 (§ 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
(§ 86.1824–08(f)). EPA is not changing
the specifications for fuel used during
durability related aging that is part of
the certification process. The regulatory
changes in this final rule only apply to
the test fuel used during emissions
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
testing, both for purposes of certification
and for later compliance related testing.
We are not changing the exhaust or
evaporative durability fuel requirements
outlined in the provisions of § 86.113–
04(a)(3), except to remove the minimum
sulfur content (15 ppm) specified at
§ 86.113–04(a)(3)(i). Those provisions
require that ‘‘[u]nless 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 expect that manufacturers will use
service accumulation fuels that 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 § 86.1823–08(d) and (e),
the bench aging program should be
designed using good engineering
judgment to account for the effects of inuse 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 § 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, we expect that
E15 service accumulation fuel will be
used for whole vehicle evaporative
durability programs. Similarly,
evaporative bench aging durability
programs allowed under the provisions
of § 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.
2. Other Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel
Specifications
Where possible, we are changing test
fuel specifications to be consistent with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
CARB’s LEV III gasoline test fuel
specifications.412 In addition to the
ethanol and volatility specifications
discussed above, below is an overview
of some of the key changes. Table IV–
26 provides a summary of the new test
fuel properties. For more information on
how we arrived at the test fuel property
ranges and ASTM test methods, refer to
Chapter 3 of the RIA.
• Octane—lowering gasoline octane
to around 87 (R+M)/2 to be
representative of in-use fuel, i.e.,
regular-grade E10 gasoline.
Manufacturers can continue to use highoctane gasoline for testing of premiumrequired 413 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 are
allowing the manufacturer to test on a
fuel with a minimum octane rating of 91
(R+M)/2 (in lieu of the 87 (R+M)/2
specified for general test fuel).
According to the regulations found at
§ 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 are the same as those
described in Table IV–26.
• Distillation Temperatures—
adjusting gasoline distillation
temperatures to better reflect in-use E10
gasoline. This includes minor T10, T90
and FBP adjustments based on AAM
fuel surveys and refinery batch data.
These data show that T50 varies widely
in in-use fuel, from around 150 °F to
220 °F. Adopting a wide specification
range for test fuel may have undesirable
effects on consistency of results between
412 LEV III test procedures, including a
description of test fuel, can be found at 13 CCR
1961.2.
413 Premium-required defined at § 1065.710(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23527
facilities and over time. Therefore, we
have chosen a range of 190–210 °F to
maintain some overlap with CARB’s
specification of 205–215 °F but
extending somewhat lower to better
capture federal in-use fuel. For more
information on how we arrived at the
distillation temperatures in Table IV–26,
refer to Chapter 3 of the RIA.
• Sulfur—lowering the sulfur content
of test fuel to 8–11 ppm to be consistent
with our new Tier 3 gasoline sulfur
standards. The 10 ppm annual average
sulfur standard for in-use gasoline
standard is expected to result in twothirds less sulfur nationwide so it is
appropriate to lower the gasoline test
fuel specification in concert.
• Benzene—setting a benzene test
fuel specification of 0.5–0.7 volume
percent to represent in-use fuel under
the MSAT2 regulations.414 The MSAT2
standards, which took effect January 1,
2011, limit the gasoline pool to 0.62
volume percent benzene on average.
• Total Aromatics—lowering the
range of aromatics content in the test
fuel to better match today’s in-use E10
gasoline, and narrowing the range to
limit variability of results. Data from
recent gasoline batch data as well as
AAM surveys support a specification of
22–26 volume percent.415
• Distribution of Aromatics—in
addition to total aromatics and benzene,
the updated test fuel requirements place
boundaries on the distribution of
aromatics by carbon number (i.e.,
prescribed volume percent ranges for
each of C7, C8, C9, and C10+
hydrocarbons). There is evidence that
the heaviest aromatics in gasoline
contribute disproportionately to PM
emissions, so compliance with emission
standards should be demonstrated on
fuel with a composition representative
of in-use gasoline. For more information
on the aromatics specifications, refer to
Chapter 3 of the RIA.
• Olefins—adjusting the olefins
specification to a range of 4–10 volume
percent to better match in-use E10
gasoline.
• 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
specifications are consistent with
ASTM’s D4814 gasoline specifications
and CARB’s LEV III test fuel
requirements.
414 72
FR 8434 (February 26, 2007).
details on fuel property analysis are
available in Chapter 3 of the RIA.
415 More
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23528
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
• Updates to Gasoline Test
Methods—updating some of the gasoline
test methods previously specified in
§ 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.
TABLE IV–26—GASOLINE EMISSIONS TEST FUEL PROPERTIES
Specification
Property
Unit
General testing
Lowtemperature
testing
87.0—88.4 b
High altitude
testing
Antiknock Index (R+M)/2 ....................
........................
Sensitivity (R–M) ................................
........................
Dry Vapor
(DVPE) c, d.
Equivalent
kPa (psi) ........
60.0–63.4
(8.7–9.2)
77.2–81.4
(11.2–11.8)
52.4–55.2
(7.6–8.0)
ASTM D5191.
Distillation e
10% evaporated ..........................
°C (°F) ............
49–60
(120–140)
43–54
(110–130)
49–60
(120–140)
ASTM D86.
50% evaporated ..........................
90% evaporated ..........................
Evaporated final boiling point ......
Residue ...............................................
°C (°F) ............
°C (°F) ............
°C (°F) ............
milliliter ...........
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons .............
C6 Aromatics (benzene) .....................
C7 Aromatics (toluene) .......................
C8 Aromatics ......................................
C9 Aromatics ......................................
C10+ Aromatics ..................................
volume
volume
volume
volume
volume
volume
Olefins 5 ...............................................
Ethanol blended ..................................
Ethanol confirmatory f .........................
Total Content of Oxygenates Other
than Ethanol f.
Sulfur ..................................................
mass % ..........
volume % .......
volume % .......
volume % .......
4.0–10.0
9.6–10.0
9.4–10.2
0.1 Maximum
ASTM D6550.
See § 1065.710(b)(3).
ASTM D4815 or D5599.
ASTM D4815 or D5599.
mg/kg .............
8.0–11.0
Lead ....................................................
Phosphorus .........................................
Copper Corrosion ...............................
Solvent-Washed Gum Content ...........
g/liter ..............
g/liter ..............
........................
mg/100 milliliter.
minute ............
0.0026 Maximum
0.0013 Maximum
No. 1 Maximum
3.0 Maximum
ASTM D2622, D5453 or
D7039.
ASTM D3237.
ASTM D3231.
ASTM D130.
ASTM D381.
Pressure
Oxidation Stability ...............................
%
%
%
%
%
%
87.0 Minimum
Reference procedure a
7.5 Minimum
ASTM D2699 and D2700.
ASTM D2699 and D2700.
88–99 (190–210)
157–168 (315–335)
193–216 (380–420)
2.0 Maximum
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
21.0–25.0
0.5–0.7
5.2–6.4
5.2–6.4
5.2–6.4
4.4–5.6
ASTM D5769.
1000 Minimum
ASTM D525.
a ASTM
procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
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.
c Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, p
T, using the following equation: DVPE (kPa) =
0.956•pT—2.39 (or DVPE (psi) = 0.956•pT—0.347. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method.
d Parenthetical values are shown for informational purposes only.
e The reference procedure prescribes measurement of olefin concentration in mass %. Multiply this result by 0.857 and round to the first decimal place to determine the olefin concentration in volume %.
f The reference procedure prescribes concentration measurements for ethanol and other oxygenates in mass %. Convert results to volume %
as specified in Section 14.3 of ASTM D4815.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
b Octane
As mentioned earlier, we will
continue to allow manufacturers to test
vehicles on premium-grade gasoline
should the vehicles require it. In
addition, since we cannot predict all
future changes in gasoline vehicle
technologies and in-use fuels, we will
allow vehicle manufacturers to specify
an alternative test fuel under certain
situations. Under this provision, if
manufacturers were to design vehicles
that required operation on a higher
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 can petition the
Administrator for approval of a higher
octane, higher ethanol content test fuel
if they can 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and such a fuel would result in
equivalent emissions performance. For
vehicles certified on high-octane, highethanol 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 received comments in general
support of allowing certification on
higher octane fuels if the vehicles
require it, although some commenters
believe that the criteria EPA is
specifying for such an allowance are too
severe. We have considered these
comments, and as discussed in the
Summary and Analysis of Comments
document, we continue to believe that
our approach is appropriate, and we are
finalizing these provisions as proposed.
3. Flexible Fuel Vehicle Exhaust
Emissions Test Fuel
We are also finalizing specifications
for the fuel used in flexible fuel vehicles
(FFV) exhaust emissions testing
including certification testing. EPA is
establishing specifications for FFV test
fuel to resolve confusion and
inconsistency among FFV
manufacturers in carrying out their
certification and other testing
requirements and to ensure that FFV
emissions are appropriately controlled
over the range of in-use fuels. The FFV
exhaust emissions test fuel
specifications will phase in on the same
schedule as the E10 standard gasoline
test fuel specifications for light- and
heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (described
in Section IV.F.4). These FFV exhaust
emissions test fuel specifications may be
used voluntarily prior to when they are
required to be used. The base fuel stock
used to formulate FFV exhaust
emissions test fuel must comply with
the specifications finalized today for the
standard E10 emissions test fuel as
described in preamble Sections IV.F.1
and 2. This practice avoids the need to
specify the ranges for a number of fuel
parameters as we have done for gasoline
test fuel in Table IV–26 and helps to
minimize the number of test fuels that
a vehicle manufacturer must store.
Denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that meets
the specifications discussed in preamble
Section V.G. must be blended into this
base fuel stock to attain an ethanol
content of 80 to 83 volume percent in
the finished test fuel. Commercial grade
normal butane can be added as a
volatility trimmer to meet a 6.0 to 6.5
psi RVP specification for the finished
test fuel.416
As an alternative to the use of DFE to
manufacture FFV test fuel, neat
(undenatured) fuel grade ethanol can be
used. As an alternative to using a
416 The specifications for commercial grade
butane are contained in 40 CFR 80.82.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
finished E10 standard gasoline test fuel
in the manufacture of FFV test fuel, the
gasoline blendstock used by the fuel
provider to produce a compliant E10
test fuel can also be used to manufacture
the FFV test fuel. This would allow
ethanol to be blended only once to
produce FFV test fuel. In such cases, a
sample of the subject gasoline
blendstock must be tested after the
addition of ethanol to produce a
finished standard E10 gasoline test fuel
to demonstrate that the blend meets all
of the requirements for standard
gasoline test fuel described in Section
IV.F.
The public comments were
supportive of EPA establishing
specifications for FFV exhaust
emissions test fuel. However, some
commenters stated that the ethanol
content and RVP specifications for FFV
exhaust emissions test fuel should be
based on typical values for in-use
E85.417 Automobile manufacturers
commented that EPA should wait to
finalize FFV test fuel specifications
until a review of in-use E51–83 fuel
quality can be completed in later 2013.
They stated that this would allow the
FFV test fuel specifications to be
representative of the change to in-use
‘‘E85’’ composition since ASTM
reduced the minimum ethanol
concentration from 68 to 51 volume
percent.
Substantial publicly available
literature exists to demonstrate that the
ethanol content of fuel used in FFVs has
a significant effect on vehicle emissions.
The effect of ethanol content on FFV
emissions becomes more pronounced
with increasing ethanol concentration.
The current ASTM specification for E85
provides that the ethanol content of E85
may vary from 51 to 83 volume percent
depending on climactic conditions.418
Consistent with our long standing
policy regarding the exhaust emissions
testing of FFVs, we continue to believe
that FFVs must comply with all
emissions control requirements while
using any fuel that they have the
potential to operate on in-use. This
ensures vehicles are designed and
calibrated for emissions performance
across the full range of potential in-use
fuel formulations. FFVs are required to
have exhaust emissions certification
417 The term ‘‘E85’’ has historically been used to
describe an ethanol blend for use in FFVs with a
maximum ethanol content of 83 volume percent
and satisfying other fuel parameter specifications
established by ASTM International. ASTM D5798–
13, ‘‘Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends
for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition
Engines’’.
418 ASTM International D5798–13, ‘‘Standard
Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for FlexibleFuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23529
testing conducted using both E10 and
FFV exhaust emissions test fuel to
account for the effect on emissions of
the full range of potential ethanol blend
formulations. To ensure that FFV
certification testing adequately accounts
for in-use emissions performance, we
are finalizing the ethanol content of FFV
exhaust emissions test fuel at 81–83
volume percent as proposed. Exhaust
emissions testing conducted using a fuel
containing 81–83 volume percent
ethanol will provide results that
represent the effect of ethanol on FFV
emissions performance when this effect
is most pronounced. The
complimentary emissions certification
testing required for FFVs on E10 will
ensure that the effect on FFV emissions
from the full range of potential in-use
ethanol concentrations is represented.
Given the need to ensure that FFV
emissions certification testing is
representative of the full range of
potential in-use ethanol blends, it
would be inappropriate to set the
required ethanol concentration for FFV
emissions test fuel based on typical inuse levels as suggested by some of the
commenters.
Similarly, the RVP of FFV exhaust
emissions test fuel must assure
emissions performance over the range of
in-use fuels. When ethanol and gasoline
are blended to produce high level
ethanol blends, the RVP can be and
often is very low. As a result, ASTM
instituted a minimum RVP for E51–83
of 5.5 psi. Given that low volatility fuels
can make the control of cold start
emissions more challenging, we are
finalizing the RVP of FFV exhaust
emissions test to be near the minimum
RVP that will be encountered in-use.
The 6.0 to 6.5 RVP specification
finalized today will help to ensure that
FFVs are designed and calibrated to
maintain their exhaust emissions
performance across the range of in-use
fuels.
The levels of other fuel parameters for
in-use E51–83 are determined by the
levels of these parameters present in the
gasoline blendstock used as diluted by
the addition of ethanol. Therefore, we
believe that requiring that the levels of
these other fuel parameters present in
FFV exhaust emissions test fuel be
determined by the dilution of the levels
present in standard gasoline emissions
test fuel appropriately reflects their
potential effect on emissions
performance. Given the considerations
discussed above in determining the FFV
exhaust emissions test fuel
specifications finalized today, we do not
believe that there would be a substantial
benefit in waiting for the completion of
the E51–83 fuel quality survey currently
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23530
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
underway to finalize FFV test fuel
specifications.
As discussed in preamble Section
V.H., the Agency is also considering
finalizing the in-use fuel quality
standards for higher level ethanol
blends on which we sought comment in
the NPRM. These standards included an
in-use RVP standard of 9.0 psi matching
that of conventional gasoline. They also
contained provisions to allow the
production of high-level ethanol blends
for use in FFVs from natural gasoline
and other higher volatility components.
Were we to finalize these in-use
standards, we would also consider
raising the RVP for the FFV exhaust
emissions test fuel.
We are revising the definition of
‘‘alcohol’’ in 40 CFR part 600 to align
with the change in the ASTM
specification for in-use fuels. Under the
revised regulation, we consider an
alcohol-fueled vehicle to be one that is
designed to operate exclusively on a
fuel containing 51 percent or more
ethanol or other alcohol by volume.
This is not intended to change the
applicability, procedures, or
requirements for the fuel economy
provisions in 40 CFR part 600.
4. Implementation Schedule
As described earlier in this Section
IV, we are establishing Tier 3 exhaust
and evaporative emission standards.
The changes in the specifications for
test fuel apply to vehicles certified to
these new standards. The program is
designed to transition to the new test
fuel during the first few years as the Tier
3 standards are phasing in. Testing
requirement with the new Tier 3 test
fuel starts 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
400 (for Class 3). For light-duty vehicles,
Table IV–27 below describes the
implementation schedule of the new
Tier 3 gasoline test fuels for each of the
program elements in addition to the all
the gasoline test fuel options available
during the transition period. Table IV–
3 below similarly describes the heavyduty gasoline vehicle test fuel
implementation schedule and gasoline
test fuel options. The new Tier 3 PM
requirements for both light-duty
vehicles and heavy duty vehicles which
phase-in independent of other vehicle
exhaust emission requirements must be
met using the certification test fuel for
meeting the NMOG+NOX standards.
