Vol. 78 Tuesday, 

No. 98 May 21, 2013 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85 et al. 

Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle 

Emission and Fuel Standards; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29816 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 

1037, 1065, and 1066 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135; FRL–9785–8] 

RIN 2060–AQ86 

Control of Air Pollution From Motor 

Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle 

Emission and Fuel Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: This action would establish 

more stringent vehicle emissions 

standards and reduce the sulfur content 

of gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of 

a systems approach to addressing the 

impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on 

air quality and public health. The 

proposed gasoline sulfur standard 

would make emission control systems 

more effective for both existing and new 

vehicles, and would enable more 

stringent vehicle emissions standards. 

The proposed vehicle standards would 

reduce both tailpipe and evaporative 

emissions from passenger cars, lightduty trucks, medium-duty passenger 

vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. 

This would result in significant 

reductions in pollutants such as ozone, 

particulate matter, and air toxics across 

the country and help state and local 

agencies in their efforts to attain and 

maintain health-based National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. Motor 

vehicles are an important source of 

exposure to air pollution both regionally 

and near roads. These proposed vehicle 

standards are intended to harmonize 

with California’s Low Emission Vehicle 

program, thus creating a federal vehicle 

emissions program that would allow 

automakers to sell the same vehicles in 

all 50 states. The proposed vehicle 

standards would be implemented over 

the same timeframe as the greenhouse 

gas/fuel efficiency standards for lightduty vehicles, as part of a 

comprehensive approach toward 

regulating emissions from motor 

vehicles. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before June 13, 2013. 

Public Hearing: The public hearings 

were held on April 24, 2013 in 

Philadelphia, PA and April 29, 2013 in 

Chicago, IL. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0135, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: A-and-RDocket@epamail.epa.gov. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on 

the information collection provisions to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 

20503. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– 

0135. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I.B 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

JoNell Iffland, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality, Assessment and 

Standards Division (ASD), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 

Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 

48105; Telephone number: (734) 214– 

4454; Fax number: (734) 214–4816; 

Email address: iffland.jonell@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

proposed rule include gasoline refiners 

and importers, ethanol producers, 

gasoline additive manufacturers, 

transmix processors, terminals and fuel 

distributors, light-duty vehicle 

manufacturers, independent commercial 

importers, alternative fuel converters, 

and manufacturers and converters of 

vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 lbs 

gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). 

Potentially regulated categories 

include: 

Category NAICSa Code SIC b Code Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ................................................. 324110 2911 Petroleum refineries (including importers). 

Industry ................................................. 325110 2869 Butane manufacturers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29817 

Category NAICSa Code SIC b Code Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ................................................. 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing. 

Industry ................................................. 211112 1321 Natural gas liquids extraction and fractionation. 

Industry ................................................. 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing. 

Industry ................................................. 486910 4613 Natural gas liquids pipelines, refined petroleum products pipelines. 

Industry ................................................. 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry ................................................. 325199 2869 Manufacturers of gasoline additives. 

Industry ................................................. 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. E51–83 manufacturers. 

Industry ................................................. 493190 4226 Other warehousing and storage-bulk petroleum storage. 

Industry ................................................. 336111, 

336112 

3711 Light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck manufacturers. 

Industry ................................................. 811111, 

811112, 

811198 

7538, 

7533, 

7534 

Independent commercial importers. 

Industry ................................................. 335312, 

336312, 

336322, 

336399, 

811198 

3621, 

3714, 

3519, 

3599, 

7534 

Alternative fuel converters. 

Industry ................................................. 333618, 

336120, 

336211, 

336312 

3699, 

3711, 

3713, 

3714 

On-highway heavy-duty engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) 

manufacturers. 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

bStandard Industrial Classification (SIC). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this proposed action. This 

table lists the types of entities that EPA 

is now aware could potentially be 

regulated by this proposed action. Other 

types of entities not listed in the table 

could also be regulated. To determine 

whether your activities would be 

regulated by this proposed action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 79, 

80, 85, 86, 1065, and 1066 and the 

referenced regulations. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this proposed action to a particular 

entity, consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through www.regulations.gov or email. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

C. Did EPA conduct a peer review before 

issuing this notice? 

This regulatory action was supported 

by influential scientific information. 

Therefore, EPA conducted peer reviews 

in accordance with OMB’s Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review. Specifically, EPA conducted six 

peer reviews in connection with data 

supporting the proposed Tier 3 program, 

including new research on the effects of 

fuel properties changes (including 

sulfur effects) on exhaust and 

evaporative emissions of Tier 2 vehicles. 

The refinery-by-refinery cost model was 

also peer reviewed. The peer review 

reports are located in the docket for 

today’s action, as well as the agency’s 

response to the peer review comments. 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary and Overview of 

Proposed Program 

A. Introduction 

B. What are the basic components of the 

proposed program? 

1. Proposed Standards for Light-Duty 

Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, and MediumDuty Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe 

Emissions 

2. Proposed Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tailpipe 

Emissions Standards 

3. Proposed Evaporative Emission 

Standards 

4. Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD) 

5. Emissions Test Fuel 

6. Fuel Standards 

7. Regulatory Streamlining and Technical 

Amendments 

C. What would the impacts of the proposed 

standards be? 

II. Why is EPA making this proposal? 

A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air 

Act 

1. Clean Air Act Section 202 

2. Clean Air Act Section 211 

B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of 

Motor Vehicles and Fuels 

1. Ozone 

2. Particulate Matter 

3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides 

4. Carbon Monoxide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29818 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5. Mobile Source Air Toxics 

6. Near-Roadway Pollution 

7. Environmental Impacts of Motor 

Vehicles and Fuels 

III. How would this proposal reduce 

emissions and air pollution? 

A. Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and Fuel 

Changes on Mobile Source Emissions 

1. How do vehicles produce the emissions 

addressed in this proposal? 

2. How would the proposed changes to 

gasoline sulfur content affect vehicle 

emissions? 

B. How would emissions be reduced? 

1. NOX

2. VOC 

3. CO 

4. Direct PM2.5

5. Air Toxics 

6. SO2

7. Greenhouse Gases 

C. How would air pollution be reduced? 

1. Ozone 

2. Particulate Matter 

3. Nitrogen Dioxide 

4. Air Toxics 

5. Visibility 

6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition 

7. Environmental Justice 

IV. Proposed Vehicle Emissions Program 

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

Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles 

1. Overview 

2. Summary of Proposed FTP and SFTP 

Tailpipe Standards 

3. Proposed FTP Standards 

4. Proposed SFTP Standards 

5. Feasibility of the Proposed NMOG+NOX

and PM Standards 

6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the 

Feasibility of the Proposed Vehicle 

Emission Standards 

7. Other Provisions 

B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for HeavyDuty Vehicles 

1. Overview 

2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards 

3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs 

4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and 

Trading 

5. Feasibility of HDV Standards 

6. Other HDV Provisions 

C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and 

Onboard Diagnostic System 

Requirements 

1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards 

2. Evaporative Emissions Program 

Structure and Implementation 

Flexibilities 

3. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) 

Requirements 

4. Test Procedures and Certification Test 

Fuel 

5. Improvements to In-Use Performance of 

Fuel Vapor Control Systems 

6. Other Initiatives 

D. Emissions Test Fuel 

1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions 

Test Fuel 

2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle Test 

Fuel 

3. Proposed Implementation Schedule 

4. Potential Implications on CAFE 

Standards, GHG Standards, and Fuel 

Economy Labels 

5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, 

and Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions Test 

Fuel 

6. Consideration of CNG and LPG 

Emissions Test Fuel 

E. Small-Business Provisions 

1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative 

Emission Standards 

2. Assigned Deterioration Factors 

3. Reduced Testing Burden 

4. Hardship 

5. Applicability of Flexibilities 

F. Compliance Provisions 

1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures 

2. Reduced Test Burden 

3. Miscellaneous Provisions 

4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification Testing 

(IUVP) Requirements 

V. Proposed Fuel Program 

A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur 

Standards 

1. Overview 

2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur 

Standard 

3. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps 

B. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions 

1. Background on New Source Review 

Programs 

2. Background on NSR Experience Under 

the Tier 2 Fuel Program 

3. Changes in the NSR Permitting Program 

since Tier 2 Final Rule 

4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes 

and Permitting Implications 

5. New Source Performance Standards and 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries 

6. Steps for Streamlining the Permitting 

Process 

C. Standards for Denatured Fuel Ethanol 

and Other Oxygenates 

D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible 

Fueled Vehicles 

1. Standards for E51–83 

2. Standards for Mid-Level Ethanol Blends 

(E16–50) 

E. Proposed Program Flexibilities 

1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading 

Program 

2. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions 

3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship 

Situations 

F. Compliance Provisions 

1. Registration, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

2. Sampling and Testing Requirements 

3. Small Refiner Compliance 

4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance 

5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and 

Penalties 

6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions 

G. Statutory Authority for Proposed Tier 3 

Fuel Controls 

1. Section 211(c)(1)(A) 

2. Section 211(c)(1)(B) 

VI. Technical Amendments and Regulatory 

Streamlining 

A. Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 79 and 80 

1. Regulatory Streamlining 

2. Subpart I Technical Amendments 

3. Performance-Based Measurement 

Systems (PBMS) 

4. Downstream Pentane Blending 

B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment 

Programs 

1. Fuel Economy Labeling 

2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text 

3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules 

4. Updating Reference Procedures 

VII. What are the cost impacts of the 

proposed rule? 

A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle 

Standards 

B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program 

1. Overview 

2. Methodology 

3. Summary of Costs Without ABT Program 

4. Summary of Costs With ABT Program 

5. Other Cost Estimates 

C. Summary of Proposed Program Costs 

D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced 

VIII. What are the estimated benefits of the 

proposed rule? 

A. Overview 

B. Quantified Human Health Impacts 

C. Monetized Benefits 

D. What are the limitations of the benefits 

analysis? 

E. Illustrative Analysis of Monetized 

Impacts Associated With the Proposal in 

2017 

IX. Alternatives Analysis 

A. Vehicle Emission Standards 

1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phase-in 

2. Longer NMOG+NOX Standards Phase-in 

Due to Early Credits 

3. Shorter PM Standards Phase-in 

4. NMOG+NOX Standards 

5. PM Standards 

B. Fuel Sulfur Standards 

X. Economic Impact Analysis 

A. Introduction 

B. Vehicle Sales Impacts 

C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector 

Production 

D. Employment Impacts 

1. Employment Impacts in the Auto Sector 

2. Refinery Employment Impacts 

XI. Public Participation 

A. How do I submit comments? 

B. How should I submit CBI to the Agency? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

D. Will there be a public hearing? 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Overview 

2. Background 

3. Reason for Today’s Proposed Rule 

4. Legal Basis for Agency Action 

5. Summary of Potentially Affected Small 

Entities 

6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and 

Compliance 

7. Related Federal Rules 

8. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process and 

Panel Outreach 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29819 

1 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area 

Population Exposure Report, current as of 

December 14, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/

oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135. 

2Mobile source contributions derived from 

inventories developed for the Final Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). For 

more information on these inventories see the 

‘‘Technical Support Document (TSD) for the final 

Transport Rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0491, Emissions Inventory Final Rule TSD,’’ 

available on the web at ftp://ftp.epa.gov/

EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transportrulefinal_eitsd_

28jun2011.pdf. 

3For 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 

4U.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. 

6U.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/. 7 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000). 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

XIII. Statutory Provisions And Legal 

Authority 

I. Executive Summary and Overview of 

Proposed Program 

A. Introduction 

In this action, EPA is proposing a 

major program designed to reduce air 

pollution from passenger cars and 

trucks. This program includes new 

standards for both vehicle emissions 

and the sulfur content of gasoline, 

considering the vehicle and its fuel as 

an integrated system. We refer to this 

proposed program as the ‘‘Tier 3’’ 

vehicle and fuel standards. 

This proposed rule is part of a 

comprehensive approach to address the 

impacts of motor vehicles on air quality 

and public health. Over 158 million 

Americans are currently experiencing 

unhealthy levels of air pollution, which 

are linked with respiratory and 

cardiovascular problems and other 

adverse health impacts that lead to 

increased medication use, hospital 

admissions, emergency department 

visits, and premature mortality.1 Motor 

vehicles are a particularly important 

source of exposure to air pollution, 

especially in urban areas. By 2014 we 

project that in many nonattainment 

areas, cars and light trucks will 

contribute 30–45 percent of total 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, 20–25 

percent of total volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions, and 5–10 

percent of total direct particulate matter 

(PM2.5) emissions.2 These compounds 

form ozone, PM, and other air 

pollutants, whose health and 

environmental effects are described in 

more detail in Section II. Cars and light 

trucks also continue to be a significant 

contributor to air pollution directly near 

roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting 

for more than 50 percent of near-road 

concentrations of some criteria and 

toxic pollutants.3 More than 50 million 

people live, work, or go to school in 

close proximity to high-traffic roadways, 

and the average American spends more 

than one hour traveling along roads 

each day.4 5 Almost 90 percent of daily 

trips use personal vehicles.6

The standards set forth in this 

proposed rule would significantly 

reduce levels of multiple air pollutants 

(such as ambient levels of ozone, PM, 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and mobile 

source air toxics (MSATs)) across the 

country, with immediate impacts 

expected due to the proposed sulfur 

control standards starting in 2017. 

These reductions would help state and 

local agencies in their effort to attain 

and maintain health-based National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Few other national strategies 

exist that would deliver the same 

magnitude of multi-pollutant reductions 

projected to result from the proposed 

Tier 3 standards. In the absence of 

additional controls, many areas will 

continue to have ambient ozone 

concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in 

the future. See Section III.C for more 

details. 

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to 

establish emissions standards for motor 

vehicles to address air pollution that 

may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare 

(section 202). EPA also has authority to 

establish fuel controls to address such 

air pollution (section 211). These 

statutory authorities are described in 

Section II.A. 

The vehicle and gasoline sulfur 

standards we are proposing represent a 

‘‘systems approach’’ to reducing 

vehicle-related exhaust and evaporative 

emissions by addressing the vehicle and 

fuel as a system. The systems approach 

enables emission reductions that are 

both technologically feasible and 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 proposed Tier 

3 standards would be a cost-effective 

way to achieve substantial additional 

emissions reductions. 