Starting with model years 2020 for
light-duty and 2022 for heavy-duty, all
manufacturers will use the new test fuel
for all exhaust emission testing (with
the exception of small volume
manufacturers and small businesses,
which can delay using the new test fuel
for all vehicles until model year 2022).
Manufacturers also need to comply with
cold temperature CO and NMHC
standards using the new test fuel for any
models that use the new test fuel for
meeting the light-duty Tier 3 exhaust
emission standards as indicated in the
tables below. These same tests will 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.
TABLE IV–27—EXHAUST EMISSIONS GASOLINE TEST FUELS FOR LDVS, LDTS, AND MDPVS
Test cycles
Emission compliance
program
Test purpose: demonstration of compliance to the emissions standards:
FTP City/HWFE/SFTP
Tier 2 .............................
Certification ...........................................
Confirmatory and In-use .......................
Certification ...........................................
(1)(2)(3)(4) ............................................
Certification fuel and/or (1)* .................
(1)**(2)***(3)(4) .....................................
(1)
(1)
(1)**(3)
(1)
(1)
(1)**(3)
Confirmatory and In-use .......................
Certification ...........................................
Certification fuel ....................................
(1)**(2)***(3)(4) .....................................
(1)**(3)
(1)**(3)
(1)**(3)
(1)**(3)
Confirmatory and In-use .......................
Certification ...........................................
Confirmatory and In-use .......................
Certification fuel ....................................
(3)(4) .....................................................
Certification fuel and/or (3)* .................
(1)**(3)
(3)
(3)
(1)**(3)
(3)
(3)
Tier 3 Early 2015 to
2017.
Tier 3 phase-in 2017 to
2019.
Tier 3 complete 2020+ ..
Cold CO and
NMHC
High altitude
Fuels: (1) Tier 2 (2) LEV II (3) Tier 3 E10 (4) LEV III E10
* EPA accepts the use of California certification fuels (or Tier 3 E10 for Tier 2 certification) but manufacturer must comply on the program specific Federal fuel. EPA may perform or require manufacturer testing on the Federal fuel.
** Fuel (1) only allowed for Bins 160, 125, 110, 85.
*** Fuel (2) only allowed for carryover SULEV 150k exhaust.
TABLE IV–28—EXHAUST EMISSIONS GASOLINE TEST FUELS FOR HEAVY DUTY VEHICLES
Test cycles
Emission compliance
program
Test purpose: demonstration of compliance to
the emissions standards
FTP City/HWFE/SFTP
Pre-Tier 3 .............................
Certification ......................................................
Confirmatory and In-use ..................................
Certification ......................................................
Confirmatory and In-use ..................................
Certification ......................................................
Confirmatory and In-use ..................................
Certification ......................................................
Confirmatory and In-use ..................................
(1)(2)(3)(4) ........................................................
Certification fuel and/or (1)* .............................
(1)** (3)(4) ........................................................
Certification fuel ...............................................
(1)** (3)(4) ........................................................
Certification fuel ...............................................
(3)(4) .................................................................
Certification fuel and/or (3)* .............................
Tier 3 Early 2016 to 2017 ....
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Tier 3 phase-in 2018 to 2021
Tier 3 complete 2022+ .........
High altitude
(1)
(1)
(1)**(3)
(1)**(3)
(1)**(3)
(1)**(3)
(3)
(3)
Fuels: (1) Tier 2 (2) LEV II (3) Tier 3 E10 (4) LEV III E10
* EPA accepts the use of California certification fuels (or Tier 3 E10 for Tier 2 certification) but manufacturer must comply on the program specific Federal fuel. EPA may perform or require manufacturer testing on the Federal fuel.
** Fuel (1) only allowed for Bins 340, 395, 570, 630.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Additionally, heavy-duty gasoline
engines (HDGEs) not subject to new Tier
3 exhaust emission standards (those
certified for exhaust emissions using an
engine dynamometer) are required to be
certified on Tier 3 fuel by MY 2022.
Further discussion can be found in
Section IV.C.4.c.
For evaporative emission testing,
manufacturers will need to use the new
test fuel for any models that are to be
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 will
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
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.
5. Implications of Emission Test Fuel
Changes on CAFE Standards, GHG
Standards, and Fuel Economy Labels
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a. Test Fuel
Under regulations in 40 CFR part 600,
vehicles use the same test fuel in
emission testing conducted for CAFE
standards, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, and the fuel economy label
as that used for emission testing for
criteria pollutants. This includes the test
fuel used for testing on all five cycles
(FTP, highway fuel economy test
(HFET), US06, SC03, and Cold FTP). In
the Tier 3 NPRM, EPA proposed a
change in emissions test fuel used to
determine compliance with criteria
pollutant standards and this test fuel
change would also apply to CAFE and
GHG standards and the fuel economy
label such that a common test fuel
under 40 CFR part 600 was retained. At
the same time, EPA indicated its
commitment to the principle that the
change in test fuel would not affect the
stringency of the CAFE or GHG
standards and that the labeling
calculations would be updated in a
future action to reflect the change in test
fuel properties.
The NPRM indicated that more data
and time were needed to assess the
effects on stringency and
implementation of these programs.
While EPA’s initial review of available
data suggested that the change in test
fuel would not impact the GHG
standards, more time and data were
needed to confirm this initial view
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
regarding the GHG standards and to
determine what adjustments if any
would need to be made to the CAFE
program and fuel economy label
calculation procedures to account for
the change in test fuel. EPA indicated
we would defer action on appropriate
adjustments, if any, for the GHG and
CAFE programs until data were
available to assess how the difference in
the fuel properties (Tier 3 fuel compared
to Tier 2 fuel) would impact the
stringency of the CAFE and GHG
standards for Tier 3 technology vehicles
and the calculations for the fuel
economy label. EPA indicated that any
adjustments or changes in the regulatory
text would be done through a future
action.
Manufacturers commented that EPA
should take action on the necessary
adjustments to compliance calculations
as part of the Tier 3 final rule. The
methodologies for addressing some
elements of the changes in fuel
properties such as the difference in
energy density are already addressed in
the regulation. One key element, the
‘‘R’’ factor found in the equation of 40
CFR 600.113–12(h)(1) is intended to
capture inefficiencies and differences in
how vehicles respond to changes in the
energy content of the fuel. This factor is
empirically based, developed using
vehicle test data. This value is presently
set at 0.6 and is shown in the
denominator of the aforementioned
equation. While there has been some
data evaluated to assess the impact of
changing the emission test fuel on the
‘‘R’’ factor, EPA did not propose a value
in the NPRM and specifically stated that
we would continue to investigate this
issue and if necessary address it as part
of a future action, as opposed to
changing it in the Tier 3 final rule.
Furthermore, as discussed above, there
is a need for more data to fully
understand how other changes in
certification fuel for Tier 3, such as the
octane specification, may affect the
stringency of the CAFE and GHG
standards which were based on Tier 2
emission fuel, as well as any
implications for the fuel economy label.
These potential effects are best
understood using emission data
generated on Tier 3/LEV III vehicles
tested on both Tier 3 and Tier 2 test
fuel.
In addition, the manufacturers
commented that even with the use of
‘‘analytically derived data’’ as permitted
under current EPA regulations and
guidance, 419 EPA should finalize an
419 See 40 CFR 600.006–08(e) and EPA guidance
letter CD 12–03, February 27, 2012 and CCD–04–
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23531
appropriate test procedure adjustment
in the Tier 3 rulemaking, including
adoption of an ‘‘R’’ factor of 1.0, and
should allow manufacturers the option
of using Tier 2 fuel for CAFE, GHG, and
fuel economy labeling at least through
MY2019 to provide time for adjusting to
the new test fuel.
In the NPRM, EPA indicated that we
would not be changing the ‘‘R’’ factor or
implementing other adjustments or
changes in the regulatory text in the
FRM. In follow-up meetings with the
manufacturers, we expressed a
willingness to consider permitting GHG
and CAFE to continue on Tier 2 fuel
until the future rulemaking action to
address the ‘‘R’’ factor and other
potential changes was complete and in
effect. The manufacturers responded
that under this approach the existing
regulations would require a significant
amount of additional emission testing
for any model certified to the Tier 3/
LEVIII exhaust emission standards
before the future rulemaking is
completed and in effect.420 This is
because Tier 3 test fuels would be used
in emission data vehicles (EDVs)
evaluated for compliance with Tier 3
criteria pollutant standards, but these
same EDVs would also have to be tested
on Tier 2 fuel for GHG, fuel economy
label, and CAFE program data purposes.
Also, while Tier 2 fuel would apply to
EDVs and fuel economy data vehicles
(FEDVs) evaluated for fuel economy
label, CAFE program data values, and
compliance with GHG standards, these
same FEDVs would have to be retested
on Tier 3 fuel to show compliance with
the Tier 3 criteria pollutant standards.
This additional testing would also
extend to in-use verification program
(IUVP) testing under 40 CFR 86.1845
through 86.1853.
In response to the concerns expressed
by the manufacturers, EPA has
identified five interim changes to
existing regulations to both clarify
testing requirements and to provide the
manufacturers a reasonable opportunity
to continue to test for CAFE, GHG, and
labeling purposes on Tier 2 test fuels for
each EDV and FEDV until such time as
EPA determines appropriate
adjustments, if any, related to a change
to Tier 3 test fuels. EPA believes these
changes can be implemented without
impacting the integrity of the testing
conducted for the criteria pollutant,
CAFE, and GHG standards or values
generated for determination of fuel
economy labels. It is very important to
06, March 11, 2004, available at http://
iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/.
420 This could start as early as the 2015 MY when
the LEV III program begins to phase-in.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23532
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
note that the emission test data
generated by these early Tier 3/LEVIII
vehicles covering both Tier 2 and Tier
3 test fuel will provide data needed to
assess the ‘‘R’’ value and the impact of
the fuel change on the stringency of the
CAFE and GHG standards, and the
calculations for the fuel economy
labeling program. These data will be
instrumental in developing any
appropriate adjustments to maintain
equivalent stringency for the CAFE and
GHG standards and to update the fuel
economy labeling calculations, as
needed. At the present time, EPA
expects to have the needed data in early
to mid 2015 and will then be in a
position to conduct a thorough
assessment of the impacts of different
emission test fuels on Tier 3/LEV III
vehicles and develop any appropriate
adjustments and changes, in
consultation and coordination with
NHTSA.
These interim changes which are
presented below and shown in Table
IV–29, apply only to vehicles certified
to the Tier 3 and/or LEV III exhaust
emission standards in the model years
before the future action mentioned
above takes effect. These are reflected in
40 CFR 80.600.117.
1. For any given EDV or FEDV, our
regulations will require that testing
related to CAFE and GHG standards and
the fuel economy label must still be
done on Tier 2 fuel even if criteria
pollutant testing is done on Tier 3 or
LEV III fuel. The ‘‘R’’ value used in the
fuel economy equation would remain at
0.6 until any change is made in a future
rulemaking.
2. The requirement continues that
FEDVs are expected to meet the criteria
pollutant emission standards. As a
flexibility, rather than requiring FEDVs
to retest on Tier 3 fuel to show that they
pass the criteria pollutant emission
standards, we are providing in the
regulations that FEDVs may meet these
standards using Tier 2 fuel on each of
the five cycles (as applicable) or be
subject to retesting and passing on Tier
3 fuel if they do not meet requirements
on Tier 2 fuel or otherwise do not
comply with 40 CFR 86.1835–01(b) and
40 CFR 600.008(b). In these
circumstances, assuming a retested
vehicle meets criteria pollutant
standards on Tier 3 fuel, the emissions
results on the Tier 2 fuel will still be
used for CAFE, GHG, and fuel economy
labeling purposes. Retesting on Tier 3
fuel is only required for those cycles
where the FEDV did not meet the
criteria pollutant standards on Tier 2
fuel.
3. As a flexibility, if EDV testing is
conducted on Tier 3/LEV III fuel for
criteria pollutants (all 5 cycles), then we
are requiring the EDV testing to be
conducted on Tier 2 fuel for only 2
cycles (FTP and HFET) for GHG and
CAFE purposes. These emission results
on Tier 2 fuel are expected to meet the
Tier 3 criteria pollutant standards. Our
regulations then require manufacturers
to use these EDV Tier 2 fuel test results
(FTP and HFET) for the CAFE, and GHG
standards. The EDV Tier 2 fuel test
results (FTP and HFET) would also be
used for fuel economy label calculations
except in rare cases where the EDV does
not pass the litmus test or if the
manufacturer voluntarily elects to use
the vehicle specific 5-cycle method to
determine fuel economy label values. In
those two cases, the EDV would need to
be tested on Tier 2 test fuel on each of
the five cycles.
4. As a flexibility, during the interim
model years, manufacturers may use
either Tier 2 or Tier 3/LEVIII test fuel
emission results to conduct the litmus
evaluations for fuel economy labeling
under 40 CFR 600.115–11. All emission
results for the five tests involved used
must be from the same test fuel. EPA
believes this is appropriate since the
litmus evaluation is based on a
comparison of the percent differences of
2 and 5 cycle values rather than
absolute differences in the values. If a
manufacturer chooses to conduct the
litmus evaluation using LEVIII fuel, the
cold FTP test must still use Tier 3 fuel.
In the situation where the manufacturer
uses Tier 3/LEV III test fuel for the
litmus test the R-factor will be 0.6. EPA
will provide guidance on determining
the values for the other fuel quality
parameters needed for the fuel economy
calculations when Tier 3/LEVIII fuel is
used.
5. Exhaust emission testing for IUVP
for GHGs shall be conducted using the
same test fuel as used for criteria
pollutant certification, unless the
manufacturer uniformly elects to
conduct its IUVP GHG testing on Tier 2
fuel. This relieves the need to conduct
IUVP testing for criteria pollutants on
Tier 3 fuel and GHG testing on Tier 2
fuel. EPA believes this is an acceptable
interim regulatory flexibility, since the
IUVP testing for GHGs does not involve
the IUCP provisions of 40 CFR 86.1846–
01.
TABLE IV–29—INTERIM TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR EDVS AND FEDVS ON TIER 3 AND TIER 2 TEST FUEL
Criteria
pollutant
(EDVs)
GHG/Label/CAFE
(EDVs and FEDVs)
(tier 2 fuel)
Litmus
calculation
5-cycle
5-cycle
(label)
Test fuel
requirements
Tier 3 fuel
or other
transition
option**
Tier 2
fuel
Tier 2
fuel
Tier 3
fuel
FTP ...........................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Tests/
cycles
2-cycle
(CAFE/GHG/label)
X
X
X
HFET .........................
US06 .........................
SC03 .........................
Cold FTP ...................
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
....................
Show criteria pollutant standards are
met using Tier 2
fuel or must retest
on Tier 3 fuel.
...................................
...................................
IUVP
5-cycle
Criteria
pollutant
GHG*
Tier 2 or
Tier 3 fuel
Tier 3
fuel
Tier 2
fuel
Use 5-cycle Tier 3
fuel or Tier 2 fuel
test results.
X
X
...................................
...................................
X
X
X
* Manufacturer may uniformly elect to use Tier 2 fuel results to meet the IUVP GHG requirements or rely on Tier 3 results.
** California Phase 2 fuel is only permitted for GHG/Label/CAFE and Litmus assessments for vehicles certified for criteria pollutants in the Tier
3 program using carryover data from CARB LEV II certifications such as SULEVs and PZEVs.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Manufacturers may use LEVIII fuel
(California Phase 3) in lieu of Tier 3
fuel, but any cold FTP testing must be
done using Tier 3 Cold FTP fuel. LEV
III fuel is 7 RVP E10, Tier 3 fuel is 9 RVP
E10, and Tier 2 fuel is 9 RVP E0.
Manufacturers have presented two
points of view with regard to when the
potential new requirements (including a
revised ‘‘R’’ factor and other possible
test procedure changes/adjustments
related to CAFE, GHG, and fuel
economy labeling) should take effect
once the future rulemaking action
mentioned above is complete. Some
have stated that use of the new
provisions should be available for use as
soon as possible after the rule is
completed. This would minimize the
need for any future duplicate testing
and put manufacturers on course for
fully aligning with the new
requirements quickly. Others have
asked that there be lead time provided
before the application of the new
requirements becomes mandatory. The
manufacturers have expressed concern
that the use of the new requirements
more quickly by one manufacturer
versus another could create a
competitive imbalance. At the same
time, manufacturers do not necessarily
want to be forced to certify all products
to the new requirements by a cut-off
date (e.g., 2020 model year) without
EPA consideration of phase-in or phaseout provisions and data carryover.