The proposed Tier 3 standards 

include new light- and heavy-duty 

vehicle emission standards for exhaust 

emissions of VOC (specifically, nonmethane organic gases, or NMOG), NOX, 

and PM, as well as evaporative 

emissions standards. The proposed 

standards for light-duty vehicle, lightduty truck, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicle tailpipe emissions are an 80 

percent reduction in fleet average 

NMOG+NOX compared to current 

standards, and a 70 percent reduction in 

per-vehicle PM standards. The proposed 

Tier 3 heavy-duty vehicle tailpipe 

emissions standards provide reductions 

in both NMOG+NOX and PM that are on 

the order of 60 percent, compared to 

current standards. The proposed 

evaporative emissions standards 

represent a 50 percent reduction from 

current standards. 

The vehicle emission standards, 

combined with the proposed reduction 

of gasoline sulfur content from the 

current 30 parts per million (ppm) 

average down to a 10-ppm average, 

would result in dramatic emissions 

reductions for NOX, VOC, direct PM2.5, 

carbon monoxide (CO) and air toxics. 

For example, in 2030, when Tier 3 

vehicles would make up the majority of 

the fleet as well as vehicle miles 

travelled, NOX and VOC emissions from 

on-highway vehicles would be reduced 

by about one quarter, and CO emissions 

would be reduced by about 30 percent. 

Emissions of many air toxics would also 

be reduced by 10 to nearly 40 percent 

of national emissions from on-highway 

vehicles. Reductions would continue 

beyond 2030 as more of the fleet is 

composed of Tier 3 vehicles. For 

example, the Tier 3 program would 

reduce on-highway emissions of NOX

and VOC nearly 40 percent by 2050, 

when Tier 3 vehicles would comprise 

almost the entire fleet. 

Gasoline vehicles depend to a great 

degree on catalytic converters to reduce 

levels of pollutants in their exhaust, 

including NMOG and NOX, as well as 

PM (specifically, the volatile 

hydrocarbon fraction), CO, and most air 

toxics. The catalytic converters become 

significantly less efficient when sulfur 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29820 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012). 

9These states include Connecticut, Maryland, 

Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and 

Vermont. 

10The Presidential Memorandum is found at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ 

presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuelefficiency-standards. 

11 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010). 

from the gasoline is deposited 

(adsorbed) onto the precious metals that 

catalyze the reactions to reduce the 

emissions. The Tier 2 rulemaking 

required refiners to take steps to reduce 

sulfur levels in gasoline by 

approximately 90 percent, to an average 

of 30 ppm. As discussed in Section 

IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a 

compelling case that even this level of 

sulfur not only degrades the emission 

performance of vehicles on the road 

today, but also inhibits necessary 

further reductions in vehicle emissions 

performance to reach the proposed Tier 

3 standards. Thus, the proposed Tier 3 

10-ppm average sulfur standard is 

significant in two ways: it enables 

vehicles designed to the proposed Tier 

3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet 

these standards in-use for the duration 

of their useful life, and it facilitates 

immediate emission reductions from all 

the vehicles on the road at the time the 

sulfur controls are implemented. Lower 

sulfur gasoline also facilitates the 

development of lower-cost technologies 

to improve fuel economy. Sulfur in the 

fuel quickly causes the fuel economy 

benefits of lean-burn technologies to 

disappear due to its effect on NOx 

adsorber operation requiring more fuel 

to be burned. We are not the first 

regulatory agency to recognize the need 

for lower-sulfur gasoline. Agencies in 

Europe and Japan have already imposed 

gasoline sulfur caps of 10 ppm, and the 

State of California is already averaging 

10 ppm sulfur with a per gallon cap of 

20 ppm. Other states are preempted by 

the Clean Air Act from adopting new 

fuel programs to meet air quality 

objectives. Consequently, they could not 

receive the air quality benefits of lower 

sulfur gasoline without federal action. 

This proposal is one aspect of a 

comprehensive national program 

regulating emissions from motor 

vehicles. EPA’s recent final rule for 

reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions from light-duty (LD) vehicles 

starting with model year (MY) 2017 

(referred to here as the ‘‘2017 LD GHG’’ 

standards) is another aspect of this 

comprehensive program.8 The Tier 3 

proposal addresses interactions with the 

2017 LD GHG rule in a manner that 

aligns implementation of the two 

actions, to achieve significant criteria 

pollutant and GHG emissions 

reductions while providing regulatory 

certainty and compliance efficiency. As 

vehicle manufacturers introduce new 

vehicle platforms for compliance with 

the GHG standards, they will be able to 

design them for compliance with the 

Tier 3 standards at the same time. The 

proposed Tier 3 standards are also 

closely coordinated with California’s 

Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) program 

to create a vehicle emissions program 

that would allow automakers to sell the 

same vehicles in all 50 states. (In 

December 2012 EPA approved a waiver 

of Clean Air Act preemption for the 

California Air Resources Board’s 

(CARB’s) LEV III program with 

compliance beginning in 2015. Ten 

states have adopted the LEV III program 

under Section 177 of the Clean Air 

Act.9) We have worked closely with 

individual vehicle manufacturers and 

their trade associations, who have 

emphasized the importance of a 

harmonized national program. Together, 

the Tier 3, 2017 LD GHG, and LEV III 

standards would maximize reductions 

in GHGs, criteria pollutants and air 

toxics from motor vehicles while 

streamlining programs and enabling 

manufacturers to design a single vehicle 

for nationwide sales, thus reducing their 

costs of compliance. In this way, the 

Tier 3 proposal responds to the May 21, 

2010 Presidential Memorandum that 

requested that EPA develop a 

comprehensive approach toward 

regulating motor vehicles, including 

consideration of non-GHG emissions 

standards.10

As part of the systems approach to 

this program, we are considering the 

future fuels on which vehicles will be 

operating. In particular, the renewable 

fuels mandate that was revised by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

(EISA) and is being implemented 

through the Renewable Fuel Standards 

program (RFS2)11 will result in 

significant amounts of ethanol-blended 

gasoline in the implementation 

timeframe of the proposed Tier 3 

program. We are proposing to update 

the specifications of the certification test 

fuel with which vehicles demonstrate 

compliance with emissions standards, 

in order to better reflect the ethanol 

content and other properties of gasoline 

that will be in use. 

This section provides an overview of 

the vehicle- and fuel-related standards 

we are proposing as well as the impacts 

of the proposed standards. The public 

health issues and statutory requirements 

that have prompted this proposal are 

described in Section II, and our 

discussion of how the proposal would 

reduce emissions and air pollution is 

presented in Section III. Details of 

proposed standards and how they 

would be implemented can be found in 

Sections IV through VI. Sections VII 

through X contain our discussion of the 

proposed standards’ technological 

feasibility and cost, benefits, 

alternatives and economic impacts. 

B. What are the basic components of the 

proposed program? 

In the more than 10 years since EPA 

finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle Program, 

manufacturers of light-duty vehicles 

have continued to develop a wide range 

of improved technologies capable of 

reducing key exhaust emissions, 

especially VOC, NOX, and PM. The 

California LEV II program has been 

instrumental in the continuous 

technology improvements by requiring 

year after year reductions in the fleet 

average hydrocarbon levels, in addition 

to requiring the introduction of 

advanced exhaust and evaporative 

emission controls in partial zero 

emission vehicles (PZEVs). This 

progress in vehicle technology has made 

it possible for manufacturers to achieve 

emission reductions well beyond the 

requirements of the Tier 2 program if 

gasoline sulfur levels are lowered 

further. 

As a result, we are proposing new 

standards for exhaust emissions of 

NMOG, NOX, and PM, as well as 

evaporative emissions standards. These 

standards would phase in beginning 

with MY 2017. The proposed Tier 3 

standards are very similar in structure to 

those in the existing Tier 2 program. As 

with the Tier 2 program, the proposed 

standards would apply to all light-duty 

vehicles (LDVs, or passenger cars), lightduty trucks (LDT1s, LDT2s, LDT3s, and 

LDT4s) and Medium-Duty Passenger 

Vehicles (or MDPVs). We are also 

proposing separate but closely related 

standards for heavy-duty vehicles up to 

14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

(GVWR). These vehicles were not 

included in Tier 2 but were made 

subject to new standards in a final rule 

that covered the broad heavy-duty 

sector (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001). 

We have concluded that the proposed 

vehicle emissions standards, in 

conjunction with the reductions in fuel 

sulfur also proposed in this action, are 

feasible across the fleet in the proposed 

time frame. 

In the discussions of the various 

elements of our proposed program for 

light- and heavy-duty vehicles 

throughout this preamble, we describe 

how the provisions would be consistent 

with the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) LEV III program. Auto 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29821 

12A discussion of the reasons for combining the 

two pollutants for this purpose is in Section 

IV.A.3.a below. 

13Letter to EPA Administrator Jackson, with 

white paper, from Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers, October 6, 2011. 14 Global Automakers letter to EPA Administrator 

Jackson, October 21, 2011. 

15Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to 

certify its entire fleet of passenger cars and light 

trucks to the 30 mg/mi level beginning in MY 2017 

and continuing for all subsequent model years. A 

percent phase-in would apply. This would not be 

a fleet-average standard. 

manufacturers have stressed to us the 

importance of their being able to design 

and produce a single fleet of vehicles in 

all 50 states that would comply with 

requirements under the Tier 3 program 

and the LEV III program, as well as 

greenhouse gas/Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy (CAFE) requirements in the 

same timeframe. Consistency among the 

federal and California programs means 

that special versions of vehicles with 

different emission control hardware and 

calibrations would not be necessary for 

different geographic areas. This would 

allow manufacturers to avoid the 

additional costs of parallel design, 

development, calibration, and 

manufacturing. Consistency among 

programs would also eliminate the need 

to supply aftermarket parts for repair of 

multiple versions of a vehicle. To that 

end, we worked closely with CARB and 

with the vehicle manufacturers, both 

with individual companies and with 

their trade associations, to align the two 

programs in most respects. 

We have also designed the proposed 

Tier 3 program to be implemented in the 

same timeframe as the federal and 

California GHG emissions and fuel 

economy standards for model years 

2017–2025. We expect that in response 

to these programs, manufacturers will 

be developing entirely new powertrains 

for most of their vehicles. Because the 

Tier 3 standards would phase in over 

the same timeframe, manufacturers 

would be in a position to 

simultaneously respond to all of these 

requirements. 

1. Proposed Standards for Light-Duty 

Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, and 

Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle 

Tailpipe Emissions 

We are proposing a comprehensive 

program that would include new fleetaverage standards for the sum of NMOG 

and NOX tailpipe emissions (presented 

as NMOG+NOX) and for PM.12 These 

proposed standards, when applied in 

conjunction with reduced gasoline 

sulfur content, would result in very 

significant improvements in vehicle 

emissions from the levels of the Tier 2 

program. For these pollutants, we are 

proposing standards as measured on test 

procedures that represent a range of 

vehicle operation, including the Federal 

Test Procedure (or FTP, simulating 

typical driving) and the Supplemental 

Federal Test Procedure (or SFTP, a 

composite test simulating higher 

temperatures, higher speeds, and 

quicker accelerations). In addition to the 

standards, we are also proposing to 

extend the regulatory useful life period 

during which the standards apply and 

to make test fuel more representative of 

expected real-world fuel (see Section 

I.B.5 below). 

As discussed in Section IV.A.6., the 

impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on 

exhaust catalyst performance provides a 

compelling argument, particularly for 

larger vehicles and trucks, that these 

vehicle standards would be achievable 

only with a reduction of gasoline sulfur 

content from the current 30-ppm 

average down to a 10-ppm average. 

Sulfur is a well-known catalyst poison. 

The nature of sulfur’s interactions with 

active catalytic materials is complex and 

varies with catalyst composition, 

exhaust gas composition and exhaust 

temperature. Thus, even if a 

manufacturer were able to certify a new 

vehicle to the proposed new stringent 

standards, the manufacturer’s ability to 

maintain the emission performance of 

that vehicle in-use is greatly jeopardized 

if the vehicle is being operated on 

gasoline sulfur levels greater than 10 

ppm. Vehicle manufacturers, both 

individually and through their trade 

associations, have emphasized that 

reduced gasoline sulfur would be 

required to meet the proposed 

standards.13 14 Due to the variation in 

actual vehicle operation, any amount of 

gasoline sulfur will deteriorate catalyst 

efficiency. However, we believe that a 

10-ppm average sulfur level is 

sufficiently low to enable compliance 

with these proposed Tier 3 vehicle 

standards, and as described below and 

in Section V, reducing sulfur levels 

further would cause sulfur control costs 

to quickly escalate. 

The proposed FTP and SFTP 

NMOG+NOX standards would be fleetaverage standards, meaning that a 

manufacturer would calculate the 

average emissions of the vehicles it sells 

in each model year and compare that 

average to the applicable standard for 

that model year. The manufacturer 

would certify each of its vehicles to a 

per-vehicle ‘‘bin’’ standard (see Section 

IV.A.2) and sales-weight these values to 

calculate its fleet-average NMOG+NOX

emissions for each model year. The 

proposed fleet average standards for 

NMOG+NOX evaluated over the FTP are 

summarized in Table I–1. The standards 

for light-duty vehicles would begin in 

MY 2017 at a level representing a 46 

percent reduction from the current Tier 

2 requirements. (For vehicles over 6000 

lbs GVWR, the standards would apply 

beginning in MY 2018). As shown, these 

proposed fleet-average standards would 

decline during the first several years of 

the program, becoming increasingly 

stringent until ultimately reaching an 81 

percent reduction when the transition is 

complete. The proposed FTP 

NMOG+NOX program includes two 

separate sets of declining fleet-average 

standards, with LDVs and small light 

trucks (LDT1s) in one grouping and 

heavier light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s, 

LDT4s) and MDPVs in a second 

grouping, that would converge at 30 

milligram per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025 

and later.15

Manufacturers could also earn credits 

for fleet average NMOG+NOX levels 

below the applicable standard in any 

model year. Credits that were previously 

banked or obtained from other 

manufacturers could be used, or credits 

could be transferred to other 

manufacturers (see Section IV.A.7.a). 

Unused credits would expire after 5 

model years. Manufacturers would also 

be allowed to carry deficits in their 

credit balance for up to 3 model years. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29822 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

16Nam, 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. 

TABLE I–1—PROPOSED LDV, LDT, AND MDPV FLEET AVERAGE NMOG+NOX FTP STANDARDS

[mg/mi] 

Model year 

2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and 

later 

LDV/LDT1 b .................................. 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30 

LDT2,3,4 and MDPV .................... 101 92 83 74 65 56 47 38 30 

aFor vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. 

bThese proposed standards would apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify all of their LDVs and LDT1s to a 

useful life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet-average standard 

would apply, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg. See Section IV.A.7.b. 

Similarly, the proposed NMOG+NOX

standards measured over the SFTP 

would be fleet-average standards, 

declining from MY 2017 until MY 2025, 

as shown in Table I–2. In this case, the 

same standards would apply to both 

lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 

2025, the SFTP NMOG+NOX standard 

would reach its final fleet average level 

of 50 mg/mi. 

TABLE I–2—PROPOSED LDV, LDT, AND MDPV FLEET AVERAGE NMOG+NOX SFTP STANDARDS

[mg/mi] 

Model year 

2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and 

later 

NMOG + NOX .............................. 103 97 90 83 77 70 63 57 50 

aFor vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. 

We are also proposing PM standards 

as part of this Tier 3 program, both on 

the FTP and US06 cycles (US06 is a 

component of the SFTP test). Research 

has demonstrated that the level of PM 

from gasoline light-duty vehicles is 

more significant than previously 

thought.16 Although many vehicles 

today are performing at or near the 

levels of the proposed standards, the 

data indicate that improvements, 

especially in high-load fuel control and 

in the durability of engine components, 

are possible. 

Under typical driving, as simulated by 

the FTP, the PM emissions of most 

current-technology gasoline vehicles are 

fairly low at certification and in use, 

well below the Tier 2 p.m. standards. At 

the same time we see considerable 

variation in PM emissions among 

vehicles of various makes, models, and 

designs. As a result, we are proposing a 

new FTP PM standard that is set to 

ensure that all new vehicles perform at 

the level already being achieved by 

well-designed Tier 2 emission control 

technologies. The proposed PM 

standards would apply to each vehicle 

separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). 

Also, in contrast to the declining 

NMOG+NOX standards, the proposed 

PM standard on the FTP for certification 

testing is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and 

for all model years. As for the 

NMOG+NOX standards, for vehicles 

over 6000 lbs GVWR, the FTP PM 

standard would apply beginning in MY 

2018. Manufacturers could phase in 

their vehicle models as a percent of U.S. 

sales through MY 2022. Most vehicles 

are already performing at this stringent 

PM level, and the primary intent of the 

proposed standard is to bring all lightduty vehicles to the typical level of PM 

performance being demonstrated by the 

current light-duty fleet. 

The proposed program also includes a 

separate in-use FTP PM standard of 6 

mg/mi for the testing of in-use vehicles 

that would apply during the percent 

phase-in period only. This in-use 

standard would address the 

uncertainties that accompany the 

introduction of new technologies, and 

then expire. Table I–3 presents the FTP 

certification and in-use PM standards 

and the phase-in percentages. The 

proposed standards represent a 

significant numerical reduction from the 

Tier 2 p.m. emission standards of 10 

mg/mi for light-duty vehicles. 

TABLE I–3—PHASE-IN FOR PROPOSED FTP PM STANDARDS

2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later 

Phase-In 

(percent of 

U.S. sales). 20 20 40 70 100 100 

Certification 

Standard 

(mg/mi) ..... 3 3 3 3 3 3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29823 

TABLE I–3—PHASE-IN FOR PROPOSED FTP PM STANDARDS—Continued 

2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later 

In-Use Standard (mg/ 

mi). ............ 6 6 6 6 6 3 

aFor vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. 

Finally, the proposed Tier 3 program 

includes certification PM standards 

evaluated over the SFTP (specifically 

the US06 component of the SFTP 

procedure) at a level of 10 mg/mi for 

lighter vehicles and 20 mg/mi for 

heavier vehicles. PM levels over the 

SFTP are typically higher than the PM 

emitted over the FTP due to the 

increased load on the vehicle. Test data 

show that most current light-duty 

vehicles are already performing in the 

range of the proposed standard. As in 

the case of the FTP PM standards, the 

intent of the proposed standard is to 

bring the emission performance of all 

vehicles to that already being 

demonstrated by many vehicles in the 

current light-duty fleet. 

As with the FTP PM standard, we 

propose separate in-use US06 p.m. 

standards during the percent phase-in 

only, of 15 and 25 mg/mi for vehicles 

up to and above 6,000 lbs (lbs) GVWR, 

respectively. The US06 p.m. standards 

would also phase in on the same 

schedule as the FTP PM standards, 

reaching 100 percent of each company’s 

U.S. sales by MY 2022. 

2. Proposed Heavy-Duty Vehicle 

Tailpipe Emissions Standards 

As discussed in detail in Section IV.B, 

we are proposing Tier 3 exhaust 

emissions standards for complete heavyduty vehicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and 

14,000 lb GVWR. Vehicles in this 

GVWR range are often referred to as 

Class 2b (8,501–10,000 lb) and Class 3 

(10,001–14,000 lb) vehicles, and are 

typically full-size pickup trucks and 

work vans. Most are built by companies 

with even larger light-duty truck 

markets, and as such they frequently 

share major design characteristics and 

potential emissions control technologies 

with their LDT counterparts. However, 

in contrast to the largely gasoline-fueled 

LDT fleet, roughly half of the HD pickup 

and van fleet in the U.S. is diesel-fueled, 

which is a consideration in setting 

emissions standards, as diesel engine 

emissions and control strategies differ 

from those of gasoline engines. 

The key elements of the proposed Tier 

3 program for HDVs would parallel 

those proposed for passenger cars and 

LDTs, with adjustments in standards 

levels, emissions test requirements, and 

implementation schedules, appropriate 

to this sector. These key elements 

include a combined NMOG+NOX

declining fleet average standard, new 

stringent PM standards phasing in on a 

separate schedule, adoption of a 15 

percent ethanol by volume (E15) 

certification test fuel for gasoline-fueled 

vehicles, extension of the regulatory 

useful life to 150,000 miles or 15 years 

(whichever occurs first), and a new 

requirement to meet standards over an 

SFTP that would address real-world 

driving modes not well-represented by 

the FTP cycle alone. 

We are proposing the separate Class 

2b and Class 3 fleet average 

NMOG+NOX standards shown in Table 

I–4. The proposed standards would 

become more stringent in successive 

model years from 2018 to 2022, with 

voluntary standards made available in 

2016 and 2017, all of which would be 

set at levels that match those of 

California’s LEV III program for these 

classes of vehicles. Each covered HDV 

sold by a manufacturer in each model 

year would contribute to this fleet 

average based on the mg/mi 

NMOG+NOX level of the emission level 

(‘‘bin’’) declared for it by the 

manufacturer. Manufacturers could also 

earn credits for fleet average 

NMOG+NOX levels below the standard 

in any model year. Tier 3 credits that 

were previously banked, obtained from 

other manufacturers, or transferred 

across the Class 2b/Class 3 categories 

could be used to help demonstrate 

compliance. Unused credits would 

expire after 5 model years. 

Manufacturers would also be allowed to 

carry deficits in their credit balance for 

up to 3 model years. 

TABLE I–4—PROPOSED HDV FLEET AVERAGE NMOG+NOX STANDARDS

[mg/mi] 

Voluntary Required program. 

Model Year ........................................................... 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later. 

Class 2b ................................................................ 333 310 278 253 228 203 178. 

Class 3 .................................................................. 548 508 451 400 349 298 247. 

We are proposing PM standards of 8 

mg/mi and 10 mg/mi for Class 2b and 

Class 3 HDVs, respectively, phasing in 

as an increasing percentage of a 

manufacturer’s sales per year. We are 

proposing the same phase-in schedule 

as proposed for the light-duty sector 

during model years 2018–2019–2020– 

2021: 20–40–70–100 percent, 

respectively, and a more flexible but 

equivalent alternative PM phase-in is 

also being proposed. Tier 3 HDVs would 

also be subject to more stringent CO and 

formaldehyde exhaust emissions 

standards. 

Finally, we are proposing first-ever 

SFTP standards for HDVs to ensure a 

robust overall control program that 

precludes high off-FTP cycle emissions 

by having vehicle designers consider 

them in their choice of compliance 

strategies. As for light-duty vehicles, we 

are proposing that SFTP compliance be 

based on a weighted composite of 

measured emissions from testing over 

the FTP cycle, the SC03 cycle, and an 

aggressive driving cycle, with the latter 

tailored to various HDV sub-categories: 

the US06 cycle for most HDVs, the 

highway portion of the US06 cycle for 

low power-to-weight Class 2b HDVs, 

and the LA–92 (or ‘‘Unified’’) cycle for 

Class 3 HDVs. The proposed SFTP 

standards are the same as those adopted 

for California LEV III vehicles, and 

would apply to NMOG+NOX, PM, and 

CO emissions. 

Overall, we expect the Tier 3 program 

we are proposing for HDVs to result in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29824 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

substantial reductions in harmful 

emissions from this large fleet of work 

trucks and vans. The final Tier 3 

standards levels for NMOG+NOX and 

PM are on the order of 60 percent lower 

than the current stringent standards that 

took full effect in the 2009 model year. 

3. Proposed Evaporative Emission 

Standards 

Gasoline vapor emissions from 

vehicle fuel systems occur when a 

vehicle is in operation, when it is 

parked, and when it is being refueled. 

These evaporative emissions, which 

occur on a daily basis from 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. Even though 

evaporative and refueling emission 

control systems have been in place for 

most of these vehicles for many years, 

they still contribute about 30–40 percent 

of the summer on-highway mobile 

source hydrocarbon inventory. These 

fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM 

precursors, and also contain air toxics 

such as benzene. 

To control evaporative emissions, 

EPA is proposing more stringent 

standards that would require covered 

vehicles to have essentially zero fuel 

vapor emissions in use. These include 

more stringent evaporative emissions 

standards, new test procedures, and a 

new fuel/evaporative system leak 

emission standard. The program also 

includes refueling emission standards 

for a portion of heavy-duty gasoline 

vehicles (HDGVs) over 10,000 lbs 

GVWR. EPA is proposing phase-in 

flexibilities as well as credit and 

allowance programs. The proposed 

standards, harmonized with California’s 

‘‘zero evap’’ standards, are designed to 

essentially allow for a use of common 

technology in vehicle models sold 

throughout the U.S. The level of the 

standard remains above zero to account 

for nonfuel background emissions from 

the vehicle hardware itself. 

Requirements to meet the Tier 3 

evaporative emission regulations would 

phase-in over a six model year period. 

We are proposing two options for the 

2017 model year, but after that the sales 

percentage requirements are 60 percent 

for MYs 2018 and 2019, 80 percent for 

model years 2020 and 2021, and 100 

percent for model years 2022 and later. 

In Table I–5 we present the proposed 

evaporative diurnal plus hot soak 

emission standards by vehicle class. The 

standards are approximately a 50 

percent reduction from the existing 

standards. To enhance flexibility and 

reduce costs, EPA is proposing a 

program that would allow 

manufacturers to generate allowances 

through early certifications (basically 

before the 2017 model year) and to 

demonstrate compliance using 

averaging concepts. Manufacturers may 

comply on average within each of the 

four vehicle categories, but not across 

these categories. EPA is not proposing 

any changes to the existing light-duty 

running loss or refueling emission 

standards, with the exception of the 

certification test fuel requirement 

discussed in Section I.B.5 below. 

TABLE I–5—PROPOSED EVAPORATIVE

EMISSION STANDARDS

[g/test] 

Vehicle class 

Highest diurnal + hot 

soak level 

(over both 2-day and 3- 

day diurnal tests) 

LDV, LDT1 ............ 0.300 

LDT2 ..................... 0.400 

LDT3, LDT4, 

MDPV ................ 0.500 

HDGVs .................. 0.600 

EPA is proposing a new testing 

requirement referred to as the bleed 

emission test procedure to help ensure 

fuel vapor emissions are eliminated. 

Under this proposal, manufacturers 

would be required to measure diurnal 

emissions over the 2-day diurnal test 

procedure from just the fuel tank and 

the evaporative emission canister and 

comply with a 0.020 gram per test (g/ 

test) standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and 

MDPVs, without averaging. The 

corresponding canister bleed test 

standard for HDGVs would be 0.030 g/ 

test. The proposed Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards would be phased in 

over a period of six model years 

between MY 2017 and MY 2022, with 

the leak test phasing in beginning in 

2018. 

Data from in-use evaporative 

emissions testing indicates that vapor 

leaks from vehicle fuel/evaporative 

systems are found in the fleet and that 

even very small leaks have the potential 

to make relatively significant 

contributions to the mobile source VOC 

inventory. To help address this issue, 

we are also proposing to add a new 

emission standard and test procedure to 

control vapor leaks from vehicle fuel 

and vapor control systems. The standard 

would prohibit leaks with a cumulative 

equivalent diameter of 0.02 inches or 

greater. We are proposing to add this 

simple and inexpensive test and 

emission standard to help ensure 

vehicles maintain zero fuel vapor 

emissions over their full useful life. 

New LDV, LDT, MDPV, and HDGV 

equal to or less than 14.000 lbs GVWR 

meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative 

emission regulations would also be 

required to meet the leak emission 

standard beginning in the 2018 model 

year. The requirement to meet the leak 

emission standard would phase-in on 

the same percentage of sales schedule as 

the proposed Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standard. Manufacturers 

would comply with the leak emission 

standard during certification and in use. 

EPA is not proposing that the leak 

emission standard apply to HDGVs 

above 14,000 lbs GVWR. 

EPA is also proposing new refueling 

emission control requirements for all 

HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs 

GVWR (i.e., Class 2b/3 HDGVs), starting 

in the 2018 model year. EPA is 

proposing to include these vehicles as 

part of the same basic implementation 

scheme used for LDVs and LDTs. The 

current refueling emission control 

requirements apply to complete Class 2b 

HDGVs, and EPA is proposing to extend 

those requirements to Class 3 HDGVs as 

well, since the fuel and evaporative 

control systems on these vehicles are 

very similar to those on their slightly 

lighter-weight Class 2b counterparts. 

4. Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD) 

EPA and CARB both have OBD 

regulations applicable to the vehicle 

classes covered by the proposed Tier 3 

emission standards. In the past the 

requirements have been very similar, so 

most manufacturers have met CARB 

OBD requirements and, as permitted in 

our regulations, EPA has generally 

accepted compliance with CARB’s OBD 

requirements as satisfying EPA’s OBD 

requirements. Over the past several 

years CARB has upgraded its 

requirements to help improve the 

effectiveness of OBD in ensuring good 

in-use exhaust and evaporative system 

emissions performance. We have 

reviewed these provisions and agree 

with CARB that these revisions will 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29825 

17 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007). 

18Flexible fuel vehicles are currently required to 

meet emissions certification requirements using 

both E0 and E85 test fuels. However, there are 

currently no detailed regulatory specifications 

regarding the composition of E85 test fuels. 

help to improve in-use emissions 

performance, while at the same time 

harmonizing with the CARB program. 

Toward that end, we are proposing to 

adopt and incorporate by reference the 

current CARB OBD regulations effective 

for the 2017 MY. We are also proposing 

two specific additions to enhance the 

implementation of the leak emission 

standard. EPA would retain the 

provision that certifying with CARB’s 

program would permit manufacturers to 

seek a separate EPA certificate on that 

basis. 

5. Emissions Test Fuel 

In-use gasoline has changed 

considerably since EPA’s test fuel 

specifications were first set and last 

revised. Gasoline sulfur and benzene 

have been reduced and, perhaps most 

importantly, gasoline containing 10 

percent ethanol by volume (E10) has 

replaced clear gasoline (E0) across the 

country. This has had second-order 

effects on other gasoline properties. Inuse fuel is projected to continue to 

change with the implementation of the 

RFS2 program (e.g., the potential 

expansion of the number of retailers that 

offer gasoline containing 15 percent 

ethanol by volume (E15)) as well as 

today’s proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

program. 

As a result, we are proposing to 

update our federal emissions test fuel to 

better match today’s in-use gasoline and 

also to be forward-looking with respect 

to future ethanol and sulfur content. 

The new test fuel specifications would 

apply to new vehicle certification, 

assembly line, and in-use testing. EPA is 

also proposing changes consistent with 

CARB’s LEV III emissions test fuel 

specifications. Key changes include: 

• Moving away from ‘‘Indolene’’ (E0) 

to an E15 test fuel; 

• Lowering octane to match regulargrade gasoline (except for premiumrequired vehicles); 

• Adjusting distillation temperatures, 

aromatics, and olefins to better match 

today’s in-use fuel and to be consistent 

with anticipated E15 composition; and 

• Lowering the existing sulfur 

specification and setting a benzene 

specification to be consistent with 

proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

requirements and recent MSAT2 

gasoline benzene requirements.17

The proposed E15 emissions test fuel 

specifications are detailed in Section 

IV.D.1 as well as § 1065.710 of the 

proposed regulations. For more 

information on how we arrived at the 

proposed fuel parameters and ASTM 

test methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the 

draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). 

In addition to proposing a new E15 

emissions test fuel, we are also 

proposing for the first time detailed 

specifications for the E85 emissions test 

fuel used for flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) 

certification, as discussed in Section 

IV.D.2.18 This is intended to avoid 

uncertainty and confusion in the 

certification of FFVs designed to operate 

on ethanol levels up to 83 percent. 

Furthermore, we are proposing to allow 

vehicle manufacturers to request 

approval for an alternative certification 

fuel such as a high-octane 30 percent 

ethanol by volume (E30) blend for 

vehicles they might design or optimize 

for use on such a fuel. This could help 

manufacturers that wish to raise 

compression ratios to improve vehicle 

efficiency, as a step toward complying 

with the 2017 and later light-duty 

greenhouse gas and CAFE standards 

(2017 LD GHG). This in turn could help 

provide a market incentive to increase 

ethanol use beyond E10 by overcoming 

the disincentive of lower fuel economy 

associated with increasing ethanol 

concentrations in fuel, and enhance the 

environmental performance of ethanol 

as a transportation fuel by using it to 

enable more fuel efficient engines. 

In addition to seeking comment on all 

aspects of the proposed new emission 

test fuel requirements, we also seek 

comment on whether there are other 

aspects of today’s proposed standards 

that, if modified, might provide an 

incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the 

development of highly efficient vehicles 

optimized for use on higher level 

ethanol blends. 

6. Fuel Standards 

Under the Tier 3 fuel program, we are 

proposing that gasoline and any 

ethanol-gasoline blend contain no more 

than 10 ppm sulfur on an annual 

average basis by January 1, 2017. 

Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline program, 

the proposed Tier 3 program would 

apply to gasoline in the U.S. and the 

U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the 

Virgin Islands, excluding California. 

The proposed program would result in 

gasoline that contains, on average, 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), we are 

proposing a Tier 3 fuel program that 

contains considerable flexibility to ease 

both initial and long-term 

implementation of the program. We are 

proposing an averaging, banking, and 

trading (ABT) program that would allow 

refiners and importers to spread out 

their investments through an early 

credit program and rely on ongoing 

nationwide averaging to meet the 10- 

ppm sulfur standard. We are also 

proposing a three-year delay for small 

refiners and ‘‘small volume refineries’’ 

processing less than or equal to 75,000 

barrels of crude oil per day. As a result 

of the early credit program, even 

considering the proposed ABT program 

and flexibilities offered to small refiners 

and small volume refineries, we 

anticipate considerable reductions in 

gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with 

final refinery control to the 10-ppm 

average occurring by January 1, 2020. 

For more on the proposed gasoline 

sulfur program flexibilities, refer to 

Section V.D. 

Under today’s Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

program, we are proposing to either 

maintain the current 80-ppm refinery 

gate and 95-ppm downstream per-gallon 

caps or lower them to 50 and 65 ppm, 

respectively. We also evaluated and are 

seeking comment on the potential of 

lowering the per-gallon caps to as low 

as 20 and 25 ppm. There are advantages 

and disadvantages with each of the 

various sulfur cap options (explained in 

more detail in Section V.A.3), but under 

all scenarios, the stringency of the 10- 

ppm annual average standard would 

result in reduced gasoline sulfur levels 

nationwide. A summary of the proposed 

Tier 3 sulfur standards is provided in 

Table I–6. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29826 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

19To estimate the benefits of the proposed Tier 

3 rule, we perfomed air quality modeling for the 

year 2030. 

TABLE I–6—PROPOSED TIER 3 GASOLINE SULFUR STANDARDS

Proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards 

Cap Option 1 Cap Option 2 

Limit Effective Limit Effective 

Refinery annual average standard .................. 10 ppm ...................... January 1, 2017 a ...... 10 ppm ...................... January 1, 2017.a

Refinery gate per-gallon cap ........................... 80 ppm ...................... Already ...................... 50 ppm ...................... January 1, 2020. 

Downstream per-gallon cap ............................. 95 ppm ...................... Already ...................... 65 ppm ...................... March 1, 2020. 

aEffective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries. 

We are proposing that manufacturers 

of gasoline additives that are used 

downstream of the refinery at less than 

1 volume percent must limit the sulfur 

contribution to the finished gasoline 

from the use of their additive to less 

than 3 ppm when the additive is used 

at the maximum recommended 

treatment rate. 

The proposed vehicle emissions 

standards are fuel neutral (i.e. they are 

applicable regardless of the type of fuel 

that the vehicle is designed to use). The 

sulfur content of highway diesel fuel is 

already required to meet a 15ppm sulfur 

cap. Thus, no further action is needed 

to enable diesel fuel vehicles to meet the 

proposed emissions standards. There 

currently are no sulfur standards for the 

fuel used in compressed natural gas 

(CNG) and liquid propane gas (LPG) 

vehicles. We request comment on 

whether it is necessary for EPA to 

establish sulfur standards for CNG and 

LPG, and whether a 15 ppm sulfur cap 

similar to that established for highway 

diesel fuel would be appropriate. 

Comment is also requested on whether 

and how to address the sulfur 

contribution from odorants and other 

additives used in CNG and LPG. 

As the number of flex-fuel vehicles 

(FFVs) in the in-use fleet increases, it is 

now becoming increasingly important 

that all fuels used in FFVs, not just 

gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A 

lack of clarity regarding the standards 

that apply to fuels used in FFVs could 

act to impede the further expansion of 

ethanol blended fuels with 

concentrations greater than 15 volume 

percent, which is important to satisfying 

the requirements of the RFS2 program. 

For these reasons, we believe it is 

important that our gasoline quality 

standards for not only sulfur, but also 

benzene, RVP, detergency, and chemical 

composition (i.e., contains only carbon, 

hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur) 

apply to any fuel used in an FFV. At the 

same time, it is not necessarily clear 

how we should implement such 

standards within the context of our 

existing regulations as these fuels tend 

to be produced downstream of the 

petroleum refinery. For this reason we 

are seeking comment on both the need 

to extend our gasoline standards to all 

gasoline-ethanol blends, as well as the 

appropriate regulatory mechanisms for 

doing so. 

7. Regulatory Streamlining and 

Technical Amendments 

We are proposing and requesting 

comment in this action on a number of 

items to help streamline the in-use fuels 

regulations at 40 CFR part 80. The 

majority of items involve clarifying 

vague or inconsistent language, removal 

or updating of outdated provisions, and 

decrease in frequency and/or volume of 

reporting burden where data are no 

longer needed or are redundant with 

other EPA fuels programs. In general, 

we believe that these changes would 

reduce burden on industry and allow us 

to achieve the standards and resulting 

environmental benefits as early as 

possible with no expected loss in 

environmental control. In some cases, 

these regulatory streamlining items are 

non-substantive amendments that 

correct minor errors or inconsistencies 

in the regulations. 

The regulatory streamlining items that 

we are proposing for the in-use fuels 

regulations are changes that we believe 

are straightforward and should be made 

quickly. In addition, there are a number 

of items that we believe need further 

consideration and discussion on which 

we are seeking comment. 

The proposal also includes a variety 

of technical amendments to 

certification-related requirements for 

engine and vehicle emission standards. 

We are proposing to revise the fuel 

economy labeling requirements to 

correspond to the new Tier 3 standards. 

We are also proposing to remove 

obsolete regulatory text and make 

several minor corrections and 

clarifications. 

Please refer to Section VI for a 

complete discussion of technical 

amendments and regulatory 

streamlining provisions and issues. 

C. What would the impacts of the 

proposed standards be? 

The proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel 

standards together would reduce 

dramatically emissions of NOX, VOC, 

PM2.5, and air toxics. The gasoline sulfur 

standards, which would take effect in 

2017, would provide large immediate 

reductions in emissions from existing 

gasoline vehicles and engines. NOX

emissions would be reduced by about 

284,000 tons, or about 8 percent of 

emissions from on-highway vehicles, in 

2017 alone. The emission reductions 

would increase over time as newer 

vehicles become a larger percentage of 

the fleet. In 2030, when 80 percent of 

the light-duty fleet (and 90 percent of 

the vehicle miles travelled) consists of 

Tier 3 vehicles, we expect the NOX and 

VOC emissions to be reduced by about 

525,000 tons and 226,000 tons, 

respectively, or one quarter of emissions 

from on-highway vehicles compared to 

their 2030 levels without the Tier 3 

program. Emissions of CO would 

decrease by almost 6 million tons, or 30 

percent of emissions from on-highway 

vehicles. Emissions of many air toxics 

would also be reduced, including 

benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, 

formaldehyde, acrolein and ethanol, 

with reductions ranging from 10 to 

nearly 40 percent of national emissions 

from on-highway vehicles. We expect 

these reductions to continue beyond 

2030 as more of the fleet continues to 

turn over to Tier 3 vehicles; for 

example, by 2050, when nearly all of the 

fleet would have turned over to Tier 3 

standards, we estimate the Tier 3 

program would reduce on-highway 

emissions of NOX and VOC nearly 40 

percent from the level of emissions 

projected without Tier 3 controls.19

These reductions in emissions of 

NOX, VOC, PM2.5 and air toxics from the 

proposed Tier 3 standards are projected 

to lead to significant decreases in 

ambient concentrations of ozone, PM2.5

and air toxics (including notable 

nationwide reductions in benzene 

concentrations) by 2030, and would 

immediately reduce ozone in 2017 

when the proposed sulfur controls take 

effect. Additional information on the 

emission and air quality impacts of the 

proposed Tier 3 program is presented in 

Sections III.B and C. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29827 

20These benefits estimates have been adjusted to 

remove benefits of the Tier 3 program in California. 

The Tier 3 proposal’s analysis assumed emissions 

reductions and resulting benefits would occur 

nationwide. California was recently granted a Clean 

Air Act waiver of preemption for the LEV III vehicle 

program, and some other states have adopted it. The 

Tier 3 final rule analysis will account for those 

emission reductions that will occur even in the 

absence of Tier 3 vehicle standards, for all states 

that have adopted LEV III. See Section VIII of the 

preamble for more information on the benefits 

associated with the Tier 3 program. 

21Costs include estimates for the proposed Tier 

3 standards in all states except California. 

22 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area 

Population Exposure Report, current as of 

December 14, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/ 

oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135. 

Exposure to ambient concentrations of 

ozone, PM2.5, and air toxics is linked to 

adverse human health impacts such as 

premature deaths as well as other 

important public health and 

environmental effects (see Section II.B). 

The proposed Tier 3 standards would 

reduce these adverse impacts and yield 

significant benefits, including those we 

can monetize and those we are unable 

to quantify. We estimate that by 2030, 

the annual emission reductions of the 

Tier 3 standards would annually 

prevent between 670 and 1,700 PMrelated premature deaths, between 160 

and 710 ozone-related premature 

deaths, 81,000 work days lost, and 

approximately 1.4 million minor 

restricted-activity days. The estimated 

annual monetized health benefits of the 

proposed Tier 3 standards in 2030 

(2010$) would be between $8.0 and $23 

billion, assuming a 3-percent discount 

rate (or between $7.4 billion and $21 

billion assuming a 7-percent discount 

rate). 20 The proposed fuel standards are 

projected to cost on average less than 

one cent per gallon of gasoline, and the 

proposed light-duty vehicle standards 

would have an average cost that 

increases in proportion to the increase 

in stringency from $50 per vehicle in 

2017 to $134 per vehicle when the 

standards are fully phased in 2025. The 

annual cost of the overall program in 

2030 would be approximately $3.4 

billion.21 The 2030 benefits are 2 to 7 

times the costs of the program. 