EPA understands the manufacturers’
various issues and concerns in this area.
Based on the information available at
this time, EPA is expecting to allow the
optional use of any future adjustments
for compliance calculation and labeling
purposes as soon as the future rule
mentioned above becomes effective.
Furthermore, we expect that the
mandatory use of any such new
adjustments with all Tier 3 certifications
would be required for the 2020 MY.
These initial timing projections are
subject to revision based on timing of
the completion of the future action and
the data and record developed in that
future rulemaking.
b. Useful Life for GHG Standards
As stated above, EPA is committed to
retaining equivalent stringency for GHG
emissions compliance beginning in MY
2017. We need more emissions test data
to better understand the GHG emission
impacts of Tier 3 fuel in Tier 3
technology vehicles. However, we
believe that certifying a vehicle to a
longer useful life for any emission
constituent would have only a
beneficial effect on emissions. To
address potential concerns about
changes in the stringency of the GHG
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
standards resulting from a longer useful
life, we are not requiring a longer useful
life for GHG emission standards,
although manufacturers can optionally
certify GHG emissions to a 150,000
mile, 15 year useful life.
6. Consideration of Test Fuel for
Nonroad Engines and Highway
Motorcycles
As described earlier in Section IV.F.,
we are adopting new specifications for
the gasoline emissions test fuel used for
testing highway vehicles subject to the
Tier 3 standards. Earlier in the
development of this rulemaking, EPA
also considered changing the test fuel
specifications for other categories of
engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel
system components that use gasoline.
These 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, and highway
motorcycles. 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 the lower level of
technology, emissions from these
engines are potentially much more
sensitive to changes in fuel quality.
EPA is not applying 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 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23533
While we are not changing the test
fuel specifications for these other types
of vehicles and engines, we are updating
the reference standards associated with
specific parameters and making minor
adjustments to calculation methods. For
certified engines and vehicles that have
already been using the test fuel
specified in § 1065.710, we are
clarifying that the RVP is calculated
using the same equation described
above for the new fuel specified for Tier
3 vehicles. We are also taking the
opportunity to align and update test
methods for the various gasoline test
fuels in 40 CFR part 86. Specifically, we
are revising §§ 86.113 and 86.213 to (1)
use both ASTM D2699 and ASTM
D2700 for octane measurements
involving both research and motor
octane specifications (including octane
sensitivity), (2) use ASTM D2622 for all
sulfur measurements, which is widely
used and provides superior results
compared with the methods that have
been referenced in the regulations, (3)
use ASTM D5191 for measuring fuel
volatility, including the calculation
described above. We are also updating
the regulations to reference a newer
version of the following currently
referenced procedures: ASTM D86,
ASTM D1319 ASTM D2699, ASTM
D3231, and ASTM D3237. All these
changes and updates align with fuel
specifications in 40 CFR part 1065.
7. CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel
Specifications
There are currently no sulfur
specifications for the test fuel used for
certifying natural gas (CNG) vehicles.
There is also no sulfur specification in
86.113 for the test fuel used for
certifying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
light duty vehicles. The LPG
certification test fuel for heavy-duty
highway engines and for nonroad
engines in 1065.720 includes an 80 ppm
maximum sulfur specification. We
requested comment on the
appropriateness of changing 86.113 to
reference 40 CFR part 1065 for all
natural gas and LPG test fuels. We
further requested 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.
We noted that changing the sulfur
specifications would depend on
establishing that the new specification
is consistent with the range of
properties expected from in-use fuels.
The Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (the Alliance) stated that
EPA should adopt a 10 ppm maximum
sulfur specification for CNG and LPG
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23534
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
vehicle certification test fuels. They also
stated that § 86.113 should reference
part 1065 for CNG and LPG test fuels
(for light and heavy duty vehicles). The
American Petroleum Institute (API), the
Association of Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers (AFPM), and several
individual refiners stated that EPA
should not establish new sulfur
standards for CNG and LPG vehicle
certification test fuels until additional
data are available on the sulfur content
of in-use CNG/LPG fuels. The National
Propane Gas Association (NPGA) stated
that they are opposed to a change in the
sulfur specifications for LPG vehicle
certification test fuels given that they
are unaware of any issue that would
warrant such a change.
As discussed in Section V.J. of today’s
preamble, additional time is needed for
EPA to work with industry to collect
data on current CNG/LPG sulfur
content, to determine whether
additional control of in-use CNG/LPG
sulfur content is needed, and to evaluate
the feasibility and costs associated with
potential additional sulfur controls.
Therefore, we are deferring finalizing inuse quality and certification test fuel
specifications for CNG and LPG at this
time.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
G. Small Business Provisions
We are adopting special flexibility
provisions for small businesses that are
subject to the Tier 3 emissions
standards. Such businesses are typically
vehicle manufacturers, independent
commercial importers (ICIs), or
alternative fuel vehicle converters. We
are also providing Tier 3 flexibility to
companies that, though they may not
meet the eligibility requirements for
small businesses, sell less than 5,000
vehicles per year in the United States,
and thus qualify as small volume
manufacturers (SVMs). These
companies and small businesses
typically face similar challenges in
implementing new EPA vehicle
standards.
As in previous vehicle emissions
rulemakings in which we have provided
such flexibilities, our reason for doing
so is that these entities generally have
more implementation difficulty than
larger companies. Small companies
generally have more limited resources to
carry out necessary research and
development; they can be a lower
priority for emission control technology
suppliers than larger companies; they
have lower vehicle production volumes
over which to spread compliance costs;
and they have a limited diversity of
product lines, which limits their ability
to take advantage of the phase-in and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
averaging provisions that are major
elements of the Tier 3 program.
We proposed small business
provisions largely based on the
recommendations of the Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel,
described in Section XIII.C of the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We
proposed provisions for additional lead
time, reduced testing requirements, and
opportunities for hardship relief to help
small entities to leverage technological
developments by others and to spread
the availability of needed engineering,
supplier, and capital resources. Based
on the comments we received, we have
improved on the proposed provisions in
the final rule as described in detail
below.
1. Lead Time and Relaxed Interim
Standards
We proposed that small businesses
and SVMs be allowed to postpone
compliance with the standards and
other Tier 3 requirements, including use
of the new certification test fuel, until
model year (MY) 2022. For MY 2022
and later, they would be subject to the
same Tier 3 requirements as other
manufacturers, including the declining
fleet average NMOG+NOX standards and
the fully phased in 30 mg/mi FTP
standard for MYs 2025 and later. We
requested comment on adopting relaxed
FTP NMOG+NOX standards for small
companies in the light-duty market
segment, noting that LEV III provides
light-duty SVMs with relaxed FTP
NMOG+NOX standards of 125 and 70
mg/mi in MYs 2022 and 2025,
respectively.
We did not receive comments from
non-SVM small businesses subject to
the Tier 3 vehicle standards about our
proposed small entity phase-in
provisions. However, we received
comments from SVMs, as well as the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
and the Association of Global
Automakers, arguing that the proposed
phase-in did not provide adequate lead
time relief for SVMs, and that the longterm Tier 3 standards for light-duty
vehicles are not technologically feasible
for SVMs. They highlighted the ability
of large manufacturers to offset high
emissions from high-performance,
luxury models by averaging with their
low-emitting models, while competing
SVM products must be designed to
actually achieve low emissions while
still meeting customers’ performance
expectations. Their limited production
can also result in emission control
technology suppliers placing a lower
priority on SVM orders than on those of
larger, high-volume manufacturers.
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Because of these factors, SVMs
suggested that their companies meet a
slightly more stringent NMOG+NOX
standard (125 mg/mi) than what we
proposed for SVMs in the early years of
the program, and a permanently relaxed
standard of 51 mg/mi beginning in MY
2022. Ferrari suggested a compliance
schedule for SVMs similar to the
California LEV III program, with either
a permanently relaxed standard
(matching the California LEV III 70 mg/
mi long-term standard) or a delay until
MY 2030 to meet the primary 30 mg/mi
Tier 3 standard (when they suggest that
SVMs could potentially comply). CARB
comments supported Tier 3 adoption of
its LEV III provisions for SVMs,
including the long-term 70 mg/mi
standard beginning in MY 2025. VNG, a
natural gas fuel network provider,
commented that gaseous-fuel smallvolume test groups should be given
extended phase-in opportunities
identical to those proposed for SVMs,
regardless of company size. As
justification, VNG pointed to challenges
unique to converting vehicles to operate
on natural gas: thermal management of
direct injection fueling and engine oil
systems, adaptation of gasoline direct
injection (GDI) controls to natural gas
port fuel injection, and improvement of
turbocharger response times.
After considering the comments, we
agree with SVMs that their unique
logistical and technological challenges,
especially in the later years of the
primary FTP NMOG+NOX standards
phase-in schedule, warrant a significant
period of relaxed standards for these
manufacturers. However, we have found
no fundamental reason why, given
sufficient lead time, all manufacturers,
regardless of company size and vehicle
characteristics, will not be able to meet
the Tier 3 standards. Thus, we are
finalizing an optional program for
SVMs, available to non-SVM small
businesses as well, under which they
can choose an alternative 3-stage FTP
NMOG+NOX fleet average standard
phase-in schedule: an initial standard of
125 mg/mi for MYs 2017 through 2021,
a more stringent standard of 51 mg/mi
for MYs 2022 through 2027, and the
final Tier 3 standard of 30 mg/mi
thereafter.
Because companies choosing this 3stage compliance option are certifying to
Tier 3 bin standards in MY 2017, we are
requiring that other exhaust emissions
standards, including SFTP and PM
standards, apply for their vehicles as
well, to the same degree and on the
same schedule as for other
manufacturers. Application of
evaporative emissions and onboard
diagnostics (OBD) standards, on the
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
other hand, is not affected by choice of
the 3-stage compliance option for the
FTP NMOG+NOX standards, and small
companies may separately choose to
delay compliance with evaporative
emissions and OBD standards (except as
noted in Section IV.G.3) until MY 2022,
as proposed. In addition, small
companies choosing the 3-stage
compliance option may delay the longer
useful life and new test fuel
requirements for exhaust emissions
standards until MY 2022 to align these
changes with the 3-stage schedule. This
option would not preclude use of other
applicable small entity flexibility
provisions discussed in this subsection.
Although we are adopting this revised
implementation schedule for SVMs and
small businesses, we believe the
proposed approach of allowing
postponement of Tier 3 compliance
until MY 2022 may be useful for small
companies needing more lead time to
begin certifying Tier 3 vehicles.
Therefore we are finalizing the proposed
approach as an additional but separate
option for such companies, including
SVMs, ICIs, and alternative fuel vehicle
converters. Furthermore, because the
optional 3-stage SVM implementation
schedule, and the record of comments
that prompted it, are specific to the
light-duty sector, we are not extending
it to heavy-duty vehicles and instead are
finalizing only the proposed approach
of allowing postponement of Tier 3
compliance until MY 2022 for any
SVMs and small businesses in the
heavy-duty sector.
Companies that take advantage of one
of the SVM and small business
implementation schedule provisions in
either the light-duty or heavy-duty
sector are not allowed to generate or use
Tier 3 exhaust emissions credits in that
sector while or before they are subject
to significantly less stringent standards
than other manufacturers. That is, they
cannot earn or use Tier 3 exhaust
emissions credits before MY 2022 under
the 3-stage light-duty SVM revised
implementation schedule, and they also
cannot do so before MY 2022 if they are
using the postponed compliance
schedule that we proposed, unless they
choose to end their use of these SVM
implementation options earlier than MY
2022.
We disagree with VNG’s assessment
that small-volume test groups of large
manufacturers should have until 2022 to
comply with Tier 3. The technical
challenges outlined by VNG have to do
with converting gasoline vehicles to run
reliably and durably on natural gas.
Although these conversion challenges
may be exacerbated for the new
generation of turbocharged GDI
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
vehicles, we have no evidence or
comments from a vehicle manufacturer
indicating that meeting Tier 3 standards
is significantly more difficult for natural
gas vehicles than for gasoline vehicles.
Note that we are providing some relief
for small volume test groups in the form
of assigned deterioration factors
(discussed below), but not because of
feasibility concerns. Rather, we believe
that assigned deterioration factors
provide a sufficient alternative to the
extensive process of developing a
unique factor for each low-volume
vehicle model. We find no justification
to delay compliance with Tier 3
standards for larger manufacturers’ lowvolume models as requested by VNG.
2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
In Tier 3 as in past programs,
manufacturers must demonstrate
compliance with emissions standards
throughout the vehicle’s useful life. This
is generally done by testing vehicles at
low mileage and then applying a
deterioration factor to the measured
emissions levels. The deterioration
factors are determined by testing
emissions control systems before and
after an aging process. In the past we
have allowed small entities to use
deterioration factors assigned by EPA
instead of performing the extended
testing, and we proposed to do so again
for demonstrating compliance with Tier
3 exhaust and evaporative emissions
standards. We did not propose specific
assigned deterioration factors, but noted
that the proposed delay in the small
entity compliance schedule to MY 2022
would allow sufficient deterioration
data from large manufacturers to
accumulate for timely development of
these factors.
We are adopting the assigned
deterioration factor provisions for small
businesses and SVMs (as well as for
small volume test groups), as proposed.
Commenters expressed support, and
asked that the Agency commit itself to
keeping these factors up to date as
durability data accumulates. In
response, we can state that we are
committed to periodically updating and
publishing these assigned deterioration
factors. Given that SVMs will be
allowed to use the revised
implementation schedule described
above, starting in MY 2017, it becomes
necessary to consider assigned
deterioration factors in stages. Because
there may not be a sufficient base of
accumulated durability data on Tier 3
vehicles by MY 2017, we expect that the
current set of assigned factors based on
Tier 2 vehicles may continue in place
for some time, noting that the MY 2017–
2021 SVM fleet average of 125 mg/mi is
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23535
not too much different from the average
of today’s Tier 2 vehicle emissions. By
MY 2022, when the SVM NMOG+NOX
fleet average standard drops to 51 mg/
mile, we expect to have new assigned
factors available. We note that small
businesses and SVMs may also, with
advance EPA approval, use
deterioration factors developed by
another manufacturer (40 CFR 86.1826–
01(b)).
3. Reduced Testing Burden and OBD
Requirements
Under our existing regulations,
manufacturers must perform in-use
testing on their vehicles and
demonstrate that their in-use vehicles
comply with the emissions standards.
These regulations provide for reduced
levels of testing for small companies
with annual sales under 15,000, and for
no in-use testing for those with annual
sales up to 5,000. We received no
adverse comments on our proposal to
continue this approach in Tier 3, and
are retaining it.
As described in Sections IV.A and
IV.B, we are requiring manufacturers to
test for PM emissions from vehicles of
all fuel types, a change from previous
practice in which non-diesel vehicles
could be waived from PM testing.
However, we proposed and have
decided to continue the PM testing
waiver in Tier 3 for small businesses
and SVMs. In lieu of testing, these
companies are required to make a
statement of compliance with the Tier 3
PM standards, and their vehicles are
still subject to the standards. We may
however measure PM emissions to
determine compliance in EPA
confirmatory or in-use testing.
We proposed to apply CARB’s OBD
requirements to Tier 3 vehicles, except
that small alternative fuel vehicle
converters would be allowed to instead
meet our existing OBD requirements (40
CFR 86.1806–05). The natural gas fuel
network provider VNG objected that the
proposed exception disadvantages larger
vehicle manufacturers and should be
made equally available to all vehicle
manufacturers’ small volume test
groups. We expect that larger
manufacturers wishing to produce
alternative fuel vehicles will be familiar
with CARB’s OBD requirements and
well-positioned to implement these
requirements in Tier 3. We note that
larger OEMs themselves did not request
to be covered by an extension of this
provision.
We are finalizing the exception to the
Tier 3 OBD requirements as proposed.
Note that the optional delay in Tier 3
implementation until MY 2022 that is
available to small businesses, discussed
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23536
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
above, includes a delay in the Tier 3
OBD requirement to MY 2022, as
proposed, except that vehicles already
meeting this requirement in MY 2017
must continue to do so in subsequent
years. We are also adopting this Tier 3
OBD delay to MY 2022 for small
companies taking advantage of the
revised light-duty 3-stage
implementation schedule discussed
above, even though other Tier 3
requirements start for them in MY 2017,
in order to avoid overburdening these
manufacturers with multiple sets of new
OBD design constraints.