The benefits in Table I–7 include all 

of the human health impacts we are able 

to quantify and monetize at this time. 

However, the full complement of human 

health and welfare effects associated 

with PM, ozone and air toxics remain 

unquantified because of current 

limitations in methods and/or available 

data. As a result, the health benefits 

quantified in this section are likely 

underestimates of the total benefits 

attributable to the proposed standards. 

See Sections VII and VIII for detailed 

descriptions of the costs and benefits of 

this proposal. 

TABLE I–7—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED TIER 3 PROGRAM

[Billions, 2010$] a

Description 2030 

Vehicle Program Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................ $2.1 

Fuels Program Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1.3 

Total Estimated Costs b ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3.4 

Total Estimated Health Benefits cdefg .................................................................................................................................................

3 percent discount rate ................................................................................................................................................................. $8.0–$23 

7 percent discount rate ................................................................................................................................................................. 7.4–21 

Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits—Total Costs): ............................................................................................................................

3 percent discount rate ................................................................................................................................................................. 4.6–20 

7 percent discount rate ................................................................................................................................................................. 4.0–18 

aAll 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. bThe calculation of annual costs does not require amortization of costs over time. Therefore, the estimates of annual cost do not include a discount rate or rate of return assumption (see Section VII of the preamble for more information on vehicle and fuel costs). The program costs include the costs associated with the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards in all states except California. cThe benefits presented in this table have been adjusted to remove benefits of the Tier 3 program in California. 

dTotal includes ozone and PM2.5 benefits. Range was developed by adding the estimate from the Bell et al., 2004 ozone premature mortality 

function to PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from the American Cancer Society cohort study (Pope et al., 2002) for the low estimate and

ozone premature mortality derived from the Levy et al., 2005 study to PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from the Six-Cities (Laden et al., 

2006) study for the high estimate. eAnnual 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. fValuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20-year segmented lag 

structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2006 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (September, 2006). g Not all possible benefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis; the total monetized benefits presented here may therefore be underestimated. Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized, due to current limitations in methods and/or data availability, 

are listed in Table VIII–2. For example, we have not quantified a number of known or suspected health and welfare effects linked with reductions 

in ozone and PM (e.g., reductions in heart rate variability, reduced material damage to structures and cultural monuments, and reduced eutrophication in coastal areas). We are also unable to quantify health and welfare benefits associated with reductions in air toxics.

II. Why is EPA making this proposal? 

The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to 

establish emissions standards for motor 

vehicles to address air pollution that 

may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. EPA 

also has authority to establish fuel 

controls to address such air pollution. 

These statutory requirements are 

described in Section II.A. 

Emissions from motor vehicles and 

their fuels contribute to ambient levels 

of ozone, PM, NO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

and CO, which are all pollutants for 

which EPA has established health-based 

NAAQS. These pollutants are linked 

with respiratory and/or cardiovascular 

problems and other adverse health 

impacts leading to increased medication 

use, hospital admissions, emergency 

department visits, and premature 

mortality. Over 158 million people 

currently live in areas designated 

nonattainment for one or more of the 

current NAAQS.22

Motor vehicles also emit air toxics, 

and the majority of Americans continue 

to be exposed to ambient concentrations 

of air toxics at levels which have the 

potential to cause adverse health effects, 

including cancer, immune system 

damage, and neurological, reproductive, 

developmental, respiratory, and other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29828 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

23U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 

2005 National-Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 

24For 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. 

25U.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. 

26 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. 

27U.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/. 28 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012). 

29The Presidential Memorandum is found at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/

presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuelefficiency-standards. 

30LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings 

above 6000 lbs are considered ‘‘heavy-duty 

vehicles’’ under the CAA. See section 202(b)(3)(C). 

For regulatory purposes, we refer to those LDTs at 

or below 8500 lbs GVWR as ‘‘heavy light-duty 

trucks’’ made up of LDT3s and LDT4s. 

health problems.23 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 

pollution directly near roads, with 

gasoline vehicles accounting for more 

than 50 percent of near-road 

concentrations of some criteria and 

toxic pollutants.24 More than 50 million 

people live, work, or go to school in 

close proximity to high-traffic roadways, 

and the average American spends more 

than one hour traveling each day, with 

nearly 90 percent of daily trips 

occurring by personal vehicle.25 26 27

Exposure to traffic-related pollutants 

has been linked with adverse health 

impacts such as respiratory problems 

(particularly in asthmatic children) and 

cardiovascular problems. 

In the absence of additional controls 

such as Tier 3 standards, many areas 

will continue to have ambient ozone 

and PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the 

NAAQS in the future. States and local 

areas are required to adopt control 

measures to attain the NAAQS and, 

once attained, to demonstrate that 

control measures are in place sufficient 

to maintain the NAAQS for ten years 

(and eight years later, a similar 

demonstration is required for another 

ten-year period). The proposed Tier 3 

standards would be a critical part of 

areas’ strategies to attain and maintain 

the standards. Maintaining the 

standards has been challenging in the 

past, particularly for areas where high 

population growth rates lead to 

significant annual increases in vehicle 

trips and vehicle miles traveled. Our air 

quality modeling for this proposal, 

which is described in more detail in 

Section III.C, projects that in 2017 a 

significant number of counties outside 

CA will be within 10 percent of the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of 

additional controls. These counties in 

particular would benefit from the 

proposed Tier 3 standards as they work 

to ensure long-term maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

Section III provides more detail on 

how this proposal would reduce motor 

vehicle emissions and ambient levels of 

pollution. The proposed rule would 

meaningfully reduce ozone 

concentrations as early as 2017 (the first 

year of the program), and even more 

significantly in 2030. The reductions are 

of significant enough magnitude to bring 

ozone levels in some counties from 

above the standard to below the 

standard, even without any additional 

controls. We also project that the Tier 3 

standards would reduce ambient PM2.5

concentrations. 

Without this proposal to reduce 

nationwide motor vehicle emissions, 

areas would have to adopt other 

measures to reduce emissions from 

other sources under their state or local 

authority. Few other measures exist for 

providing multi-pollutant reductions of 

the same magnitude and costeffectiveness as those expected from the 

proposed Tier 3 standards. Furthermore, 

states outside California do not have the 

authority to lower the sulfur in gasoline, 

which is needed to immediately reduce 

emissions from the existing fleet and 

also enable new vehicles to meet the 

proposed Tier 3 emissions standards 

throughout their useful life. 

The reductions in ambient ozone and 

PM2.5 that would result from the 

proposed Tier 3 standards would 

provide significant health benefits. By 

2030, the standards would annually 

prevent between 670 and 1,700 PMrelated premature deaths, between 160 

and 710 ozone-related premature 

deaths, 81,000 work days lost, and 

approximately 1.4 million minor 

restricted-activity days (see Section VIII 

for more details). This proposal would 

also reduce air toxics; for example, we 

project that in 2030, the proposal would 

decrease ambient benzene 

concentrations by 10–25 percent in 

some urban areas. Furthermore, the 

proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce 

traffic-associated pollution near major 

roads. EPA is proposing Tier 3 vehicle 

and fuel standards as part of a 

comprehensive nationwide program for 

regulating all types of air pollution from 

motor vehicles. EPA recently finalized 

standards to reduce GHG emissions 

from light-duty vehicles, starting with 

model year 2017.28 The Tier 3 standards 

in this proposal, which address nonGHGs, would be implemented on the 

same timeframe, thus allowing 

manufacturers to optimize their vehicle 

redesigns over both sets of standards. 

Furthermore, the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel 

standards are also closely aligned with 

California’s LEV III program, in such a 

way that manufacturers could design a 

single vehicle for nationwide sales. This 

reduces the cost of compliance for auto 

manufacturers. 

This Tier 3 proposal responds to the 

President’s request in his May 2010 

memorandum for EPA to review the 

adequacy of its existing non-GHG 

standards for new motor vehicles and 

fuels, and to promulgate new standards, 

if necessary, as part of a comprehensive 

approach to regulating motor vehicles.29

Based on our review, we have 

concluded that improved vehicle 

technology, combined with lower sulfur 

gasoline, make it feasible and 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 proposing to set motor vehicle 

emission standards under the authority 

of section 202 of the Clean Air Act. 

Section 202(a) provides EPA with 

general authority to prescribe vehicle 

standards, subject to any specific 

limitations elsewhere in the Act. EPA is 

also setting standards for larger lightduty trucks and MDPVs under the 

general authority of section 202(a)(1) 

and under section 202(a)(3), which 

requires that standards applicable to 

emissions of hydrocarbons, NOX, CO 

and PM from heavy-duty vehicles 30

reflect the greatest degree of emission 

reduction available for the model year to 

which such standards apply, giving 

appropriate consideration to cost, 

energy, and safety. In addition, section 

202(k) provides EPA with authority to 

issue and revise regulations applicable 

to evaporative emissions of 

hydrocarbons from all gasoline-fueled 

motor vehicles during: (1) Operation, 

and (2) over 2 or more days of nonuse; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29829 

31 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area 

Population Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 

2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ 

popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0135. 

32U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 

2005 National-Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 

33Health 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]. 

34U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone 

and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/ 

600/R–05/004aF–cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

35U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy 

Assessment of Scientific and Technical 

Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–452/R–07– 

003. Washington, DC, U.S. EPA. 

36National Research Council. (2008). Estimating 

Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits 

from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The National 

Academies Press: Washington, DC. 

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 proposing to adopt gasoline 

sulfur controls pursuant to our authority 

under section 211(c)(1) of the CAA. This 

section allows EPA to establish a fuel 

control if at least one of the following 

two criteria is met: (1) The emission 

products of the fuel cause or contribute 

to air pollution which may reasonably 

be anticipated to endanger public health 

or welfare; or (2) the emission products 

of the fuel will impair to a significant 

degree the performance of any 

emissions control device or system 

which is either in general use or which 

the Administrator finds has been 

developed to a point where in a 

reasonable time it will be in general use 

were the fuel control to be adopted. We 

are proposing gasoline sulfur controls 

based on both of these criteria. Under 

the first criterion, we believe that 

gasoline with current levels of sulfur 

contributes to ambient levels of air 

pollution that endanger public health 

and welfare, as described in Section 

II.B. Under the second criterion, we 

believe that gasoline sulfur impairs the 

emissions control systems of vehicles, 

as discussed in Section III.A.2. 

B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of 

Motor Vehicles and Fuels 

Motor vehicles emit pollutants that 

contribute to ambient levels of ozone, 

PM, NO2, SO2, CO, and air toxics. Motor 

vehicles are significant contributors to 

emissions of VOC and NOX, which 

contribute to the formation of both 

ozone and PM2.5. Approximately 159 

million people currently live in counties 

designated nonattainment for one or 

more of the NAAQS, and this figure 

does not include the people living in 

areas with a risk of exceeding the 

NAAQS in the future.31 The majority of 

Americans continue to be exposed to 

ambient concentrations of air toxics at 

levels which have the potential to cause 

adverse health effects.32 In addition, 

populations who live, work, or attend 

school near major roads experience 

elevated exposure concentrations to a 

wide range of air pollutants.33

EPA has already adopted many 

emission control programs that are 

expected to reduce ambient pollution 

levels. As a result of these programs, the 

number of areas that continue to violate 

the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS or have 

high levels of air toxics is expected to 

continue to decrease. However, the 

baseline air quality modeling completed 

for this proposed rule predicts that 

without additional controls there will 

continue to be a need for reductions in 

ozone, PM2.5 and air toxics 

concentrations in the future. Section 

III.C of this preamble presents the air 

quality modeling results for this 

proposed rule. 

1. Ozone 

a. Background 

Ground-level ozone pollution is 

typically formed through reactions 

involving VOC and NOX in the lower 

atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. 

These pollutants, often referred to as 

ozone precursors, are emitted by many 

types of pollution sources, such as 

highway and nonroad motor vehicles 

and engines, power plants, chemical 

plants, refineries, makers of consumer 

and commercial products, industrial 

facilities, and smaller area sources. 

The science of ozone formation, 

transport, and accumulation is complex. 

Ground-level ozone is produced and 

destroyed in a cyclical set of chemical 

reactions, many of which are sensitive 

to temperature and sunlight. When 

ambient temperatures and sunlight 

levels remain high for several days and 

the air is relatively stagnant, ozone and 

its precursors can build up and result in 

more ozone than typically occurs on a 

single high-temperature day. Ozone and 

its precursors can be transported 

hundreds of miles downwind from 

precursor emissions, resulting in 

elevated ozone levels even in areas with 

low local VOC or NOX emissions. 

b. Health Effects of Ozone 

The health and welfare effects of 

ozone are well documented and are 

assessed in EPA’s 2006 Air Quality 

Criteria Document and 2007 Staff 

Paper.34 35 People who are more 

susceptible to effects associated with 

exposure to ozone can include children, 

the elderly, and individuals with 

respiratory disease such as asthma. 

Those with greater exposures to ozone, 

for instance due to time spent outdoors 

(e.g., children and outdoor workers), are 

of particular concern. Ozone can irritate 

the respiratory system, causing 

coughing, throat irritation, and 

breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce 

lung function and cause pulmonary 

inflammation in healthy individuals. 

Ozone can also aggravate asthma, 

leading to more asthma attacks that 

require medical attention and/or the use 

of additional medication. Thus, ambient 

ozone may cause both healthy and 

asthmatic individuals to limit their 

outdoor activities. In addition, there is 

suggestive evidence of a contribution of 

ozone to cardiovascular-related 

morbidity and highly suggestive 

evidence that short-term ozone exposure 

directly or indirectly contributes to nonaccidental and cardiopulmonary-related 

mortality, but additional research is 

needed to clarify the underlying 

mechanisms causing these effects. In a 

report on the estimation of ozonerelated premature mortality published 

by the National Research Council (NRC), 

a panel of experts and reviewers 

concluded that short-term exposure to 

ambient ozone is likely to contribute to 

premature deaths and that ozone-related 

mortality should be included in 

estimates of the health benefits of 

reducing ozone exposure.36 Animal 

toxicological evidence indicates that 

with repeated exposure, ozone can 

inflame and damage the lining of the 

lungs, which may lead to permanent 

changes in lung tissue and irreversible 

reductions in lung function. The 

respiratory effects observed in 

controlled human exposure studies and 

animal studies are coherent with the 

evidence from epidemiologic studies 

supporting a causal relationship 

between acute ambient ozone exposures 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29830 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

37 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). 