4. Hardship Relief
We proposed and are adopting
provisions for small businesses and
SVMs in hardship situations to apply
for additional time to meet the Tier 3
standards. Such appeals will need to
include evidence that the
noncompliance would occur despite the
manufacturer’s best efforts to comply,
and that severe economic hardship
would occur if the relief is not granted,
though the company need not show that
its solvency will be in jeopardy without
the relief. (This showing is required in
other EPA programs granting hardship
relief under 40 CFR 1068.250.) The
duration of relief will be established on
a case-by-case basis for Tier 3 and is not
being limited by regulation.
Commenters supported these proposed
provisions, within the context of a
revised approach to SVM lead time,
discussed above.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5. Eligibility for the Flexibilities
As proposed, we are using the federal
Small Business Administration (SBA)
criteria to define small businesses
eligible for the special provisions. SBA
defines small business vehicle
manufacturers as those with less than
1,000 employees, and small business
ICIs and alternative fuel vehicle
converters are evaluated using SBA
criteria based on annual revenues. See
Section IV.H.3 for a discussion of
additional provisions that apply
specifically to ICIs. Also, as proposed,
we are defining SVMs in 40 CFR
86.1838–01 for purposes of Tier 3 as
companies with nationwide annual U.S.
sales volumes at or below 5,000
vehicles, though the 15,000 vehicle
threshold used in Tier 2 continues to
apply in a few regulatory provisions that
Tier 3 changes are not impacting.
Eligibility will be evaluated using an
average of 2012–2014 MY sales. For
companies with no 2012 MY sales,
projected sales may be used, but their
eligibility will be re-evaluated thereafter
using a three-year running average.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
VNG commented that the proposed
5,000 vehicle threshold could
potentially limit the ability (or
willingness) of natural gas SVMs to
scale up production by forcing a tradeoff
between sales and regulatory burden,
pointing also to the fact that 15,000
vehicles is only 0.1% of annual lightduty vehicle sales. We do not believe
that the SVM relief provisions are so
advantageous as to cause self-limiting of
sales, except possibly in the unlikely
case of a company very near the
threshold. Even if this were to happen,
moving the threshold to 15,000 would
not prevent the same dynamic from
happening at that sales level.
Furthermore, our use of a three-year
average of sales for determining SVM
eligibility protects the SVMs from being
penalized for having an especially good
year not reflective of its long-term
growth trend. See the MY 2017 and later
light-duty GHG final rule for a
discussion of our basis for adopting the
5,000 vehicle threshold (77 FR 62793,
October 15, 2012).
We requested comment on extending
eligibility for the Tier 3 SVM provisions
to small manufacturers that are owned
by large manufacturers but are able to
demonstrate that they are operationally
independent. We established such a
provision in the light-duty greenhouse
gas (GHG) program, and CARB did so in
LEV III. Comments from CARB and
Ferrari supported this extension. No
commenters opposed it; however,
Advanced Biofuels USA recommended
caution to avoid advantaging SVMs
capable of leveraging parent company
resources to drastically increase U.S.
market share within 2–3 years. Given
the establishment of this provision in
our GHG program, and the value of this
extension for harmonization with LEV
III, we are adopting this change into Tier
3 using the same eligibility criteria as in
our GHG program, set forth in 40 CFR
86.1838–01(d). We believe these criteria
are sufficiently strict and objective to
address the concerns expressed by
Advanced Biofuels USA.
To qualify as SVMs in either the lightduty or heavy-duty Tier 3 programs, the
company’s total sales of vehicles subject
to standards under 40 CFR part 86,
subpart S count toward the vehicle sales
limit, including both light- and heavyduty vehicles. Companies so qualified
may take advantage of SVM provisions
in both sectors.
H. Compliance Provisions
1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures
We are finalizing most of the
amendments we proposed to 40 CFR
part 1066 as part of the effort to migrate
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
test requirements from 40 CFR part 86.
We began this process a couple of years
ago when we established part 1066, but
we applied these test procedures only to
certain vehicles above 14,000 lbs gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) for the
purpose of measuring greenhouse gas
emissions (76 FR 57470, September 15,
2011). This final rule extends these
procedures, with some amendments, to
vehicles at or below 14,000 lbs GVWR
for measurement of both criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions. The procedures in part 1066
cover the same requirements that have
been included in 40 CFR part 86, but
include more detailed specifications for
how to measure exhaust emissions
using a chassis dynamometer. They also
reference large portions of 40 CFR 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. Overall, the part 1066
procedures represent a modernization of
the part 86 procedures rather than
fundamentally different procedures.
Until this rule, testing requirements
related to chassis dynamometers have
relied 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. The revisions we
are finalizing 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.
This final rule includes the following
revisions to part 1066:
• Clarification of regulatory
requirements.
• 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
• Insertion of detailed test
specifications for vehicles certified
under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
• Addition of provisions related to
testing with four-wheel drive
dynamometers, as described below.
• Correction of typographical errors.
We are finalizing 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 procedures will reduce lab-to-lab
and test-to-test variability.
The regulations being finalized will
provide alternative approaches to
sample PM onto different combinations
of filters. One option is to collect a
sample for phases 1 and 2 of the FTP on
a single filter, and collect a sample for
phases 2 and 3 of the FTP onto a second
filter. Another option is to collect a
sample for phases 1, 2, and 3 on a single
filter. A final option is to sample PM
emissions from two full UDDS cycles;
however manufacturers choosing this
option must still run a separate threebag test for evaporative emission testing.
We will continue to allow sampling
under the traditional FTP methodology
of a bag or filter per test phase (3 phases
in total) instead of these new methods.
We are also finalizing new PM sampling
and calculation methods as proposed.
We are revising 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).
We proposed that EPA may test
vehicles with the capability of all-wheel
drive operation with dynamometers
operating in either two-wheel drive or
four-wheel drive mode, regardless of the
type of dynamometer that the
manufacturer used for certifying the
vehicle. However, the final regulations
specify that we will conduct our testing
using the same drive mode as the
manufacturer. Vehicle manufacturers
commented that differences in test
results between a vehicle tested on a
two-wheel drive and a four-wheel drive
dynamometer might be due to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
differences in dynamometer
characteristics more than in vehicle
operation. Results of a governmentindustry study that tested vehicles on
both two-wheel and four-wheel drive
dynamometers indicated fuel economy
differences in the range of ±4%,
although the study was inconclusive
with respect to the cause of the
differences.421 Based on the results of
this study, we will continue to test
vehicles during confirmatory tests using
the manufacturer’s dynamometer
configuration for that vehicle, and that
test will be the official certification
result. We are, however, finalizing
revisions to 40 CFR 1066.410(g) to
clarify that we may also test the
manufacturer’s vehicle in a different
dynamometer configuration than what
was used for certification testing for
information-gathering purposes. If we
decide to perform this testing, we will
depend on the manufacturer to
cooperate in reconfiguring the test
vehicle for our testing. We will continue
to investigate the effects of four-wheel
drive dynamometers on emission results
and will not rule out possible future test
procedure changes that might require
certification of, or allow EPA to perform
confirmatory testing on, any vehicle on
a four-wheel drive dynamometer.
In their comments to this rulemaking,
vehicle manufacturers stressed the
importance to them that EPA use the
same test procedures that they used for
their certification testing when we
perform confirmatory testing on their
vehicles. Although the manufacturers
did not explain the reasons for their
comment, we presume that the
manufacturers’ concern relates to
situations where EPA test procedures
would lead to higher emission levels
than those resulting from a slightly
different test procedure used by a
manufacturer. If so, the concern is
misplaced. The purpose of EPA’s test
procedure flexibility provisions is not to
allow manufacturers to use test
procedures as a tool to enable
compliance with the standards—in
other words, to demonstrate compliance
for engines that in the absence of the
regulatory test procedure flexibility
would not meet the standard. Rather,
the purpose is to reduce the burden of
testing. We go through the rulemaking
process to establish the specified default
test procedures as a means of creating
an objective measure of compliance
with emission standards. Where we also
include alternative procedures, they
421 ‘‘Four Wheel Drive Dynamometer Meeting
with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and
the Global Automakers,’’ EPA Memo from Chris
Laroo, November 13, 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23537
generally are not intended to change the
conclusions from the rulemaking related
to the stringency of the emission
standards, or to lead to a different
conclusion regarding compliance
relative to the specified test procedures.
EPA has addressed this issue previously
for engine testing in § 1065.10(a), where
we note that we condition the allowance
to use alternate procedures on the
provision that they would ‘‘not affect
your ability to show that your engines
comply with the applicable emission
standards.’’ We note further that this
provision ‘‘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.’’
In a related context, § 1065.10(c)(1)
explains that the intent of the test
procedures is ‘‘to produce emission
measurements equivalent to those that
would result from measuring emissions
during in-use operation’’. This
provision, which also applies for
vehicle testing, envisions a process in
which both the manufacturer and EPA
can apply their engineering judgment to
improve the representativeness of the
testing. It would be appropriate for a
manufacturer to ask EPA to modify our
test procedures if the manufacturer
believed EPA’s test procedures would
lead to results that were
unrepresentative of in-use operation.
However, it would not be appropriate to
ask us to modify our test procedures to
make them less representative of in-use
operation.
The proposed rule included
discussion of SI units as part of
emission measurement procedures. At
this time we are not converting emission
standards to SI units. Note however that
like part 86, part 1066 relies extensively
on calculations involving physical
parameters to calculate emission rates
and perform various calibrations and
verifications. As already reflected in
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 will allow us to more
carefully and appropriately specify
precision values for various measured
and calculated parameters. This will
also simplify calculations, facilitate
review of results from different
laboratories, and help with
communications regarding any round
robin testing that might occur.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23538
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
As proposed, we will phase in the
part 1066 test procedures for certifying
all sizes of chassis-tested vehicles. All
aspects of part 1066 related to PM
testing must be met at the start of MY
2017 for vehicles certified to the PM
standards. All other aspects of part 1066
must be met starting with the
certification of MY 2022 vehicles.
Manufacturers may begin using the part
1066 procedures before these deadlines,
including step-wise changes to migrate
gradually to part 1066 procedures. The
regulations will require that good
engineering judgment be used during
this transition to ensure that the
effective stringency of the standards is
not changed. We recognize that
individual differences between part 86
and part 1066 test procedures may have
a slight upward or downward impact on
measured emissions, even though the
combined overall impact will be
negligible. Thus, during the migration,
care must be taken to avoid applying an
unbalanced mix of changes that could
bias emissions.
As described in Section IV.D, we are
finalizing new test fuel specifications
for E10 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 intend to revisit these
fuel specifications in the future in the
hope of adopting single, comprehensive
fuel specifications for natural gas and
liquefied petroleum gas that properly
represent in-use fuels for highway and
nonroad applications.
The proposal also included various
technical amendments to 40 CFR part
1065, which we are finalizing largely as
proposed. See the Summary and
Analysis of Comments for a discussion
of changes we have made in response to
comments. Of particular note is the
revision to subpart F specific to
preconditioning engines with exhaust
aftertreatment devices. We are also
adopting test procedures for unregulated
pollutants such as semi-volatile
compounds (PAHs, etc.). These
technical amendments, which have no
effect on the stringency of any emission
standards, 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 updating the regulatory
provisions that allow manufacturers to
omit testing for certification, in-use
testing, and selective enforcement
audits in certain circumstances.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
Sections IV.A.3, IV.B.6, and IV.G.3
describe how this applies for
demonstrating that vehicles meet the
Tier 3 PM standards. We are also
allowing 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 allowing
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 PM or formaldehyde
standards, we will not approve a
manufacturer’s request to omit
measurement of these emissions during
a selective enforcement audit.
The existing regulations have allowed
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 will comply with
the NMOG+NOX standards while
exceeding the formaldehyde standards.
We are therefore continuing this waiver
practice, such that manufacturers of Tier
3 vehicles do not need to submit
formaldehyde data for certification.
3. Miscellaneous Provisions
The following additional certification
and compliance provisions are included
in the final rule:
• The certification practice for
assigned deterioration factors that are
available for both small volume
manufacturers and small volume test
groups has matured significantly since it
was first adopted. We are revising
§ 86.1826 to more carefully reflect the
current practice. For example, the
existing regulations specified 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 revised regulation
accordingly spells out a process for EPA
to use available information to establish
assigned deterioration factors that can
be used for any number of
manufacturers and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
difficult to maintain a coordinated
reference to the current protocol. We are
addressing this by specifying that the
rounding protocol described in 40 CFR
1065.20(e) applies, unless specified
otherwise. We are not changing all the
references in part 86; rather, we are
defining ‘‘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 40 CFR part 85, subpart P.
The standards that apply to the
imported vehicles depend in part on the
vehicle’s model year. Therefore,
vehicles imported by ICIs in the future
will eventually be subject to the Tier 3
standards. Because all existing ICIs are
small businesses, the Tier 3 standards
generally do not apply until 2022 at the
earliest. In addition, the certification
practices for ICIs have matured
significantly since they were first
adopted. EPA is adopting two changes
to update how the regulations affect
ICIs. First, we are adopting a
requirement for 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 that ICIs
use such test equipment. In cases where
an ICI can demonstrate that they will
incur a substantial increase in
compliance costs, the regulations
include a provision allowing EPA to
approve requests on a case-by-case basis
to allow testing on other types of
dynamometers until the ICI is able to
use an electric dynamometer meeting
current specifications. Second, we are
adopting an allowance for ICIs to use a
specific set of reduced testing
procedures for up to 300 vehicles 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
procedures.422 Instead of running a full
set of emission tests, the reduced-testing
requirements allow ICIs to run an FTP
for exhaust emissions, a highway fuel
422 See 40 CFR 86.106–96(a) and Enclosure 2 to
EPA Guidance letter CCD–02–04, February 6, 2002.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
economy test, and the hot soak test and
the one-hour diurnal emission test that
applied prior to the evaporative
emission test procedures that involve
24-hour cycling of ambient
temperatures. We do not believe these
changes will have any significant cost
impacts on ICIs. Most ICIs have electric
dynamometers or can upgrade 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
would otherwise be required.
• We are adopting CARB’s onboard
diagnostic requirements for light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and heavyduty vehicles at or below 14,000 lbs
GVWR, as described in Section IV.C.5.d.
We currently allow for this as an option,
and almost all manufacturers do this
already to avoid certifying multiple
systems. Now that we are adopting
evaporative provisions that are largely
based on California’s regulatory
specifications and we are making efforts
to adopt a single, national regulatory
program, we believe this is an
appropriate step. These changes apply
starting in MY 2017 for vehicles subject
to Tier 3 standards. In the case of
alternative fuel conversions, we
continue to apply the requirements of
40 CFR 86.1806–05.
4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification
Program (IUVP) Requirements
The fuel on which an in-use vehicle
will be operated and tested is
considered an integral part of the
vehicle’s 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 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 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 the requirements of this final
rule, in-use fuel will transition from an
average sulfur level of 30 ppm to a new
average level of 10 ppm. These sulfur
requirements are average standards.
Thus, even after the transition to the 10
pm average sulfur level, vehicles may
still encounter sulfur levels during inuse operation that are 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 modifying
the IUVP testing process based in part
on what was allowed under the Tier 2
program. Tier 3 vehicles tested in the
IUVP are to 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 fails the NMOG+NOX
standard for the FTP or HFET cycle
during the initial round of testing,
manufacturers may perform a sulfur
cleanout procedure before repeating the
FTP or HFET, consisting of 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 EPA
approval. Following the sulfur cleanout
procedure, the manufacturer will prep
and soak the vehicles and then repeat
the FTP and HFET tests. Manufacturers
choosing to perform the sulfur cleanout
procedure would need to submit
evidence that the vehicle encountered
high sulfur levels in the fuel just prior
to emission testing. This would need to
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 had been operating on fuel
containing 15 ppm or higher sulfur
levels, only the emission results of the
tests following the cleanout procedure
would be used to determine emission
compliance and whether to enter the inuse compliance program (IUCP). We
intend to monitor the emission results
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23539
of in-use testing and sulfur-related test
failures to determine if further
reductions in the sulfur cap are required
to ensure that Tier 3 vehicles are
meeting the standards under in-use
driving conditions.