38A nonattainment area is defined in the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) as an area that is violating an 

ambient standard or is contributing to a nearby area 

that is violating the standard. 

39 77FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). 

40The 138 million total is calculated by summing, 

without double counting, the 1997 and 2008 ozone 

nonattainment populations contained in the 

Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure 

report (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. 

41The 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. 

42Regulatory 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. 

43U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. 

and increased respiratory-related 

emergency room visits and 

hospitalizations in the warm season. In 

addition, there is suggestive evidence of 

a contribution of ozone to 

cardiovascular-related morbidity and 

non-accidental and cardiopulmonary 

mortality. 

c. Current and Projected Ozone Levels 

Concentrations that exceed the level 

of the ozone NAAQS occur in many 

parts of the country, including many 

major population centers. In addition, 

our modeling without the proposed Tier 

3 controls projects that in the future we 

will continue to have many areas that 

will have ambient ozone concentrations 

above the level of the NAAQS (see 

Section III.C.1). States will need to meet 

the standard in the 2015–2032 

timeframe. The emission reductions and 

significant ambient ozone 

improvements from this proposed rule, 

which would take effect starting in 

2017, would be helpful to states as they 

work to attain and maintain the ozone 

NAAQS. 

The primary and secondary NAAQS 

for ozone are 8-hour standards with a 

level of 0.075 ppm. The most recent 

revision to the ozone standards was in 

2008; the previous 8-hour ozone 

standards, set in 1997, had a level of 

0.08 ppm. In 2004, the U.S. EPA 

designated nonattainment areas for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.37 38 As of 

December 14, 2012, there were 41 ozone 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS composed of 221 full or partial 

counties with a total population of over 

118 million. Nonattainment 

designations for the 2008 ozone 

standard were finalized on April 30, 

2012 and May 31, 2012.39 These 

designations include 46 areas, 

composed of 227 full or partial counties, 

with a population of over 123 million. 

As of December 14, 2012, over 138 

million people are living in ozone 

nonattainment areas.40

States with ozone nonattainment 

areas are required to take action to bring 

those areas into attainment. The 

attainment date assigned to an ozone 

nonattainment area is based on the 

area’s classification. Most ozone 

nonattainment areas are required to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

the 2007 to 2013 time frame and then to 

maintain it thereafter.41 The attainment 

dates for areas designated 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 

timeframe, depending on the severity of 

the problem in each area. In addition, 

EPA is working to complete the current 

review of the ozone NAAQS by mid2014. If EPA revises the ozone standards 

in 2014 pursuant to that review, the 

attainment dates associated with areas 

designated nonattainment for that 

NAAQS would likely be in the 2019 to 

2036 timeframe, depending on the 

severity of the problem in each area. 

EPA has already adopted many 

emission control programs that are 

expected to reduce ambient ozone 

levels. As a result of these and other 

federal, state and local programs, 8-hour 

ozone levels are expected to improve in 

the future. However, even with the 

implementation of all current state and 

federal regulations, there are projected 

to be counties violating the ozone 

NAAQS well into the future. Thus 

additional federal control programs, 

such as Tier 3, can assist areas with 

attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in 

attaining the NAAQS as expeditiously 

as practicable and may relieve areas 

with already stringent local regulations 

from some of the burden associated with 

adopting additional local controls. 

2. Particulate Matter 

a. Background 

Particulate matter is a highly complex 

mixture of solid particles and liquid 

droplets distributed among numerous 

atmospheric gases which interact with 

solid and liquid phases. Particles range 

in size from those smaller than 1 

nanometer (10¥9 meter) to over 100 

micrometer (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). For regulatory purposes, fine 

particles are measured as PM2.5 and 

inhalable or thoracic coarse particles are 

measured as PM10–2.5, corresponding to 

their size (diameter) range in 

micrometers and referring to total 

particle mass under 2.5 and between 2.5 

and 10 micrometers, respectively. The 

EPA currently has standards that 

measure PM2.5 and PM10.42

Particles span many sizes and shapes 

and consist of hundreds of different 

chemicals. Particles are emitted directly 

from sources and are also formed 

through atmospheric chemical 

reactions; the former are often referred 

to as ‘‘primary’’ particles, and the latter 

as ‘‘secondary’’ particles. Particle 

pollution also varies by time of year and 

location and is affected by several 

weather-related factors, such as 

temperature, clouds, humidity, and 

wind. A further layer of complexity 

comes from particles’ ability to shift 

between solid/liquid and gaseous 

phases, which is influenced by 

concentration and meteorology, 

especially temperature. 

Fine particles are produced primarily 

by combustion processes and by 

transformations of gaseous emissions 

(e.g., sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC)) in the atmosphere. 

The chemical and physical properties of 

PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, 

region, meteorology, and source 

category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a 

complex mixture of different 

components including sulfates, nitrates, 

organic compounds, elemental carbon 

and metal compounds. These particles 

can remain in the atmosphere for days 

to weeks and travel hundreds to 

thousands of kilometers. 

b. Health Effects of PM 

Scientific studies show ambient PM is 

associated with a series of adverse 

health effects. These health effects are 

discussed in detail in EPA’s Integrated 

Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate 

Matter.43 Further discussion of health 

effects associated with PM can also be 

found in the draft RIA. The ISA 

summarizes health effects evidence 

associated with both short-term and 

long-term exposures to PM2.5, PM10–2.5, 

and ultrafine particles. 

The ISA concludes that health effects 

associated with short-term exposures 

(hours to days) to ambient PM2.5 include 

mortality, cardiovascular effects, such as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29831 

44U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. Section 

2.3.1.1. 

45U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. page 2–12, 

Sections 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1. 

46U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. Section 

2.3.2. 

47U.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. 

48U.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. 

49U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter. http:// 

www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf. 

50 70 FR 19844 (April 14, 2005). 

51 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). 

52 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area 

Population Exposure Report, current as of 

December 14, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/ 

oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0135. 

53U.S. EPA. (2007). PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard Implementation Rule (Final). 

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 72 FR 20586, April 25, 

2007. 

54U.S. EPA. (2011). PM Standards Revision— 

2006: Timeline. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

PM/naaqsrev2006.html#timeline. Accessed 

December 31, 2011. 

altered vasomotor function and 

myocardial ischemia, and hospital 

admissions and emergency department 

visits for ischemic heart disease and 

congestive heart failure, and respiratory 

effects, such as exacerbation of asthma 

symptoms in children and hospital 

admissions and emergency department 

visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease and respiratory infections.44 The 

ISA notes that long-term exposure 

(months to years) to PM2.5 is associated 

with the development/progression of 

cardiovascular disease, premature 

mortality, and respiratory effects, 

including reduced lung function growth 

in children, increased respiratory 

symptoms, and asthma development.45

The ISA concludes that the currently 

available scientific evidence from 

epidemiologic, controlled human 

exposure, and toxicological studies 

supports a causal association between 

short- and long-term exposures to PM2.5

and cardiovascular effects and 

premature mortality. Furthermore, the 

ISA concludes that the collective 

evidence supports likely causal 

associations between short- and longterm PM2.5 exposures and respiratory 

effects. The ISA also concludes that the 

scientific evidence is suggestive of a 

causal association for reproductive and 

developmental effects including 

respiratory-related infant mortality, and 

cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity 

and long-term exposure to PM2.5.46

For PM10¥2.5, the ISA concludes that 

the current evidence is suggestive of a 

causal relationship between short-term 

exposures and premature mortality, 

cardiovascular effects, and respiratory 

effects. Data are inadequate to draw 

conclusions regarding the health effects 

associated with long-term exposure to 

PM10¥2.5.47

For ultrafine particles, the ISA 

concludes that there is suggestive 

evidence of a causal relationship 

between short-term exposures and 

cardiovascular effects, such as changes 

in heart rhythm and blood vessel 

function. It also concludes that there is 

suggestive evidence of association 

between short-term exposure to 

ultrafine particles and respiratory 

effects. Data are inadequate to draw 

conclusions regarding the health effects 

associated with long-term exposure to 

ultrafine particles.48

c. Current and Projected PM2.5 Levels 

There are many areas of the country 

that are currently in nonattainment for 

the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Our modeling without the proposed 

Tier 3 controls projects that in the future 

we will continue to have many areas 

that will have ambient PM2.5

concentrations above the level of the 

NAAQS (see Section III.C.2). States will 

need to meet the 24-hour standard in 

the 2015–2019 timeframe and the 

annual standard in the 2021–2025 

timeframe. The emission reductions and 

improvements in ambient PM2.5 from 

this proposed rule, which would take 

effect starting in 2017, would be helpful 

to states as they work to attain and 

maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

There are two NAAQS for PM2.5: an 

annual standard (12 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3)) and a 24-hour 

standard (35 mg/m3). The most recent 

revisions to these standards were in 

1997, 2006 and in December 2012. The 

December 2012 rule revised the level of 

the annual PM2.5 standard from 15 mg/ 

m3 to 12 mg/m3.49

In 2005 EPA designated 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS.50 As of December 14, 2012, 

over 91 million people lived in the 35 

areas that are designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. These PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas are comprised of 191 full or partial 

counties. On October 8, 2009, the EPA 

issued final nonattainment area 

designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS.51 These designations include 

32 areas composed of 121 full or partial 

counties with a population of over 70 

million. In total, there are 50 PM2.5

nonattainment areas with a population 

of over 105 million people.52

States with PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

will be required to take action to bring 

those areas into attainment in the future. 

Most 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

are required to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the 2010 to 2015 time frame 

and then required to maintain the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS thereafter.53 The 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas will be 

required to attain the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2014 to 2019 time 

frame and then be required to maintain 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

thereafter.54 The 2012 PM2.5

nonattainment areas will likely be 

required to attain the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS in the 2020 to 2025 time frame, 

depending on the severity of an area’s 

fine particle pollution problems and the 

availability of pollution controls. The 

standards proposed here begin taking 

effect in 2017. 

EPA has already adopted many 

mobile source emission control 

programs that are expected to reduce 

ambient PM levels. As a result of these 

and other federal, state and local 

programs, the number of areas that fail 

to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS in the future 

is expected to decrease. However, even 

with the implementation of all current 

state and federal regulations, there are 

projected to be counties violating the 

PM2.5 NAAQS well into the future. Thus 

additional federal control programs, 

such as Tier 3, can assist areas with 

attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in 

attaining the NAAQS as expeditiously 

as practicable and may relieve areas 

with already stringent local regulations 

from some of the burden associated with 

adopting additional local controls. 

3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides 

a. Background 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of 

the NOX family of gases. Most NO2 is 

formed in the air through the oxidation 

of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel 

is burned at a high temperature. Sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), a member of the sulfur 

oxide (SOX) family of gases, is formed 

from burning fuels containing sulfur 

(e.g., coal or oil derived), extracting 

gasoline from oil, or extracting metals 

from ore. 

SO2 and NO2 and their gas phase 

oxidation products can dissolve in 

water droplets and further oxidize to 

form sulfuric and nitric acid which react 

with ammonia to form sulfates and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29832 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

55U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science 

Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria 

(Final Report). EPA/600/R–08/071. Washington, 

DC: U.S.EPA. 

56U.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. 

57U.S. EPA. (2010). Final Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for the NO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/ 

FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf. 

58U.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. 

59U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). 

Revision to Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring 

Requirements. March 7, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ 

airquality/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20130307fr.pdf. 

60U.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. 

61The 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. 

62Personal 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. 

nitrates, both of which are important 

components of ambient PM. The health 

effects of ambient PM are discussed in 

Section II.B.2.b of this preamble. NOX

and VOC are the two major precursors 

of ozone. The health effects of ozone are 

covered in Section II.B.2.1.b. 

b. Health Effects of NO2

Information on the health effects of 

NO2 can be found in the EPA Integrated 

Science Assessment (ISA) for Nitrogen 

Oxides.55 The EPA has concluded that 

the findings of epidemiologic, 

controlled human exposure, and animal 

toxicological studies provide evidence 

that is sufficient to infer a likely causal 

relationship between respiratory effects 

and short-term NO2 exposure. The ISA 

concludes that the strongest evidence 

for such a relationship comes from 

epidemiologic studies of respiratory 

effects including symptoms, emergency 

department visits, and hospital 

admissions. Based on both short- and 

long-term studies, the ISA concludes 

that associations of NO2 with respiratory 

health effects are stronger among a 

number of groups; these include 

individuals with preexisting pulmonary 

conditions (e.g., asthma or COPD), 

children and older adults. The ISA also 

draws two broad conclusions regarding 

airway responsiveness following NO2

exposure. First, the ISA concludes that 

NO2 exposure may enhance the 

sensitivity to allergen-induced 

decrements in lung function and 

increase the allergen-induced airway 

inflammatory response following 30- 

minute exposures of asthmatics to NO2

concentrations as low as 0.26 ppm. 

Second, exposure to NO2 has been 

found to enhance the inherent 

responsiveness of the airway to 

subsequent nonspecific challenges in 

controlled human exposure studies of 

asthmatic subjects. Small but significant 

increases in non-specific airway 

hyperresponsiveness were reported 

following 1-hour exposures of 

asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO2. Enhanced 

airway responsiveness could have 

important clinical implications for 

asthmatics since transient increases in 

airway responsiveness following NO2

exposure have the potential to increase 

symptoms and worsen asthma control. 

Together, the epidemiologic and 

experimental data sets form a plausible, 

consistent, and coherent description of 

a relationship between NO2 exposures 

and an array of adverse health effects 

that range from the onset of respiratory 

symptoms to hospital admission. 

Although the weight of evidence 

supporting a causal relationship is 

somewhat less certain than that 

associated with respiratory morbidity, 

NO2 has also been linked to other health 

endpoints. These include all-cause 

(nonaccidental) mortality, hospital 

admissions or emergency department 

visits for cardiovascular disease, and 

decrements in lung function growth 

associated with chronic exposure. 

c. Health Effects of SO2

Information on the health effects of 

SO2 can be found in the EPA Integrated 

Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides.56

SO2 has long been known to cause 

adverse respiratory health effects, 

particularly among individuals with 

asthma. Other potentially sensitive 

groups include children and the elderly. 

During periods of elevated ventilation, 

asthmatics may experience symptomatic 

bronchoconstriction within minutes of 

exposure. Following an extensive 

evaluation of health evidence from 

epidemiologic and laboratory studies, 

the EPA has concluded that there is a 

causal relationship between respiratory 

health effects and short-term exposure 

to SO2. Separately, based on an 

evaluation of the epidemiologic 

evidence of associations between shortterm exposure to SO2 and mortality, the 

EPA has concluded that the overall 

evidence is suggestive of a causal 

relationship between short-term 

exposure to SO2 and mortality. 

d. Current Levels of NO2

Between 2003 and 2005, national 

mean concentrations of NO2 were about 

15 parts per billion (ppb) for averaging 

periods ranging from a day to a year.57

There are two NAAQS for NO2: an 

annual standard (53 ppb) and a 1-hour 

standard (100 ppb). The primary 

NAAQS for NO2 was revised in January 

2010. EPA completed area designations 

in January 2012 and there are currently 

no nonattainment areas. The 

designations were based on the existing 

community-wide monitoring network. 

Once the expanded network of NO2

monitors is fully deployed and three 

years of air quality data have been 

collected, EPA intends to redesignate 

areas, as appropriate, based on the air 

quality data from the new monitoring 

network.58 59

4. Carbon Monoxide 

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, 

odorless gas emitted from combustion 

processes. Nationally and, particularly 

in urban areas, the majority of CO 

emissions to ambient air come from 

mobile sources. 

a. Health Effects of Carbon Monoxide 

Information on the health effects of 

CO can be found in the EPA Integrated 

Science Assessment (ISA) for Carbon 

Monoxide.60 The ISA concludes that 

ambient concentrations of CO are 

associated with a number of adverse 

health effects.61 This section provides a 

summary of the health effects associated 

with exposure to ambient 

concentrations of CO.62

Human clinical studies of subjects 

with coronary artery disease show a 

decrease in the time to onset of exerciseinduced angina (chest pain) and 

electrocardiogram changes following CO 

exposure. In addition, epidemiologic 

studies show associations between 

short-term CO exposure and 

cardiovascular morbidity, particularly 

increased emergency room visits and 

hospital admissions for coronary heart 

disease (including ischemic heart 

disease, myocardial infarction, and 

angina). Some epidemiologic evidence 

is also available for increased hospital 

admissions and emergency room visits 

for congestive heart failure and 

cardiovascular disease as a whole. The 

ISA concludes that a causal relationship 

is likely to exist between short-term 

exposures to CO and cardiovascular 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29833 

63U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 

2005 National-Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 

64U.S. EPA (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

nata2005. 

65U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information 

System File for Benzene. This material is available 

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

0276.htm. 

66 International Agency for Research on Cancer, 

IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic 

risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some 

industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, International 

Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France 1982. 

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

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

benzene metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic 

stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage 

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

Sci. 89:3691–3695. 

68A 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. 

69U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information 

System File for Benzene. This material is available 

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

0276.htm. 

70 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). (1987). Monographs on the evaluation of 

carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 

29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and 

dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 

71U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

National Toxicology Program. (2011). 12th Report 

on Carcinogens. Available at: 

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BFFF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15. 

72Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and 

carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health 

Perspect. 82: 193–197. 

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

Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 

541–554. 

74Rothman, 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. 

75U.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. 

76Qu, 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.; 

Continued 

morbidity. It also concludes that 

available data are inadequate to 

conclude that a causal relationship 

exists between long-term exposures to 

CO and cardiovascular morbidity. 

Animal studies show various 

neurological effects with in-utero CO 

exposure. Controlled human exposure 

studies report inconsistent neural and 

behavioral effects following low-level 

CO exposures. The ISA concludes the 

evidence is suggestive of a causal 

relationship with both short- and longterm exposure to CO and central 

nervous system effects. 

A number of epidemiologic and 

animal toxicological studies cited in the 

ISA have evaluated associations 

between CO exposure and birth 

outcomes such as preterm birth or 

cardiac birth defects. The epidemiologic 

studies provide limited evidence of a 

CO-induced effect on preterm births and 

birth defects, with weak evidence for a 

decrease in birth weight. Animal 

toxicological studies have found 

associations between perinatal CO 

exposure and decrements in birth 

weight, as well as other developmental 

outcomes. The ISA concludes these 

studies are suggestive of a causal 

relationship between long-term 

exposures to CO and developmental 

effects and birth outcomes. 

Epidemiologic studies provide 

evidence of effects on respiratory 

morbidity such as changes in 

pulmonary function, respiratory 

symptoms, and hospital admissions 

associated with ambient CO 

concentrations. A limited number of 

epidemiologic studies considered 

copollutants such as ozone, SO2, and 

PM in two-pollutant models and found 

that CO risk estimates were generally 

robust, although this limited evidence 

makes it difficult to disentangle effects 

attributed to CO itself from those of the 

larger complex air pollution mixture. 

Controlled human exposure studies 

have not extensively evaluated the effect 

of CO on respiratory morbidity. Animal 

studies at levels of 50–100 ppm CO 

show preliminary evidence of altered 

pulmonary vascular remodeling and 

oxidative injury. The ISA concludes that 

the evidence is suggestive of a causal 

relationship between short-term CO 

exposure and respiratory morbidity, and 

inadequate to conclude that a causal 

relationship exists between long-term 

exposure and respiratory morbidity. 

Finally, the ISA concludes that the 

epidemiologic evidence is suggestive of 

a causal relationship between short-term 

exposures to CO and mortality. 

Epidemiologic studies provide evidence 

of an association between short-term 

exposure to CO and mortality, but 

limited evidence is available to evaluate 

cause-specific mortality outcomes 

associated with CO exposure. In 

addition, the attenuation of CO risk 

estimates which was often observed in 

copollutant models contributes to the 

uncertainty as to whether CO is acting 

alone or as an indicator for other 

combustion-related pollutants. The ISA 

also concludes that there is not likely to 

be a causal relationship between 

relevant long-term exposures to CO and 

mortality. 

5. Mobile Source Air Toxics 

Light-duty vehicle emissions 

contribute to ambient levels of air toxics 

known or suspected as human or animal 

carcinogens, or that have noncancer 

health effects. The population 

experiences an elevated risk of cancer 

and other noncancer health effects from 

exposure to the class of pollutants 

known collectively as ‘‘air toxics.’’ 63

These compounds include, but are not 

limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, 

polycyclic organic matter, and 

naphthalene. These compounds were 

identified as national or regional risk 

drivers or contributors in the 2005 

National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 

and have significant inventory 

contributions from mobile sources.64

a. Health Effects of Air Toxics 

i. Benzene 

The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene 

as a known human carcinogen (causing 

leukemia) by all routes of exposure, and 

concludes that exposure is associated 

with additional health effects, including 

genetic changes in both humans and 

animals and increased proliferation of 

bone marrow cells in mice.65 66 67 EPA 

states in its IRIS database that data 

indicate a causal relationship between 

benzene exposure and acute 

lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a 

relationship between benzene exposure 

and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia 

and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. 

EPA’s IRIS documentation for benzene 

also lists a range of 2.2 × 10¥6 to 7.8 × 

10¥6 as the unit risk estimate (URE) for 

benzene.68 69 The International Agency 

for Research on Carcinogens (IARC) has 

determined that benzene is a human 

carcinogen and the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (DHHS) has 

characterized benzene as a known 

human carcinogen.70 71

A number of adverse noncancer 

health effects including blood disorders, 

such as preleukemia and aplastic 

anemia, have also been associated with 

long-term exposure to benzene.72 73 The 

most sensitive noncancer effect 

observed in humans, based on current 

data, is the depression of the absolute 

lymphocyte count in blood.74 75 EPA’s 

inhalation reference concentration (RfC) 

for benzene is 30 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 (HEI), provides 

evidence that biochemical responses are 

occurring at lower levels of benzene 

exposure than previously 

known.76 77 78 79 EPA’s IRIS program has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29834 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in 

Workers Exposed to Benzene in China. 

77Qu, 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. 

78Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et 

al. (2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to 

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

79Turtletaub, 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. 

80U.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. 

81A 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. 

82EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. 

Formaldehyde (CASRN 50–00–0) http:// 

www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419/htm. 

83National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS), 12th Report 

on Carcinogens, June 10, 2011. 

84 IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of 

Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 88 (2006): 

Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tertButoxypropan-2-ol. 

85 IARC Mongraphs on the Evaluation of 

Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 100F (2012): 

Formaldehyde. 

86Hauptmann, 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. 

87Hauptmann, 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. 

88Beane 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. 

89Pinkerton, L.E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort 

of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an 

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

90Coggon, 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. 

91Hauptmann, 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. 

92ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for 

Formaldehyde, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), July 1999. 

93ATSDR. 2010. Addendum to the Toxicological 

Profile for Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), October 2010. 

94 IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical 

Assessment Document 40. Formaldehyde. World 

Health Organization. 

95EPA (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. 

96NRC (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. 

97U.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. 

98U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information 

System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is 

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

subst/0290.htm. 

99NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth 

Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public 

Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 

pp. 

100 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). (1999). Re-evaluation of some organic 

chemicals, hydrazine, and hydrogen peroxide. IARC 

Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk 

of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France. 

101U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information 

System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is 

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

subst/0290.htm. 

102U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information 

System File of Acrolein. Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental 

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.80 81

ii. Formaldehyde 

In 1991, EPA concluded that 

formaldehyde is a carcinogen based on 

nasal tumors in animal bioassays.82 An 

Inhalation Unit Risk for cancer and a 

Reference Dose for oral noncancer 

effects were developed by the Agency 

and posted on the Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) database. 

Since that time, the National Toxicology 

Program (NTP) and International 

Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 

have concluded that formaldehyde is a 

known human carcinogen.83 84 85

The conclusions by IARC and NTP 

reflect the results of epidemiologic 

research published since 1991 in 

combination with previous animal, 

human and mechanistic evidence. 

Research conducted by the National 

Cancer Institute reported an increased 

risk of nasopharyngeal cancer and 

specific lymphohematopoietic 

malignancies among workers exposed to 

formaldehyde.86 87 88 A National 

Institute of Occupational Safety and 

Health study of garment workers also 

reported increased risk of death due to 

leukemia among workers exposed to 

formaldehyde.89 Extended follow-up of 

a cohort of British chemical workers did 

not report evidence of an increase in 

nasopharyngeal or 

lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a 

continuing statistically significant 

excess in lung cancers was reported.90

Finally, a study of embalmers reported 

formaldehyde exposures to be 

associated with an increased risk of 

myeloid leukemia but not brain 

cancer.91

Health effects of formaldehyde in 

addition to cancer were reviewed by the 

Agency for Toxics Substances and 

Disease Registry in 1999 92 and 

supplemented in 2010,93 and by the 

World Health Organization.94 These 

organizations reviewed the literature 

concerning effects on the eyes and 

respiratory system, the primary point of 

contact for inhaled formaldehyde, 

including sensory irritation of eyes and 

respiratory tract, pulmonary function, 

nasal histopathology, and immune 

system effects. In addition, research on 

reproductive and developmental effects 

and neurological effects were discussed. 

EPA released a draft Toxicological 

Review of Formaldehyde—Inhalation 

Assessment through the IRIS program 

for peer review by the National Research 

Council (NRC) and public comment in 

June 2010.95 The draft assessment 

reviewed more recent research from 

animal and human studies on cancer 

and other health effects. The NRC 

released their review report in April 

2011.96 The EPA is currently revising 

the draft assessment in response to this 

review. 

iii. Acetaldehyde 

Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA’s 

IRIS database as a probable human 

carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in 

rats, and is considered toxic by the 

inhalation, oral, and intravenous 

routes.97 The URE in IRIS for 

acetaldehyde is 2.2 × 10¥6 per mg/m3.98

Acetaldehyde is reasonably anticipated 

to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. 

DHHS in the 12th Report on 

Carcinogens and is classified as possibly 

carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by 

the IARC.99 100 EPA is currently 

conducting a reassessment of cancer risk 

from inhalation exposure to 

acetaldehyde. 

The primary noncancer effects of 

exposure to acetaldehyde vapors 

include irritation of the eyes, skin, and 

respiratory tract.101 In short-term (4 

week) rat studies, degeneration of 

olfactory epithelium was observed at 

various concentration levels of 

acetaldehyde exposure.102 103 Data from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29835 

Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

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

subst/0364.htm. 103Appleman, 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. 104Myou, 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. 105U.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. 106 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). (1995). Monographs on the evaluation of 

carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 

63. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and 

other industrial chemicals, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France. 107U.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. 108U.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. 

109U.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. 

110U.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. 

111Morris 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. 

112U.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. 

113U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3- 

Butadiene. Office of Research and Development, 

National Center for Environmental Assessment, 

Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No. 

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

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

buta-sup.pdf. 

114U.S. EPA. (2002). ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3- 

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

Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS), Research and Development, National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, 

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

115 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). (1999). Monographs on the evaluation of 

carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 

71, Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, 

hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97 

(in preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon, 

France. 

116 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). (2008). Monographs on the evaluation of 

carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, 1,3- 

Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides 

(Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide) 

Volume 97, World Health Organization, Lyon, 

France. 

117NTP. (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. 

118U.S. EPA. (2002). ‘‘Full IRIS Summary for 1,3- 

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

Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS), Research and Development, National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, 

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

119Bevan, 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. 