The changes to the IUVP testing
described above apply for light-duty
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and MDPVs.
These changes are not applicable to
heavy-duty vehicles tested in the IUVP
program. Also, as described in Section
IV.D, we are incorporating leak testing
into the IUVP test protocol.
V. Fuel Program
Under today’s Tier 3 program, we are
finalizing reductions in gasoline sulfur
levels nationwide. These standards will
help reduce current levels of sulfur that
contribute to ambient levels of air
pollution that endanger public health
and welfare. It will also 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.
A. Overview
1. Background
a. History of Gasoline 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,
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 423 and we
are taking further action with today’s
Tier 3 Program.
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
423 67
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
28APR2
23540
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
under the Tier 2 program 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 annual average and 80
per-gallon cap) was required beginning
in 2006. The Tier 2 program was fully
implemented on January 1, 2011 (the
ultra-low sulfur diesel program allowed
for some extensions of the Tier 2
gasoline program flexibility provisions).
The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program also
included an averaging, banking, and
trading (ABT) program that allowed
companies to generate credits for
implementing the required changes
earlier than their required start date, and
allowed ongoing flexibility to meet the
30 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
The authority under which we are
lowering the existing gasoline sulfur
standards comes from 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 because
emission products of gasoline with
current levels of sulfur will impair to a
significant degree the emissions control
device or systems on the vehicles
subject to today’s final Tier 3 standards.
For more on our legal authority to set
gasoline sulfur standards, refer to
Section V.M.
As explained in Section IV.A, robust
data from many sources show that
gasoline sulfur at current levels (i.e.,
around 30 ppm on average) continues to
degrade vehicle catalytic converter
performance during normal operation.
NOX emissions are the most
significantly affected by this
degradation. The NMOG+NOX vehicle
emission standards, representing an 80
percent reduction from current Tier 2
standards, will not be possible without
the gasoline sulfur controls we are
finalizing today. Today’s 10 ppm sulfur
standard should enable vehicle
manufacturers to certify their entire
product line of vehicles to the final Tier
3 fleet average standards. Tier 3 vehicles
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
must achieve essentially zero warmedup NOX emissions to comply and must
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. Based on testing of these
vehicles, as shown in Section IV.A,
reducing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm
should enable these vehicles to
maintain their emission performance inuse over their useful life. Lowering
gasoline sulfur will also help reduce
emissions of pollutants that endanger
public health and welfare from vehicles
already on the road today. As also
discussed above in Section IV.A, we
have tested a wide range of 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 low sulfur
gasoline. As also explained in more
detail in Section III.B, lowering average
gasoline sulfur from 30 to 10 ppm will
result in approximately 260,000 less
tons of NOX and 50,000 less tons of VOC
almost immediately as the Tier 3
gasoline sulfur standards take effect.
2. Summary of Final Tier 3 Fuel
Program Standards
The major elements of the fuel
program being finalized today are
summarized below. Please refer to
sections V.B through V.J for more
discussion on each of the elements
summarized here.
a. Annual Average Sulfur Standard
Under today’s final Tier 3 fuel
program, gasoline and any ethanolgasoline blend will be required to have
a sulfur level of 10 ppm or less on an
annual average basis beginning January
1, 2017. The 10 ppm average will apply
to a refiner or importer’s annual
gasoline production. Similar to the Tier
2 gasoline program, the Tier 3 program
applies to gasoline in the United States
and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands, excluding
California. Please see Section V.B for a
more detailed discussion of the annual
average sulfur standard.
b. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
Refiners and importers will continue
to be subject to refinery gate per-gallon
sulfur caps of 80 ppm. Similarly,
gasoline downstream of the refinery gate
(e.g., at terminals, retail stations, etc.)
will continue to be subject to a 95 ppm
per-gallon sulfur cap. We are also
committing to continue to evaluate if
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reductions in the per-gallon sulfur caps
are warranted.
A more detailed discussion on our
decision to continue the current 80 and
95 ppm per-gallon sulfur caps, and
elements of an in-use study, can be
found below in Section V.C.
c. Small Refiner and Small Volume
Refinery Provisions
As described in further detail in
Section V.E.1, approved gasoline small
refiners and small volume refineries
must produce gasoline meeting the 10
ppm annual average sulfur standard
beginning January 1, 2020. Small
refiners and small volume refineries
who meet the 10 ppm sulfur standard
prior to this date may generate credits
for early Tier 3 program compliance.
d. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
(ABT) Program
Section V.D discusses our averaging,
banking, and trading (ABT) program.
Refiners and importers may continue to
generate credits for reductions in their
gasoline sulfur levels below the current
(Tier 2) 30 ppm average gasoline sulfur
standard through December 31, 2016;
and for reductions below the new 10
ppm average standard beginning
January 1, 2017. These credits can be
used for compliance with either the Tier
2 standard through 2016 or the Tier 3
standard beginning in 2017. The Tier 3
ABT program will have similar credit
use provisions as the Tier 2 ABT
program. These provisions include:
Five-year credit life from the year of
generation; two-trade limit for intercompany trading; and the ability to use
credits internally, bank for future use, or
trade to other refiners/importers.
Although credits generated prior to
January 1, 2017 will be valid for five
years or until December 31, 2019,
whichever is earlier.
e. Gasoline Additive Cap
As discussed further in Section V.C.,
manufacturers of gasoline additives that
are used downstream of the refinery at
less than 1.0 volume percent will be
required to limit the sulfur contribution
to the finished gasoline from the use of
the additive to less than 3 ppm when
the additive is used at the maximum
recommended treatment rate. For each
batch of additive produced, the
manufacturer must retain sulfur test
records for 5 years, and must make these
records available to EPA upon request.
Parties that introduce additives to
gasoline at over 1.0 volume percent will
be required to satisfy all of the
obligations of a refiner and fuel
manufacturer, including demonstration
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
that the finished blend meets the
applicable sulfur specification.
f. Requirements for Denatured Fuel
Ethanol and Other Gasoline Oxygenates
Today’s rule finalizes a 10 ppm sulfur
cap for denatured fuel ethanol (DFE).
While DFE is the predominant gasoline
oxygenate currently in use, these
standards also apply to other gasoline
oxygenates. Today’s rule finalizes a 3.0
volume percent limit on ethanol
denaturant concentration. We are
adopting the current ASTM
International specifications that only
natural gasoline, gasoline blendstocks,
or gasoline may be used as denaturants
for DFE.424 As discussed in the
Summary and Analysis of Comments,
we believe it is not necessary to finalize
the proposed additional limits on the
potential denaturants that may be used
at this time. We are also finalizing
regulatory text to state that DFE must be
composed solely of carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, and sulfur. Testing,
recordkeeping, and reporting obligations
are also being finalized to implement
these new standards as discussed in
Section V.G. Sulfur testing using
approved analytical methods or
volumetric blending records and
denaturant product transfer documents
(PTDs) can be used by manufacturers/
importers of DFE in demonstrating
compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur cap
for DFE finalized today.
g. Fuel Used in Flexible Fuel Vehicles
As discussed in Section V.H., we are
deferring finalizing additional fuel
quality requirements for E16–50 and
E51–83 at this time. We continue to
believe in the importance of
implementing additional fuel quality
standards for higher-level ethanol
blends and will continue to work with
stakeholders in their development
following the publication of this final
rule.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
h. Standards for Butane and Pentane
As discussed further in Section V.I,
we are finalizing a 10 ppm sulfur cap for
butane blended into gasoline effective
January 1, 2017. This is consistent with
the Tier 3 10 ppm refinery average
sulfur specification finalized today. In
addition, as discussed below in Section
VI.A.4, we are also finalizing provisions
to allow pentane to be blended into
gasoline downstream of the refinery.
These provisions are similar to the
existing provisions for butane blending.
This allowance will become effective
424 ASTM D4806–13a, ‘‘Standard Specification for
Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline
for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel’’.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
June 27, 2014; a 30 ppm sulfur cap will
apply to pentane blended into gasoline
(consistent with the existing sulfur cap
for butane under the Tier 2 program)
until December 31, 2016, after which a
10 ppm sulfur cap will apply.
i. CNG/LPG
As discussed below in Section V.J.,
we are deferring establishing in-use
sulfur requirements for compressed
natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane
gas (LPG) to provide additional time to
work with stakeholders to collect data
on current CNG/LPG sulfur content; to
determine whether additional control of
in-use CNG/LPG sulfur content is
needed; and to evaluate the feasibility
and costs associated with potential
additional sulfur controls.
B. Annual Average Sulfur Standard
Under today’s final Tier 3 fuel
program, gasoline and any ethanolgasoline blend will be required to have
a sulfur level of 10 ppm or less on an
annual average basis beginning January
1, 2017. The 10 ppm average will apply
to a refiner or importer’s annual
gasoline production. Similar to the Tier
2 gasoline program, the Tier 3 program
applies to gasoline in the United States
and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands, excluding
California. We are finalizing the 10 ppm
average sulfur standard both to enable
the new vehicle fleet to meet the Tier 3
vehicle standards being finalized today
pursuant to CAA section 211(c)(1)(B),
and to reduce emissions from the
existing in-use vehicle fleet that
endanger public health and welfare
pursuant to section 211(c)(1)(A) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
We received numerous comments
both in support of and against the
proposed 10 ppm annual average sulfur
standard. Commenters opposing the
standard believe that 10 ppm is too low
and/or is not needed to enable Tier 3
vehicle technologies. Some commenters
suggested that EPA should consider
setting a less stringent sulfur standard
than the proposed 10 ppm annual
average (detailed information regarding
the comments can be found in the
Summary and Analysis of Comments
document, which is located in the
docket for this rulemaking). We believe
that a 10 ppm annual average standard
will help reduce current levels of sulfur
that contribute to ambient levels of air
pollution that endanger public health
and welfare. It will also 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
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23541
prevention of the substantial adverse
effects of sulfur levels on the
performance of vehicle emissions
control systems. This level is also
feasible, and is the level that
appropriately balances costs with the
emission reductions that it provides and
enables.
As discussed in Section IV.A.6., and
further in Chapter 5 of the RIA, we
believe that a standard of 10 ppm is
appropriate, and when combined with
the advances in emissions control
technologies will be sufficient to meet
the Tier 3 emissions standards. The
feasibility of the 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX
fleet average depends on exhaust
catalyst systems that require gasoline
with average sulfur levels of 10 ppm or
less. Further, annual average sulfur
levels greater than 10 ppm would
significantly impair the emission
control technology that we expect will
be used to meet the Tier 3 standards and
to ensure in-use compliance over a
vehicle’s useful life. This is particularly
a concern for some larger vehicles that
will need to reduce NOX to near-zero
levels, due to greater difficulty in
reducing cold-start NMOG, in order to
meet a combined NMOG+NOX standard.
As discussed in Section IV.A.6,
increasing gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm
to 20 ppm or 30 ppm would make it
impossible for vehicle manufacturers to
meet the Tier 3 standards. Achieving
Tier 3 standards would require
offsetting the resultant higher emissions
but EPA is not aware of existing
technology or developing technology
that could address these higher
emissions when taking into
consideration the entire vehicle fleet.
Increasing gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm
to 20 ppm or 30 ppm would also forego
the very large immediate reductions
from the existing fleet.
We also do not believe a sulfur
standard lower than 10 ppm is
necessary to enable vehicles to meet the
Tier 3 standards. As also discussed in
Section IV.A, reducing sulfur below 10
ppm would further reduce vehicle
emissions and allow the Tier 3 vehicle
standards to be achieved more easily.
However, we believe that a 10 ppm
average standard is sufficient to allow
vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards.
Furthermore, as discussed below, there
are significant challenges associated
with reducing sulfur below 10 ppm.
As explained in Section IV.A, 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23542
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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.425
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.
An annual average sulfur level of 10
ppm will achieve very large immediate
reductions from the existing fleet, as
discussed in Sections III and IV.
Because any sulfur in gasoline will
continue to impair vehicle catalyst
performance, reducing sulfur levels to
zero would maximize vehicle emission
reductions. However, there are two
reasons why we believe a 10 ppm
average sulfur standard is sufficient and
further reductions (e.g., 10 ppm cap or
5 ppm average) are not necessary at this
time. First, our analysis shows that a 10
ppm annual average is sufficient to
enable vehicles to reach the Tier 3
standards. Consequently, while
reducing sulfur levels further would
continue to yield reductions from the
in-use fleet, they would not be
necessary to enable the new Tier 3
vehicle standards to be met. Second,
while sulfur levels would continue to
reduce emissions from the existing fleet,
reducing sulfur further below 10 ppm
becomes increasingly difficult and
costly. FCC naphtha is very rich in high425 Together, the streams from the reformer and
isomerization units account for approximately onethird of gasoline.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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. Furthermore, 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. In addition, 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 them into a
widely varying product slate to match
available markets. Those processing
heavier, sour crudes may have a more
challenging time reducing gasoline
sulfur under the Tier 3 program. Also,
those with higher sulfur levels in other
refinery streams may 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.
Therefore, 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 RIA. As a result, with 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 lower,
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 at levels much below 10
ppm.
As discussed further in Chapter 5 of
the RIA, we assessed the potential costs
of an annual average standard lower
than 10 ppm (e.g., 5 ppm). Our analysis
shows that sulfur control costs for
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
refineries to meet a standard below 10
ppm could be on the order of two times
more costly per ppm-gallon of gasoline
sulfur reduced. In addition, a standard
below 10 ppm could be cost-prohibitive
for more challenged refineries. Further,
such a standard would also introduce
additional costs to address the
contribution to gasoline sulfur from
gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol
denaturants, and contamination in the
distribution system.
Therefore, we believe that the 10 ppm
annual average standard will help
reduce current levels of sulfur that
contribute to ambient levels of air
pollution that endanger public health
and welfare. It will also help prevent
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 on the performance of
vehicle emissions control systems. The
level is also feasible (especially
considering its associated ABT
provisions, described in Section V.D),
and is the point which appropriately
balances costs with the emission
reductions that it provides and enables.
C. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
1. Standards
The final Tier 3 program is composed
of a 10 ppm refinery annual average
sulfur standard (discussed above in
Section V.B) with an 80 ppm per-gallon
cap at the refinery gate and a 95 ppm
per-gallon cap downstream; these pergallon caps currently exist under the
Tier 2 program. We believe this is the
most prudent approach for lowering inuse 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. The caps also limit
downstream sulfur contamination and
enable the enforcement of the gasoline
sulfur standard in-use. Our 10 ppm
average standard with higher per-gallon
caps compares to a 10 ppm cap standard
in much of Europe, Japan, and Korea. In
addition to the gasoline standards we
are finalizing today, we are also
finalizing caps on the sulfur content of
gasoline additives, to limit their
contribution to the overall in-use
gasoline sulfur level.
a. What We Proposed
We proposed two options for the pergallon sulfur caps—maintaining the Tier
2 80 ppm refinery gate sulfur and 95
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
ppm downstream sulfur caps and,
beginning January 1, 2020, lowering to
50 ppm refinery gate and 65 ppm
downstream caps. The 50 ppm refinery
gate cap was proposed to take effect on
January 1, 2020, as this is the date when
the small refiner, small volume refinery,
and early credit use provisions would
expire; and also to avoid forcing
additional refinery investments during
the early credit usage period. We also
requested comment on lowering the
caps to 20 ppm at the refinery gate and
25 ppm downstream.
We received comments on both of the
proposed per-gallon cap options of 80/
95 ppm and 50/65 ppm, as well as
comments on finalizing lower caps of
20/25 ppm and a 20 ppm overall cap.
Comments supporting lower caps noted
potential environmental benefits, greater
certainty that vehicles would see lower
and more uniform gasoline sulfur levels,
and enabling new vehicle technologies
that require very low sulfur levels.
Comments in support of maintaining the
current Tier 2 caps cited concerns on
cost, flexibility for turnarounds/
unplanned shut downs (due to refinery
fire, natural disaster, etc.), and potential
impacts on gasoline supply and pricing.
Detailed information regarding the
comments we received on the per-gallon
sulfur caps is provided in the Summary
and Analysis of Comments document,
which is available in the rulemaking
record.
b. Final Refinery Gate Sulfur Cap
In today’s action, we are retaining the
80 ppm refinery gate cap. The refinery
gate cap provides flexibility for batch-tobatch variability that naturally occurs at
a refinery due to the varying types of
crude that refineries process, variations
in unit operations, and variations in
product mix. It further provides for
flexibility during unit turnarounds, and
unplanned upsets (e.g., refinery fires,
natural disasters, etc.), to avoid a
complete refinery shutdown. A lower
cap could create situations where
refiners would need to store more offspec gasoline for future processing.
However, if a refinery does not have
adequate tankage for storing this
product, and/or if its processing units
are not large enough to ‘‘catch up’’ in
refining off-spec product, it could result
in significant impacts to fuel pricing or
supply. For a refiner that produces
multiple products, any potential supply
impacts could also impact other fuel
markets (e.g., diesel, jet fuel, etc.).
Additionally, the refinery gate cap is a
‘‘hard’’ limit—a refinery’s actual
production has to be well below this
limit to account for in-use testing
tolerances, safety margins, and any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
additives that a refiner may need to add
prior to the fuel leaving the refinery. An
80 ppm refinery gate cap will provide
refiners needed flexibility, and more
certainty that they will be able to
continue producing and distributing at
least some gasoline during turnarounds/
upsets to avoid a total shutdown. It will
further provide more certainty for
transmix processors, additive
manufacturers and other downstream
parties.
As described below in Section VII, we
believe that most refineries would not
have significant costs as a result of the
Tier 3 program because they will be able
to meet the 10 ppm average sulfur
standard largely through revamps and
operational changes at their facilities,
rather than installing grassroots units.
Lowering to a cap of 50 ppm would
directionally increase the costs of the
Tier 3 program. The American
Petroleum Institute (API) provided a
detailed study with their comments 426
quantifying the additional costs
associated with successively more
stringent per-gallon caps. While we do
not agree with the study’s overall cost
analysis, we do agree that with a
refinery gate cap of 50 ppm, a number
of refiners would incur higher capital
costs due to the decreased ability to
handle off-spec product with a lower
refinery gate cap. As refiners must
ensure that they can continue to
produce saleable product and meet
demand in the event of an upset or an
off-spec batch of fuel, the need for
installation of additional tankage and/or
increased refinery processing capability
would be greater with a 50 ppm refinery
gate cap. While at the time of the
proposal we believed that a cap of 50
ppm would have little cost impact, our
more recent analysis shows that a 50
ppm cap would increase the cost of the
Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards by
approximately 10 percent (see RIA
Chapter 5.2.2.4). At the same time, the
more stringent cap with its associated
increase in cost would be unlikely to
provide significant additional emission
benefits nationwide. As discussed
previously in Sections III and IV above,
the emissions benefits associated with
the Tier 3 program are mainly driven by
the reduction in the average sulfur
content of gasoline from 30 to 10 ppm,
since vehicle emissions are proportional
to the sulfur content of the fuel. Changes
in the cap would not affect this. In the
context of the final ABT provisions, a
426 ‘‘Economic and Supply Impacts of a Reduced
Cap on Gasoline Sulfur Content; Prepared for the
American Petroleum Institute’’; Turner, Mason &
Company. Document number: EPA–HQ–OAR–
2011–0135–4285; API–AFPM Attachment 13.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23543
higher cap does allow for increases in
emissions on a temporal basis as one
batch of fuel is allowed to have higher
sulfur levels. However, this is then
offset by reductions in emissions from
batches of fuel that are then required to
be below the 10 ppm average standard.
Similarly, the final ABT provisions
allow for the possibility that the fuel
from different refineries will cause
varying emission reductions as one
refinery’s higher average sulfur levels
would lead to less emission reductions
in-use. However, this is then offset by
greater reductions in emissions due to
the fuel produced by refineries with
sulfur levels below the average
standard.
Based on our cost analysis, which is
discussed below in Section VII.B., we
project nearly 40% of the gasoline pool
would be at 5 ppm, about 45% at 10
ppm and the remaining approximately
15% at levels higher than 10 ppm. The
sulfur level for this 15% in our analysis
ranges from 11 ppm all the way up to
70 ppm. However, as discussed in
Section VII.B., these high sulfur levels
are more a function of the limitations of
our analysis where we could only model
these refineries as remaining at their
current Tier 2 sulfur levels. We
anticipate that in most (if not all) cases
refineries will make operational changes
and/or 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 (regardless of the
cap), means that we anticipate most
refineries, including those using credits,
will still average less than 20 or 30 ppm
in their physical gasoline production.
Nevertheless, the final ABT program
does allow for the possibility (regardless
of the cap) that were this higher sulfur
fuel to be concentrated in any certain
geographical area, it would not receive
the full emission reductions from the
Tier 3 program. We have considered the
potential for areas to consistently
receive fuel that might be
predominantly higher than the 10 ppm
average. Because refineries generating
credits and using credits are
interspersed across the country, and
because most areas receive a
considerable portion of their fuel by
pipeline, barge, rail, or truck from
refineries in other areas, we expect the
variation in average sulfur levels across
the country to be too limited to warrant
lowering the per-gallon cap to 50 ppm.
Given the stringency of the 10 ppm
average standard, we predict that in-use
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23544
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
sulfur levels will generally be well
below 50 ppm.
Further reductions in the refinery gate
cap are also not needed to enable the
vehicle emissions standards, as the
vehicle standards are a function of the
10 ppm annual average sulfur standard.
While vehicle manufacturers have
expressed concerns about the potential
impacts on emissions performance if
individual vehicles are exposed to
gasoline above 10 ppm due to higher
per-gallon caps and/or credit usage,427
we believe that vehicles will see sulfur
levels closer to the 10 ppm average
rather than the 80 ppm cap due to the
fact that the 10 ppm average will drive
reductions in gasoline sulfur levels.
Thus, we believe it is prudent at this
time to retain an 80 ppm refinery gate
cap. However, we are committing to
monitor and further evaluate in-use
sulfur levels and their impact on vehicle
emissions. If it is warranted, we will
reassess the sulfur cap level and the
need for potential future regulatory
action. Such ongoing evaluation will
include analyses of: In-use fuel surveys;
batch data that refineries are required to
submit; and the sulfur credit market. It
will also include the evaluation of any
issues or concerns that might arise
during implementation of the program.
Finally, we will also carry out an
ongoing evaluation of data submitted by
the vehicle manufacturers on the
performance of their Tier 3 vehicles inuse.
c. Downstream Sulfur Cap
With regard to the downstream sulfur
cap, we believe that maintaining a 15
ppm differential between the refinery
gate sulfur cap and the downstream
sulfur cap will provide pipeline
operators, transmix processors, and
gasoline additive users the same
flexibility as was provided under the
Tier 2 program. As was the case under
the Tier 2 program, allowing a 15 ppm
differential is needed to ensure adequate
flexibility in accommodating gasoline
produced from transmix, instances of
contamination during distribution, and
for the use of necessary (sulfurcontaining) additives. In rare
circumstances when the sulfur
contribution from all these sources are
coincidently at their maximum levels, a
very limited number of batches of
gasoline at the 95 ppm downstream
sulfur cap may be present in the
distribution system. However, we
expect that this will not have a
substantial impact on the average sulfur
427 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2011,
October 6). Letter to EPA Administrator, Lisa
Jackson.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
content of in-use gasoline. Comments
received on this issue were generally in
support of maintaining the 15 ppm
delta.
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 °F.428 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.
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.429
Transmix processors do not handle
sufficient volumes to support the
installation of currently available
desulfurization units.430
d. Accounting for Ethanol Blending in
the Determination of Compliance With
Gasoline Sulfur Requirements
In demonstrating compliance with the
gasoline sulfur standards finalized
today, gasoline refiners and importers
may adjust the sulfur levels in the
gasoline and blendstocks for oxygenate
blending (BOBs) that they produce/
import to account for the downstream
addition of ethanol. We proposed that
the sulfur content of denatured fuel
ethanol (DFE) used for downstream
blending would be assumed to be 10
ppm in making such demonstrations of
compliance. Refiners commented that
refiners and importers should be
allowed to either use the actual sulfur
value of the DFE or conduct laboratory
428 The requirements for transmix blenders are
contained in 40 CFR 80.84(d). 437 °F is the
maximum endpoint allowed for gasoline in ASTM
D4814.
429 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.
430 Transmix processors produce ∼0.1 percent of
the gasoline consumed in the U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
hand blends of a representative sample
of DFE to determine the effect on the
sulfur content of the blended fuel from
the addition of DFE. We agree that
refiners and importers should be
allowed to use the actual sulfur content
of DFE when a sulfur test result is
available and when the refiner can
demonstrate that the test result was
derived from a representative sample of
the DFE that was blended with the
gasoline or BOB. The sulfur content of
in-use DFE will typically be lower than
the 10 ppm sulfur cap finalized today
for DFE. We assumed that DFE would
have an average sulfur content of 5 ppm
in conducting the refinery analysis to
support this rule. Therefore, today’s
final rule requires that in determining
their compliance with today’s sulfur
standards, refiners and importers must
either use the actual sulfur content of
the DFE established through testing of
the DFE actually blended or assume a 5
ppm sulfur content for the DFE added
downstream. To prevent potential bias,
a refiner or importer must choose to use
only one method during each annual
compliance period.
2. Requirements for Gasoline Additives
Today’s action finalizes the
requirement that manufacturers of
gasoline additives 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 no more
than 3 ppm when the additive is used
at the maximum recommended
treatment rate. The additive
manufacturer will be required to
maintain records of its additive
production quality control activities
which demonstrate that the sulfur
content of additive production batches
is such that when the additive is used
at its maximum recommended treatment
rate it will add no more than 3 ppm to
sulfur content of the finished gasoline.
We received comments in support of
our proposed requirements (these
comments can be found in the docket to
this rulemaking, and are summarized in
the Summary and Analysis of
Comments document, which is also
located in the docket). An
environmental organization commented
that the sulfur contribution from
additives can have a material effect on
emissions performance given the level
of vehicle emissions control that is
being finalized today. We also received
comments from gasoline additive
manufactures were in favor of the
proposed controls.
The requirements finalized today are
designed to prevent the potential
dumping of high sulfur materials into
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
gasoline under the guise of the addition
of gasoline additives. We continue to
believe 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 (with 3
ppm being the extreme). Normal
additive production quality control
practices already have had to consider
the sulfur contribution of the additive to
finished gasoline as a result of the Tier
2 gasoline sulfur requirements. The
maximum recommended treatment rate
is already stated on product transfer
document or packaging for the additive.
Additive manufacturers are to retain
production quality control records for 5
years and make these available to EPA
upon request. Therefore, the
requirements finalized today will not
constrain the use of genuine gasoline
additives or result in significant
additional costs to gasoline additive
manufacturers. Parties that introduce
additives to gasoline at over 1.0 volume
percent are required to satisfy all of the
obligations of a refiner and fuel
manufacturer including demonstration
that the finished blend meets the
applicable sulfur specification.
We also received comments from an
environmental organization requesting
that EPA promulgate limits on the
combined sulfur contribution for all
additives blended into a batch of
gasoline in addition to controlling the
sulfur contribution from individual
additives. We believe that such
additional controls are not necessary,
would add an unwarranted additional
compliance burden, and could interfere
with the use of necessary downstream
additives. Certain additives that provide
critical fuel performance characteristics
(e.g., corrosion control, demulsifiers)
contain sulfur-containing compounds as
an essential functional component.
Such additives are used to remedy
specific instances of gasoline quality
problems, and their treatment rate is
governed by the desire to limit the
added cost from their use.
refiners and importers to continue to
generate credits for overcompliance
with the current Tier 2 30 ppm average
gasoline sulfur standard through 2016,
and the new 10 ppm average standard
beginning in 2017. (Small refiners and
small volume refineries have a January
1, 2020 compliance date, as described
below.) These credits can be used for
compliance with either the Tier 2
standard through 2016 or the Tier 3
standard beginning in 2017. Credits can
also be banked for future use or
transferred to other refineries for
compliance with the average sulfur
standard. In addition, we are allowing
refiners and importers to also use any
valid credits banked from 2012 and
2013 under the Tier 2 program toward
compliance with either the Tier 2 or
Tier 3 sulfur programs. We believe these
provisions will provide a seamless
transition from Tier 2 to the Tier 3
program.
D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
Program
In today’s rule, we are finalizing an
ABT program that will reduce the
compliance costs and promote the
feasibility of the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur
program, because it will allow refiners
and importers to choose the most
economical compliance strategy (i.e.,
investment in technology, credits, or
both) to meet the 10 ppm average sulfur
standard. In response to comments
received on our proposal, we have
simplified and added flexibility to the
ABT program. The ABT program allows
2. ABT Modeling
For the proposed rule, we modeled
the effects of an ABT program on
refinery compliance. Our modeling
determined the lowest cost approach on
a refinery-by-refinery basis under two
scenarios: The first, 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.
In developing today’s final program,
we also analyzed the Tier 2 credit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
1. How will the ABT program assist
with compliance?
The Tier 3 ABT program allows
refiners and importers the flexibility to:
(1) Have varying gasoline sulfur levels
for their batches of fuel as long as they
meet the 10 ppm average over the
course of the year; (2) use credits
generated at one of its refineries to offset
higher sulfur gasoline produced at
another of its refineries; (3) bank
generated credits for future use; and (4)
participate in trading (via buying and/or
selling) of credits from another refiner to
help lower costs. The ABT program
allows for the generation of credits by
refiners and importers for overcompliance with the 10 ppm sulfur
standard (on a refinery/facility basis),
and for the transfer of these credits to
other refiners (for use a refinery) to
reduce or eliminate their need to make
capital investments to meet the 10 ppm
standard. The ABT program will
provide refiners and importers with
multiple approaches to compliance, and
each can choose the approach that best
minimizes their costs.
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23545
market and found that, currently, Tier 2
sulfur credits are both transferred
within companies (intra-company) and
traded between companies (intercompany). As discussed in Chapter 4.3
of the RIA, in 2012 approximately 56%
of the Tier 2 credit transactions were
inter-company trades. The remaining
44% were intra-company trades. This
analysis shows that there is a
functioning, well-established gasoline
sulfur credit trading market. There does
not appear to be any hindrance to credit
trading currently or in the future. We
anticipate that a significant number of
refineries will take advantage of the
opportunity to generate or use credits,
thus lowering their compliance burden
for the Tier 3 program. For a more
complete discussion of our analysis of
credit trading and the associated cost
impacts of the ABT program, refer to
Chapter 4.3 of the RIA.
3. Eligibility
Consistent with our proposal, under
today’s final program, sulfur credits may
be generated by both U.S. refiners and
importers of gasoline into the U.S. only
for gasoline that is subject to the sulfur
requirements as described in the
regulations at § 80.1603. This excludes
gasoline produced or imported for use
in California (‘‘California gasoline’’) and
gasoline designated for export, but
includes gasoline produced by
California refineries for use outside the
state. We sought comment in the
proposed rule on whether or not to
include California. All comments
received on this issue were against the
inclusion of such gasoline in the ABT
program, largely because it would cause
additional burden but provide no
appreciable credits to the market to
justify the additional compliance
burden (such as batch reporting). We
agree with these comments, and are
finalizing the provision that California
gasoline and gasoline for export will not
be included in the ABT program. In
order to exclude exported gasoline and
California gasoline, refiners must keep
records to demonstrate that the
excluded gasoline was designated for
export or as California gasoline, and was
actually exported or used in California.
While under existing fuel programs
(e.g., MSAT2), we precluded importers
from generating ‘‘early’’ credits (credits
generated before a program start date),
we are allowing importers to generate
early credits in the Tier 3 ABT program,
consistent with our proposal. Importers
were previously precluded from
generating early credits because they
generally did not need additional lead
time to comply with our fuel standards
(as they most likely would not be
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
23546
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
investing in new refining technologies)
and we also thought it would be
difficult for them to establish
representative baselines from which
early credits could be generated.
However, early credit baselines are not
a part of the Tier 3 program, as
discussed above. In addition,
commenters noted that while importers
may not necessarily have to take actions
to desulfurize fuel like domestic refiners
do, these parties may have to pay
premiums on obtaining lower sulfur
fuel, thus their efforts to provide lower
sulfur fuel should also be able to
generate early credits. Thus, we are
finalizing provisions allowing importers
to generate early credits for sending
over-compliant gasoline to the United
States prior to January 1, 2017.
We proposed to limit credit
generation to refiners and importers.
Under the Tier 2 gasoline program, we
allow refiners who produce gasoline by
combining blendstocks together or
adding blendstocks to previously
certified gasoline (refiner-blenders) to
participate in the in the sulfur ABT
program, but do not allow butane
blenders who comply with the reduced
sampling, testing, and reporting
requirements to participate in the sulfur
ABT program.431 We are extending
these provisions to butane and pentane
blenders under the Tier 3 program.432
Under today’s rule, any refiner who uses
the reduced sampling, testing, and
reporting provisions for blending butane
or pentane into gasoline will not be
allowed to generate credits. Refinerblenders who comply with the full suite
of sampling, testing, and reporting
requirements will, however, be allowed
to generate credits.
We received several comments from
ethanol producers and Growth Energy
(representing ethanol producers), who
commented that DFE should be subject
to an annual average sulfur standard
and that ethanol producers should be
able to participate in the ABT program
that is available to refiners and
importers of gasoline. These
commenters stated that preventing them
from participating in the ABT program
would provide refiners with pathways
to allow delayed adoption of cleaner
fuel standards at their expense. Some
ethanol producers commented that they
should be allowed to participate in the
ABT program as a means of offsetting
the additional cost of the proposed perbatch sulfur testing and reporting
requirements. We also received
431 The provisions for butane blenders are located
in 40 CFR 80.82.
432 See Section V.I. for a discussion of the
requirements for pentane blenders.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
comments from refiners stating that
credit generation should be permitted
only for refiners and importers.
As in existing EPA fuel programs, we
continue to believe that it is not
appropriate expand the ABT provisions
to cover ethanol producers and
oxygenate blenders for several reasons.
First, expanding the ABT program
beyond refiners and importers could
greatly increase the number of parties
participating thereby potentially
complicating EPA compliance assurance
activities while having little overall
impact on the sulfur credit pool.
Second, the current ABT program under
the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program,
which is limited to gasoline refiners and
importers, has functioned effectively
with few compliance irregularities.
Third, experience with the unleaded
gasoline program suggests widespread
abuse and fraud when credits have been
allowed to be generated or sold by
parties other than refiners or importers
subject to the regulations. Fourth, it
would require a considerably more
complicated compliance structure,
including the application of all refiner
responsibilities to ethanol producers
and blenders. Fifth, there is no need for
DFE producers to generate credits in
order to recoup the value for any lower
sulfur content of their product. The
value of any lower sulfur content will be
reflected in the market price of DFE,
similar to the octane value to refiners.
Sixth, the sulfur ABT provisions were
included to ease the burden of
compliance for refiners who have to
make capital changes to their facilities
to meet today’s more stringent sulfur
standards. In addition to reducing the
cost of today’s gasoline sulfur program,
the ABT provisions allow for an earlier
effective date of the sulfur standards
than would otherwise be possible. Such
considerations are not applicable to
ethanol producers since capital
expenditures for desulfurization
equipment or other equipment will not
be needed at their facilities to comply
with the sulfur standards finalized
today.433 Finally, overcompliance with
the per-gallon sulfur cap for DFE is not
a valid basis for credit generation. We
expect that in all cases, the DFE sulfur
level will be below the cap. To allow
credit generation for these parties, we
would need to set an additional annual
average sulfur standard for DFE at some
level below 10 ppm and allow credits to
be generated for overcompliance with
that standard. Accordingly, we do not
believe it is appropriate to allow ethanol
producers or blenders to generate sulfur
433 The requirements for ethanol producers
finalized today are discussed in Section V.G.4.
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
credits under the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur
program, and as such, we are not
finalizing such a provision. The Tier 3
rule prohibits any person downstream
of the refinery or importer that
produced or imported gasoline, CBOB,
or RBOB who adds oxygenate to such
product from including the volume and
sulfur content of the oxygenate in any
compliance calculations for credit
generation.
4. Credit Generation and Use
Under the Tier 3 ABT program, the
credit generation provisions are nearly
the same as those under the Tier 2
program. In essence, the Tier 2 program
simply continues with a lower standard
below which credits are generated.
Refiners and importers are allowed to
average within and across companies to
meet the standard in the most costeffective manner possible, including
generating and using credits. For Tier 3,
refiners and importers can generate
credits for overcomplying with the 10
ppm standard on a volume-weighted
annual average basis beginning January
1, 2017. Credit generation periods
remain 12 months long and continue to
be synchronized with annual
compliance demonstration periods. The
final Tier 3 ABT program provisions for
approved small refiners and small
volume refineries are discussed below
in Section V.D.6.
Consistent with our proposal, and to
encourage early gasoline desulfurization
and give the refining industry flexibility
to stagger their investments over time,
we are also finalizing provisions to
allow refiners and importers to generate
credits prior to January 1, 2017 (i.e.,
early credits).
We proposed an early credit program
for overcompliance with the current
Tier 2 30 ppm gasoline sulfur standard
from January 1, 2014 through December
31, 2016. These early credits were
proposed to have a credit life of three
years, and could be used through
December 31, 2019. We also proposed
that refiners and importers who
generated early credits would then have
to designate them at the end of the
compliance year as either Tier 2 credits
or Tier 3 early credits, and the credits
would have to be used in accordance
with the designation.
We received several comments on our
early credit provisions. Some
commenters stated that the requirement
to designate credits as either Tier 2 or
Tier 3 would not provide refiners and
importers the intended amount of
flexibility, as they may not necessarily
be able to predict if they will need to
use those early credits for either Tier 2
or Tier 3 compliance. Further,
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
commenters were concerned that if
more refiners than anticipated opt to
bank the credits for possible future use
at their own refineries, it could result in
less credits being made available to the
market. We also received comments
both in support of and against the
proposed three-year credit life. Some
commenters stated that they believed
that all credits should have a five-year
life to provide maximum flexibility and
more certainty on the availability of
credits; while other commenters
supported the three-year credit life
limit, because it would coincide with
the end of the small refiner/small
refinery provisions thus providing more
certainty of the benefits of the Tier 3
program. Finally, while not proposed,
we received many comments requesting
that EPA clarify what would become of
‘‘banked’’ Tier 2 credits (Tier 2 credits
generated in 2012 and/or 2013 that were
not used before the end of their five-year
credit life and would have expired
when the Tier 3 program began, under
the terms of the proposed ABT
program). Commenters further stated
that these credits should not expire, but
rather should be allowed to receive their
full five-year credit life, as they
represent actual reductions in refinery
sulfur levels.
As discussed above, we are finalizing
a more flexible approach to the ABT
program than what we proposed. We
believe this will provide for a more
seamless transition from the Tier 2 to
the Tier 3 credit programs and more
certainty on credit availability.
Consistent with our proposal, refiners
and importers may begin generating
early credits on January 1, 2014, and
continue through December 31, 2016.
These credits will be generated on an
annual average basis, from a
demonstration that the refiner or
importer’s annual average gasoline
sulfur level is below the current Tier 2
30 ppm annual average sulfur standard.
We believe this simple early credit
approach is possible because U.S.
gasoline was averaging around 30 ppm
as we started developing the Tier 3
program, based on compliance data.
Since refiners and importers would
need to continue to comply with the
existing Tier 2 sulfur standards during
the early credit period, 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 will be attributed to the proposed
Tier 3 program.
In response to comments received, we
are not requiring that credits be
designated as either Tier 2 or Tier 3 and
only used for the program for which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
they were designated. Refiners and
importers may use early credits either
for ongoing compliance with the Tier 2
program, or bank them for future
compliance with the Tier 3 program
(within the limits of the credit life
restrictions). Essentially, the Tier 2
credit generation provisions simply
continue, and any banked credits
generated in 2014 through 2016 that
were not used for compliance with the
Tier 2 standards would be carried over
for use in complying with Tier 3. We
believe that this will allow for more
certainty of credit availability before
refiners must make their Tier 3
investment decisions, thus reducing the
cost of the program. It will also avoid
any incentive for refiners to use up
banked Tier 2 credits prior to 2017
causing increased in-use sulfur levels
and emissions.
Based on our analysis of the Tier 2
credit market for 2012, we believe that
there will be a balance of 2012 banked
credits equivalent to approximately two
months of compliance, and we
anticipate a similar amount (perhaps
more) for 2013. Although we did not
propose to allow for banked 2012 and
2013 Tier 2 credits to be used for
compliance with the Tier 3 program, we
are finalizing this provision for a
number of reasons. First, the Tier 2
banked credits represent real
reductions—refiners and importers are
currently generating these credits for
overcompliance with the Tier 2 gasoline
sulfur standard. Second, allowing these
banked credits to receive their full fiveyear credit life will provide more
assurance of the credit availability for
trading for those who need them to
comply with Tier 3 without a large
capital investment. As previously
explained, this will allow for more
certainty of credits available far before
making Tier 3 investment decisions,
thus reducing the cost of the program.
A lack of certainty in the credit trading
market could lead to refiners banking
more credits than usual for their own
use rather than allowing these credits to
be available in the market for trading.
As shown in Chapter 4.3 of the RIA,
refiners tend to hold credits as an
insurance policy until they approach
the end of their credit life. If creditgenerating refiners continue with this
approach, credits generated in 2012 and
2013 will likely be available for
purchase in 2017 and 2018 for those
refiners that may want to rely on them
for compliance (along with additional
early credits generated in 2014 through
2016). Finally, as we anticipate that
these credits will be equal to about four
months of compliance, the allowance of
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23547
2012 and 2013 banked Tier 2 credits
makes for a more flexible program by
effectively allowing for a small amount
of additional lead time without
adversely affecting the overall benefits
of the Tier 3 program. As discussed
previously, this will avoid any incentive
for refiners to use up banked Tier 2
credits prior to 2017 causing increased
in-use sulfur levels and emissions. We
believe these provisions will allow the
Tier 3 program to begin on January 1,
2017, with more certainty regarding the
availability of credits for those refiners
needing (or choosing) to defer
investment to better align with their
existing turnaround/shutdown
schedules.
All credits generated before January 1,
2017 will be valid for five years or until
December 31, 2019, whichever is
earlier—no early credits may be used for
compliance beginning January 1, 2020.
Thus, banked Tier 2 credits generated in
2012 and 2013 will receive their full
five-year life and will not expire at the
start of the Tier 3 program. However,
credits generated in 2015 and 2016 that
are unused as of December 31, 2019 will
expire and become invalid. We believe
that structuring the early credit program
this way will offer considerable
flexibility to refiners phasing in Tier 3
gasoline sulfur controls, while still
placing a date at which point the
intended sulfur program will be fully
implemented and enforceable—January
1, 2020 (the same date small refiners
and small refineries must begin
complying with the 10 ppm sulfur
standard). This will also provide a date
certain to give auto manufacturers
greater 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) would allow
higher sulfur levels to continue well
beyond 2019.
Consistent with our proposal, all
credits generated beginning January 1,
2017 will be for overcompliance with
the Tier 3 10 ppm annual average sulfur
standard, and will have a five-year
credit life. We believe five years will
give refiners and importers sufficient
time to use credits generated in previous
years while still placing limitations on
credit life to help with enforcement.
Five years is consistent with the Tier 2
ABT program, as well as the current
credit life and recordkeeping provisions
for other 40 CFR part 80 fuels programs,
and coincides with the applicable
statute of limitations for violations by
parties who generate invalid credits.
Credits must be used within five years
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23548
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
from the year they were generated
(regardless of when/if they are traded),
otherwise they will expire and become
invalid. For example, credits generated
in 2017 can be applied towards 2018–
2022 compliance, as well as 2017
compliance. After March 31, 2023
(when reports for the 2022 annual
compliance period will be due), credits
generated in 2017 will expire and
become invalid. Similarly, credits
generated in 2018 can be applied
towards 2019–2023 compliance, as well
as 2018 compliance. After March 31,
2024, credits generated in 2018 expire,
and so on and so forth.
5. Credit Trading Provisions
We are also finalizing provisions for
credit trading in Tier 3 that are identical
to those under the current Tier 2
program. As in that program, 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. As
in the current Tier 2 program as well as
other 40 CFR part 80 fuel programs, if
this occurs, we are requiring that both
the seller and purchaser will 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.
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. As proposed, we
are also finalizing an exception for the
case where a credit generator transfers
credits to a refiner or importer who
inadvertently cannot use all the credits.
In this case, the credits can be
transferred a second time to another
refiner or importer. After the second
trade, the credits must be used or they
will expire. 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. While some commenters
stated that they believe the two-trade
maximum is not necessary given the fact
that credits are only being traded within
a small part of industry, we believe that
unlimited trading could result in an
unenforceable program and potentially
lead to problems with invalid credit
trading. Given the widespread use of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
credit trading between different
companies under the Tier 2 program
despite this provision, there appears to
already be sufficient flexibility in the
program. We received comments
requesting that we clarify that intracompany trading will continue to be
unlimited as it is in the existing Tier 2
ABT program. Intra-company trading
will in fact remain unlimited, and we
have added language to the final Tier 3
regulations to clarify this.
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 implementation of the unleaded
gasoline program, and has since been
extended to subsequent fuels
rulemakings. We continue to believe
that maintaining this prohibition will
allow for maximum program
enforceability and consistency with all
of our other ABT programs for mobile
sources and their fuels.
6. ABT Provisions for Small Refiners
and Small Volume Refineries
Consistent with our proposal,
approved small refiners and small
volume refineries must comply with the
10 ppm annual average standard by
January 1, 2020, which allows for an
additional three years for compliance.
This is the primary form of relief offered
to small refiners and small volume
refineries under the Tier 3 gasoline
sulfur program (discussed further in
Section V.E, below). Approved small
refiners and small volume refineries
may continue to generate credits for
overcomplying with the 30 ppm Tier 2
standard before January 1, 2020. Prior to
January 1, 2017, credits generated by
small refiners and small volume
refineries can be traded/sold to nonsmall refiners for use by December 31,
2019, and the credit revenues could be
used to help offset their Tier 3
investments.
When the Tier 3 program begins on
January 1, 2017, small refiners and
small volume refineries may continue to
generate credits for overcompliance
with the 30 ppm sulfur standard (as
they will still be subject to the Tier 2
standards through December 1, 2019), or
they may generate credits for
overcompliance with the Tier 3 10 ppm
sulfur standard. We are finalizing that
small refiners and small volume
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
refineries must designate their credits as
being generated for either the Tier 2 or
Tier 3 ABT program, as proposed.
Credits designated and generated as Tier
2 credits may only be traded with other
small refiners and small volume
refineries (and these credits may only be
used for compliance through December
31, 2019). However, credits designated
and generated as Tier 3 credits may be
traded with non-small refiners as well.
Additionally, from January 1, 2017
through December 31, 2019, if a small
refiner’s annual average sulfur level is
below 10 ppm, they may elect to split
the designation and generation of
credits between both the 10 ppm and 30
ppm standards (without doublecounting). For example, in 2017, a small
refiner with an annual gasoline sulfur
average of 8 ppm could generate 20
ppm-volume Tier 2 credits (30 ppm-10
ppm) that could be used by other small
refiners and small volume refineries, or
banked by the refinery for future Tier 2
compliance. This small refiner would
also generate 2 ppm-volume Tier 3
credits (10 ppm-8 ppm) that could be
sold to refiners and importers subject to
Tier 3, or banked by the refiner for
future Tier 3 compliance.
7. Deficit Carryforward
Under the final Tier 3 sulfur program,
we are finalizing deficit carryforward
provisions similar to the existing Tier 2
program, whereby an individual
refinery that does not meet the 10 ppm
standard in a given year may carry a
credit deficit forward for 1 year. Under
this deficit carryforward allowance, the
refinery will have to make up the credit
deficit and come into compliance with
the Tier 3 sulfur standard the next
calendar year. We received comments
expressing concern that it will be more
challenging for refineries to make up
their credit deficit in one year with a 10
ppm sulfur standard, and requesting
that the deficit carryforward allowance
be extended to two or three years. We
disagree with these comments primarily
because of concerns with the
enforceability of allowing for a deficit
beyond one year. In addition, we believe
that an extended deficit carryforward
will further delay Tier 3 sulfur
reductions. While we acknowledge that
there might be an increased hurdle for
some refiners to make up their own
credit shortfall, we believe the ABT
program provides ample opportunity to
purchase credits from others. However,
in recognition of unanticipated
circumstances, such as where credits are
unavailable or are prohibitively
expensive such that the refiner could
not make up the deficit in one year, the
Tier 3 hardship provisions provide EPA
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
with the authority to allow for extended
deficit carryforward, if a refiner’s
hardship petition demonstrates that it
meets the criteria. Thus, we are
finalizing that a refiner could carry a
deficit forward for up to 3 years only in
cases of hardship situations, as
described below in Section V.E.2.
E. Additional Program Flexibilities
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
a. Small Business Regulatory Flexibility
Provisions
We are finalizing several regulatory
flexibility provisions for small entities
in the fuels industry to reduce the
burden that the Tier 3 program could
have on them. 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 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 necessary and feasible 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 (as discussed further
in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
description in Section XII.C), we believe
that the category of 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
finalizing several regulatory flexibility
provisions for small refiners to reduce
the burden that the Tier 3 program
could have on them.
Small entities as a category generally
lack the resources that are available to
larger companies 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. This is because
the magnitude of their projects tends to
be both smaller and less profitable for
the contracted firms. As such, we are
including provisions in today’s rule that
would provide assistance for small
entities in meeting the 10 ppm sulfur
standards. This proposed approach
would allow the overall program to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
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 also
believe that small business regulatory
flexibilities can 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 in a manner that
they are available by the time they are
needed.
i. Delayed Standards for Small Refiners
We are finalizing a compliance date of
January 1, 2020 for small refiners,
allowing small refiners to postpone
compliance with the Tier 3 program for
up to three years. Small refiners will
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). This delayed
compliance schedule for small refiners
is not intended as an opportunity for
those refiners to increase their
production of gasoline with sulfur levels
greater than 10 ppm, but rather will
help small refiners with compliance
with the program. Since the compliance
costs for their competitors may rise
during these three years and since their
gasoline will be sold into the same
fungible market, this delay will not only
provide them more lead time, but also
financial support towards later
compliance. Compliance with the 10
ppm annual average sulfur standard will
begin on January 1, 2020 for small
refiners. Further, as discussed in greater
detail in Section V.D.5, a small refiner
would be allowed to continue using Tier
2 gasoline sulfur credits through
December 31, 2019 to meet their
refinery average 30 ppm 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 and gasoline additive
manufacturers. They stated it would not
be feasible for transmix processors to
install desulfurization equipment to
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23549
produce gasoline that meets a 25 ppm
sulfur cap. They also stated that such a
low sulfur cap could preclude certain
necessary gasoline additives from the
market whose activity depends on
sulfur containing components. 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 above, we proposed options
to maintain the current 80/95 ppm caps
or to lower them to 50/65 ppm and
sought comment on a refinery gate cap
of 20 ppm with a downstream cap of 25
ppm. We are retaining the current 80/95
ppm per-gallon sulfur caps in today’s
final rule. For more information on
today’s final per-gallon sulfur cap
provisions and related comments, refer
to Section V.C of this preamble and
Chapter 5 of the Summary and Analysis
of Comments document.
b. Small Volume Refinery Provisions
Consistent with our proposal, we are
finalizing a compliance date of January
1, 2020 for small volume refineries.
Approved small volume refineries will
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. During the development
of the Tier 3 rulemaking 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. These are
refineries owned by a refiner/company
that would not meet the SBA definition
of a small business. In an oversupplied
gasoline market, these refineries may
have difficulty justifying capital
investments to comply with new
standards. In recognition of this concern
under the RFS program, Congress
granted all refineries with a crude oil
throughput of less than or equal to
75,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd)
additional time to comply. Consistent
with this allowance, we are including
delayed Tier 3 sulfur standards for
approved small volume refineries.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23550
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 will allow 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. Credit generation
opportunities for approved small
volume refineries are identical to those
for small refiners, as described above in
Section V.D.
A refiner must apply and be approved
for small volume refinery status. We are
finalizing a small volume refinery net
crude throughput of less than or equal
to 75,000 bpcd, based on the highest
crude throughput for the 2012 calendar
year. We received comment suggesting
that a higher crude throughput (e.g.,
90,000 bpcd) would be more
appropriate, as the refining industry has
changed since Congress set the 75,000
bpcd throughput limit for small
refineries in the RFS program. In
analyzing various crude throughput
maximums between 75,000 and 90,000
bpcd, we do not believe it is appropriate
or necessary to increase the threshold
beyond what was previously set by
Congress. The 75,000 bpcd limit set by
Congress was to recognize those
refineries that would have difficulty
with compliance with a rulemaking
(from both a cost and feasibility
standpoint), raising this limit would go
beyond Congress’ intent.
2. Provisions for Refiners Facing
Hardship Situations
We are finalizing hardship provisions
that are intended to accommodate a
refiner’s inability to comply with the 10
ppm sulfur 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, which are similar to
those in existing fuels programs, are
available to all refiners, small and nonsmall, though relief will be granted on
a case-by-case basis following a showing
of certain requirements; primarily that
compliance through the use of credits is
not feasible. Any hardship waiver
granted will not be a total waiver of
compliance; rather, a hardship waiver
will consist of short-term relief that will
allow a refiner facing a hardship
situation to, for example, receive
additional time to comply. EPA will
determine appropriate hardship relief
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
based on the nature and degree of the
hardship, as presented by the refiner in
its hardship application, and on our
assessment of the credit market at that
time. Further, as discussed above in
Section V.D.7, hardship waivers could
grant relief in the form of additional
deficit carryforward for up to three
years, depending on the level of
hardship and the status of the credit
market. A detailed description of the
requirements for applying for a hardship
waiver is located in the regulations at 40
CFR 80.1625.
We do not anticipate a great need for
hardship relief, given the flexibilities
offered as part of the Tier 3 program and
an expected robust credit trading
market. Nevertheless, we are finalizing
hardship provisions in this action as a
failsafe for unforeseen circumstances, or
should credits become scarce or
prohibitively expensive.
a. Temporary Waivers Based on
Unforeseen Circumstances
We are finalizing a provision to allow
for temporary waivers based on
unforeseen circumstances. EPA would,
at our discretion, permit a refiner to
seek a temporary waiver from the Tier
3 sulfur standards under certain rare
circumstances. This waiver provision 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
can seek a hardship waiver for relief if
it can demonstrate that the magnitude of
the impact is so severe as to require
such an extension. A refiner would need
to show that: (1) The waiver is in the
public interest; (2) the nonconformity is
unavoidable; (3) it will meet the
proposed Tier 3 standards as
expeditiously as possible; (4) it will
make up the air quality detriment
associated with the nonconforming
gasoline, where practicable; and (5) it
will 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 existing fuels regulations,
and are necessary and appropriate to
ensure that any waivers granted would
be limited in scope.
Such a request will 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 will also need to show that other
avenues for mitigating the problem,
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
such as the purchase of credits toward
compliance under the ABT program
provisions, have been pursued and yet
were insufficient or unavailable. In light
of other flexibilities, including the ABT
program, we expect that the need for
such requests will be rare.
b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme
Hardship Circumstances
In addition to the provision for shortterm relief in extreme unforeseen
circumstances, we are also finalizing a
hardship provision where a refiner may
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 provision
must demonstrate that these criteria
were met. In addition to showing that
unusual circumstances exist that impose
extreme hardship in meeting the Tier 3
standards, the refiner will need to show
that: (1) It has made best efforts to
comply, including through the purchase
of credits; (2) the relief granted under
this provision is in the public interest;
(3) the environmental impact is
acceptable; and (4) it has active plans to
meet the requirements as expeditiously
as possible. We expect that hardship
relief requests under this provision will
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 is approved, we expect to
impose appropriate conditions to ensure
that the refiner is 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 will 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 overall Tier 3
program, especially the ABT program,
we expect the need for additional relief
to be rare.
F. Compliance Provisions
This section describes the compliance
provisions of today’s program. For the
most part, the Tier 3 sulfur standards
simply reflect a lowering of the current
Tier 2 sulfur standards. Thus, we are
retaining most of the same compliance
provisions as the current Tier 2
program, with exceptions as noted.
However, we also proposed and sought
comment on several fuel program
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory streamlining measures,
including a broader program redesign to
streamline the reformulated gasoline
and anti-dumping regulations.434 As
discussed below, some of these
streamlining measures will also impact
the Tier 3 sulfur compliance provisions.
1. Registration, Reporting, and
Recordkeeping Requirements
Registration, recordkeeping, and
reporting are necessary to track
compliance with the Tier 3 standards
and the ABT program.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a. Registration Requirements
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 must 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.
Manufacturers of denaturants that are
designated as suitable for use in the
manufacture of DFE that meets federal
requirements must also register each of
their facilities with EPA by June 1, 2016,
or six months prior to producing
denaturant that is so designated.435
Manufacturers of pentane designated as
suitable for use by blenders into
previously certified gasoline (PCG)
subject to the Tier 2 program must
register each of their facilities with EPA
prior to manufacturing pentane for such
downstream blending.436 Manufacturers
of pentane for use by blenders of
pentane into PCG subject to the Tier 3
program must register each of their
facilities with EPA by June 1, 2016, or
six months prior to producing such
pentane. After the Tier 3 program begins
on January 1, 2017, any non-registered
parties must register at least three
months prior to producing gasoline,
participating in the credit market,
producing denaturant designated as
suitable for use in the manufacture of
DFE that meets federal requirements, or
producing pentane for downstream
blending into PCG under the Tier 3
program. Consistent with the existing
registration requirements for butane
blenders, pentane blenders must comply
434 For more information on Part 80 regulatory
streamlining options, refer to Section VI.
435 As discussed in section V.I. of this preamble,
the use of denaturants that are so designated
enables DFE manufacturers to use streamlined
provisions to demonstrate compliance with the Tier
3 sulfur requirements for DFE.
436 The provisions for downstream blending of
pentane into gasoline described in section VI.A.3.
will become effective 60 days after the publication
of this rule and may be used for gasoline subject
to the Tier 2 program requirements as well as
gasoline subject to the Tier 3 program requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
with the fuel registration requirements
under the fuel and fuel additives
registration program of 40 CFR part 79.
Most refiners, importers, and ethanol
producers and some ethanol denaturant
manufacturers are currently registered
with EPA under other 40 CFR part 80
fuels programs. All manufacturers of
gasoline additives for use in highway
vehicles are already required to be
registered with EPA under 40 CFR part
79 fuel and fuel additives program.
Parties who are already registered do
not have to register again.
The same basic forms currently being
used for existing fuels programs will be
used for Tier 3 registration. These forms
are well known in the regulated
community and are simple to fill out.
Upon receipt of a completed registration
form, EPA will issue a unique 4-digit
company identification number and a
unique 5-digit facility identification
number. As with existing fuels
programs, these numbers will be
required for all reports sent to EPA and
for PTDs.
Registrations do not expire and do not
have to be renewed; however, registered
parties are 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
person); 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
• Name, telephone number, and
email address of a corporate contact
person
b. Reporting Requirements
Refiners and importers must 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, refiners and importers
must 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 provides an effective means
of monitoring compliance with the
standards and the credit program.
Producers and importers of blender
grade pentane for use by pentane
blenders must also submit annual
reports that include data on individual
batches demonstrating compliance with
PO 00000
Frm 00139
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
23551
the quality requirements for blender
grade pentane and batch volume.
We proposed that producers and
importers 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. We
continue to believe that such annual
reports are important enforcement and
compliance assurance mechanism and
thus are finalizing the proposed annual
reporting requirements for oxygenate
producers and importers.
Tier 3 reports will be due annually on
March 31, on forms as required by EPA.
c. Recordkeeping Requirements
Similar to current EPA fuels
programs, refiners and importers must
retain all records that demonstrate
compliance with the Tier 3 program,
including the ABT program.
Manufacturers of DFE and other
oxygenates must keep records for five
years on individual batches of DFE/
oxygenate (including batch volume,,
denaturant concentration, and sulfur
test results or other records to
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3
sulfur requirements as applicable).437
Manufacturers of ethanol denaturant
that is designated as suitable for use in
the manufacture of DFE that meets
federal requirements must keep records
on individual batches of such
denaturant including batch volume, and
sulfur content.
Manufacturers of pentane that is
designated as suitable for use for
blending into PCG must keep records on
individual batches of such pentane
including batch volume, sulfur content,
benzene content, olefin content,
aromatic content, C6 and higher
hydrocarbon content, and purity as
applicable.
Manufacturers of gasoline additives
for use in highway vehicles must keep
records on individual batches of such
additives including batch volume and
additive production quality control
activities which demonstrate that the
sulfur content of additive production
batches complies with the Tier 3 sulfur
requirements. We expect that such
records would include the results of
periodic sulfur testing but not
necessarily testing on each production
batch.
437 As discussed in section V.G. of this preamble,
DFE manufacturers may demonstrate compliance
with Tier 3 sulfur requirements either by testing
each batch or mathematically using volumetric
blend records and product transfer documents from
the denaturants used provided such denaturants are
from a registered denaturant producer.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
23552
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
All parties in the gasoline, DFE,
ethanol denaturant, pentane, and
gasoline additive production and
distribution system subject to the Tier 3
sulfur program are also required to keep
records of all PTDs and records of any
quality assurance programs. Records
must be retained for five years. For
credit transactions, records must be
retained for five years from the usage
date. Records must be made available to
EPA on request; if electronic records are
kept, hard copies must be made
available upon request.
Information submitted to EPA may be
claimed as confidential business
information (CBI). Parties making such
a claim must follow all reporting
guidance and clearly mark the
information being claimed as
proprietary. EPA will 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
2. Sampling and Testing Requirements
Under the Tier 2 program, a sulfur
concentration must be determined for
every batch of gasoline. We are retaining
this requirement under the Tier 3
program. As with the existing Tier 2
program, this every-batch testing
requirement will be required to occur
prior to the batch leaving the refinery.
We are also retaining the Tier 2
sampling, testing, and sample retention
requirements in today’s final rule.
Additionally, as discussed below in
Section VI, we have included
performance based measurement
standards that will allow refiners to use
alternate test methods for measuring
sulfur if they so choose.
We proposed that manufacturers of
DFE would be required to test each
individual batch of DFE for its sulfur
content. In response to comments, we
are finalizing an alternative means for
DFE manufacturers to demonstrate
compliance with the Tier 3 sulfur
requirements in addition to per batch
testing.438 We anticipate that DFE
manufacturers will typically use this
alternative means in the place of per
batch sulfur testing.
As discussed above, manufacturers of
additives for use in highway gasoline
vehicles must maintain records of
additive production quality control
activities which demonstrate that the
sulfur content of additive production
batches complies with the Tier 3 sulfur
requirements. We expect that periodic
438 The alternative means of demonstrating
compliance with the Tier 3 sulfur requirements for
DFE manufacturers is discussed in section V.G. of
this preamble.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 25, 2014
Jkt 232001
sulfur testing will be needed to comply
with this requirement but not
necessarily testing on each additive
production batch. Manufacturers of
pentane that is designated as suitable for
use by blenders into PCG must test
every batch to demonstrate compliance
with the requirements sulfur content,
benzene content, olefin content,
aromatic content, C6 and higher
hydrocarbon content, and purity as
applicable. Blenders of pentane into
gasoline must conduct periodic
sampling and testing of the pentane they
receive from each separate pentane
supplier to demonstrate that the
pentaene is compliant with the
applicable compositional requirements.
3. Small Refiner Compliance
To qualify for small refiner status
under the Tier 3 program, a refiner must
apply by June 1, 2016. As with our other
existing EPA fuels programs, we are
continuing to use the Small Business
Administration definition of a small
refiner: 1,500 employees (companywide). To qualify for small refiner status
under Tier 3, a small refiner must also
meet the following additional criteria:
• The refiner must have produced
gasoline from crude oil during the 2012
calendar year.
• The refiner must have owned and
operated the refinery during the period
from January 1, 2012 through December
31, 2012. New owners that purchased a
refinery after that date will have done so
with full knowledge of the proposed
Tier 3 regulations, and should have
planned to comply along with their
purchase decisions. As with existing
fuel programs, 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
2012 can apply for small refiner status.
In such cases, we will 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, this is limited to
a company that owned the refinery at
the time that it was shut down. New
purchasers will 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, 2012 through December
31, 2012 for all subsidiaries, parent
companies (i.e., any company or
companies with controlling interest),
and joint ventures.
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4701
Sf