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.104 The agency 

is currently conducting a reassessment 

of the health hazards from inhalation 

exposure to acetaldehyde. 

iv. Acrolein 

EPA most recently evaluated the 

toxicological and health effects 

literature related to acrolein in 2003 and 

concluded that the human carcinogenic 

potential of acrolein could not be 

determined because the available data 

were inadequate. No information was 

available on the carcinogenic effects of 

acrolein in humans and the animal data 

provided inadequate evidence of 

carcinogenicity.105 The IARC 

determined in 1995 that acrolein was 

not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity 

in humans.106

Lesions to the lungs and upper 

respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, and 

hamsters have been observed after 

subchronic exposure to acrolein.107 The 

Agency has developed an RfC for 

acrolein of 0.02 mg/m3 and an RfD of 0.5 

mg/kg-day.108 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.109 These data and additional 

studies regarding acute effects of human 

exposure to acrolein are summarized in 

EPA’s 2003 IRIS Human Health 

Assessment for acrolein.110 Studies in 

humans indicate that levels as low as 

0.09 ppm (0.21 mg/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 

data (more pronounced respiratory 

irritancy in mice with allergic airway 

disease in comparison to non-diseased 

mice 111) and demonstration of similar 

effects in humans (e.g., reduction in 

respiratory rate), individuals with 

compromised respiratory function (e.g., 

emphysema, asthma) are expected to be 

at increased risk of developing adverse 

responses to strong respiratory irritants 

such as acrolein. EPA does not currently 

have an acute reference concentration 

for acrolein. The available health effect 

reference values for acrolein have been 

summarized by EPA and include an 

ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to 

acrolein of 7 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.112

v. 1,3-Butadiene 

EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene 

as carcinogenic to humans by 

inhalation.113 114 The IARC has 

determined that 1,3-butadiene is a 

human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS 

has characterized 1,3-butadiene as a 

known human carcinogen.115 116 117

There are numerous studies consistently 

demonstrating that 1,3-butadiene is 

metabolized into genotoxic metabolites 

by experimental animals and humans. 

The specific mechanisms of 1,3- 

butadiene-induced carcinogenesis are 

unknown; however, the scientific 

evidence strongly suggests that the 

carcinogenic effects are mediated by 

genotoxic metabolites. Animal data 

suggest that females may be more 

sensitive than males for cancer effects 

associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure; 

there are insufficient data in humans 

from which to draw conclusions about 

sensitive subpopulations. The URE for 

1,3-butadiene is 3 × 10¥5 per mg/m3.118

1,3-butadiene also causes a variety of 

reproductive and developmental effects 

in mice; no human data on these effects 

are available. The most sensitive effect 

was ovarian atrophy observed in a 

lifetime bioassay of female mice.119

Based on this critical effect and the 

benchmark concentration methodology, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29836 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

120Agency 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. 

121U.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. 

122 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). (2012). Monographs on the Evaluation of 

the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans, 

Chemical Agents and Related Occupations. Vol. 

100F. Lyon, France. 

123U.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. 

124Perera, 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. 

125Perera, 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. 

126U.S. EPA. (2006). Air quality criteria for ozone 

and related photochemical oxidants (Ozone CD). 

Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for 

Environmental Assessment; report no. EPA/600/R– 

05/004aF-cF.3v. page 5–78. Available at http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/. 

127U.S. EPA (2005). Air Quality Criteria for 

Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA 600/R–05/004aF-cF, 2006. 

page 5–63. This document is available in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161. This document may be 

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

naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html. 

128U.S. EPA (2005). Air Quality Criteria for 

Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA 600/R–05/004aF-cF, 2006. 

page 5–78. This document is available in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161. This document may be 

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

naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html. 

129U.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. 

130U.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. 

131U.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. 

132Oak 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. 

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. 

vii. Polycyclic Organic Matter 

The term polycyclic organic matter 

(POM) defines a broad class of 

compounds that includes the polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon compounds 

(PAHs). One of these compounds, 

naphthalene, is discussed separately 

below. POM compounds are formed 

primarily from combustion and are 

present in the atmosphere in gas and 

particulate form. Cancer is the major 

concern from exposure to POM. 

Epidemiologic studies have reported an 

increase in lung cancer in humans 

exposed to diesel exhaust, coke oven 

emissions, roofing tar emissions, and 

cigarette smoke; all of these mixtures 

contain POM compounds.120 121 Animal 

studies have reported respiratory tract 

tumors from inhalation exposure to 

benzo[a]pyrene and alimentary tract and 

liver tumors from oral exposure to 

benzo[a]pyrene.122 In 1997 EPA 

classified seven PAHs (benzo[a]pyrene, 

benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, 

benzo[b]fluoranthene, 

benzo[k]fluoranthene, 

dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and 

indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene) as Group B2, 

probable human carcinogens.123 Since 

that time, studies have found that 

maternal exposures to PAHs in a 

population of pregnant women were 

associated with several adverse birth 

outcomes, including low birth weight 

and reduced length at birth, as well as 

impaired cognitive development in 

preschool children (3 years of age).124 125

These and similar studies are being 

evaluated as a part of the ongoing IRIS 

assessment of health effects associated 

with exposure to benzo[a]pyrene. 

viii. PAN 

PAN (peroxy acetyl nitrate) has not 

been evaluated by EPA’s IRIS program. 

Information regarding the potential 

carcinogenicity of PAN is limited. As 

noted in the EPA air quality criteria 

document for ozone and related 

photochemical oxidants, cytogenetic 

studies indicate that PAN is not a potent 

mutagen, clastogen (a compound that 

can cause breaks in chromosomes), or 

DNA-damaging agent in mammalian 

cells either in vivo or in vitro. Some 

studies suggest that PAN may be a weak 

bacterial mutagen at concentrations 

much higher than exist in present urban 

atmospheres.126

Effects of ground-level smog causing 

intense eye irritation have been 

attributed to photochemical oxidants, 

including PAN.127 Animal toxicological 

information on the inhalation effects of 

the non-ozone oxidants has been limited 

to a few studies on PAN. Acute 

exposure to levels of PAN can cause 

changes in lung morphology, behavioral 

modifications, weight loss, and 

susceptibility to pulmonary infections. 

Human exposure studies indicate minor 

pulmonary function effects at high PAN 

concentrations, but large interindividual variability precludes 

definitive conclusions.128

ix. Naphthalene 

Naphthalene is found in small 

quantities in gasoline and diesel fuels. 

Naphthalene emissions have been 

measured in larger quantities in both 

gasoline and diesel exhaust compared 

with evaporative emissions from mobile 

sources, indicating it is primarily a 

product of combustion. Acute (shortterm) exposure of humans to 

naphthalene by inhalation, ingestion, or 

dermal contact is associated with 

hemolytic anemia and damage to the 

liver and the nervous system.129

Chronic (long term) exposure of workers 

and rodents to naphthalene has been 

reported to cause cataracts and retinal 

damage.130 EPA released an external 

review draft of a reassessment of the 

inhalation carcinogenicity of 

naphthalene based on a number of 

recent animal carcinogenicity 

studies.131 The draft reassessment 

completed external peer review.132

Based on external peer review 

comments received, a revised draft 

assessment that considers all routes of 

exposure, as well as cancer and 

noncancer effects, is under 

development. The external review draft 

does not represent official agency 

opinion and was released solely for the 

purposes of external peer review and 

public comment. The National 

Toxicology Program listed naphthalene 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29837 

133NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth 

Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public 

Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 

pp. 

134 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

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

the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. 

Vol. 82. Lyon, France. 

135U.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. 

136U.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. 

137U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris. 

138U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). 

Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile 

Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007. 

139U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). 

Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile 

Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007. 

140U.S. EPA. (2011). 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ 

nata2005/. 

141 Karner, A.A.; Eisinger, D.S.; Niemeier, D.A. 

(2010). Near-roadway air quality: synthesizing the 

findings from real-world data. Environ Sci Technol 

44: 5334–5344. 

142Liu, 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. 

143Cahill, 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. 

144 In the widely-used PubMed database of health 

publications, between January 1, 1990 and August 

18, 2011, 605 publications contained the keywords 

‘‘traffic, pollution, epidemiology,’’ with 

approximately half the studies published after 2007. 

145Health 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. 

as ‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a 

human carcinogen’’ in 2004 on the basis 

of bioassays reporting clear evidence of 

carcinogenicity in rats and some 

evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.133

California EPA has released a new risk 

assessment for naphthalene, and the 

IARC has reevaluated naphthalene and 

re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly 

carcinogenic to humans.134

Naphthalene also causes a number of 

chronic non-cancer effects in animals, 

including abnormal cell changes and 

growth in respiratory and nasal 

tissues.135 The current EPA IRIS 

assessment includes noncancer data on 

hyperplasia and metaplasia in nasal 

tissue that form the basis of the 

inhalation RfC of 3 mg/m3.136 The 

ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to 

naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day. 

x. Other Air Toxics 

In addition to the compounds 

described above, other compounds in 

gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions 

from light-duty vehicles would be 

affected by this proposal. Mobile source 

air toxic compounds that would 

potentially be impacted include 

ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde, 

toluene, and xylene. Information 

regarding the health effects of these 

compounds can be found in EPA’s IRIS 

database.137

b. Current Levels of Air Toxics 

The majority of Americans continue 

to be exposed to ambient concentrations 

of air toxics at levels which have the 

potential to cause adverse health 

effects.138 The levels of air toxics to 

which people are exposed vary 

depending on where people live and 

work and the kinds of activities in 

which they engage, as discussed in 

detail in U.S. EPA’s most recent Mobile 

Source Air Toxics Rule.139 According to 

the National Air Toxic Assessment 

(NATA) for 2005,140 mobile sources 

were responsible for 43 percent of 

outdoor toxic emissions and over 50 

percent of the cancer risk and noncancer 

hazard associated with primary 

emissions. Mobile sources are also large 

contributors to precursor emissions 

which react to form secondary 

concentrations of air toxics. 

Formaldehyde is the largest contributor 

to cancer risk of all 80 pollutants 

quantitatively assessed in the 2005 

NATA. Mobile sources were responsible 

for over 40 percent of primary emissions 

of this pollutant in 2005, and are major 

contributors to formaldehyde precursor 

emissions. Benzene is also a large 

contributor to cancer risk, and mobile 

sources account for over 70 percent of 

ambient exposure. Over the years, EPA 

has implemented a number of mobile 

source and fuel controls which have 

resulted in VOC reductions, which also 

reduced formaldehyde, benzene and 

other air toxic emissions. 

6. Near-Roadway Pollution 

Locations in close proximity to major 

roadways generally have elevated 

concentrations of many air pollutants 

emitted from motor vehicles. Hundreds 

of such studies have been published in 

peer-reviewed journals, concluding that 

concentrations of CO, NO, NO2, 

benzene, aldehydes, particulate matter, 

black carbon, and many other 

compounds are elevated in ambient air 

within approximately 300–600 meters 

(about 1,000–2,000 feet) of major 

roadways. Highest concentrations of 

most pollutants emitted directly by 

motor vehicles are found at locations 

within 50 meters (about 165 feet) of the 

edge of a roadway’s traffic lanes. 

A recent large-scale review of air 

quality measurements in vicinity of 

major roadways between 1978 and 2008 

concluded that the pollutants with the 

steepest concentration gradients in 

vicinities of roadways were CO, 

ultrafine particles, metals, elemental 

carbon (EC), NO, NOX, and several 

VOCs.141 These pollutants showed a 

large reduction in concentrations within 

100 meters downwind of the roadway. 

Pollutants that showed more gradual 

reductions with distance from roadways 

included benzene, NO2, PM2.5, and 

PM10. In the review article, results 

varied based on the method of statistical 

analysis used to determine the trend. 

For pollutants with relatively high 

background concentrations relative to 

near-road concentrations, detecting 

concentration gradients can be difficult. 

For example, many aldehydes have high 

background concentrations as a result of 

photochemical breakdown of precursors 

from many different organic 

compounds. This can make detection of 

gradients around roadways and other 

primary emission sources difficult. 

However, several studies have measured 

aldehydes in multiple weather 

conditions, and found higher 

concentrations of many carbonyls 

downwind of roadways.142 143 These 

findings suggest a substantial roadway 

source of these carbonyls. 

In the past 15 years, many studies 

have been published with results 

showing that populations who live, 

work, or go to school near high-traffic 

roadways experience higher rates of 

numerous adverse health effects, 

compared to populations far away from 

major roads.144 In addition, numerous 

studies have found adverse health 

effects associated with spending time in 

traffic, such as commuting or walking 

along high-traffic roadways. The health 

outcomes with the strongest evidence 

linking them with traffic-associated air 

pollutants are respiratory effects, 

particularly in asthmatic children, and 

cardiovascular effects. 

Numerous reviews of this body of 

health literature have been published as 

well. In 2010, an expert panel of the 

Health Effects Institute (HEI) published 

a review of hundreds of exposure, 

epidemiology, and toxicology 

studies.145 The panel rated how the 

evidence for each type of health 

outcome supported a conclusion of a 

causal association with trafficmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29838 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

146Boothe, 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. 

147Salam, 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. 

148Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air 

pollution and childhood cancer: a review of the 

epidemiological literature. Int J Cancer 118: 2920– 

9. 

149 Volk, H.E.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Delwiche, L.; et 

al. (2011). Residential proximity to freeways and 

autism in the CHARGE study. Environ Health 

Perspect 119: 873–877. 

150Franco-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]. 

151Power, 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. 

152Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; et al. (2011). 

Comparing exposure assessment methods for trafficrelated air pollution in and adverse pregnancy 

outcome study. Environ Res 111: 685–6692. 

153Riediker, 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. 

154Alexeef, S.E.; Coull, B.A.; Gryparis, A.; et al. 

(2011). Medium-term exposure to traffic-related air 

pollution and markers of inflammation and 

endothelial function. Environ Health Perspect 119: 

481–486. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002560 Available at 

http://dx.doi.org. 

155Eckel. 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. 

156Zhang, 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] 

157Adar, 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. 

158 Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (2008). 

Proxpective analysis of traffic exposure as a risk 

factor for incident coronary heart disease: the 

Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. 

Environ Health Perspect 116: 1463–1468. 

doi:10.1289/ehp.11290. Available at http:// 

dx.doi.org. 

159McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et 

al. (2010). Childhood incident asthma and trafficrelated air pollution at home and school. Environ 

Health Perspect 1021–1026. 

160 Islam, T.; Urban, R.; Gauderman, W.J.; et al. 

(2011). Parental stress increases the detrimental 

effect of traffic exposure on children’s lung 

function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (In press) 

161Clougherty, 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. 

162Chen, 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. 

associated air pollution as either 

‘‘sufficient,’’ ‘‘suggestive but not 

sufficient,’’ or ‘‘inadequate and 

insufficient.’’ The panel categorized 

evidence of a causal association for 

exacerbation of childhood asthma as 

‘‘sufficient.’’ The panel categorized 

evidence of a causal association for new 

onset asthma as between ‘‘sufficient’’ 

and as ‘‘suggestive but not sufficient.’’ 

‘‘Suggestive of a causal association’’ was 

how the panel categorized evidence 

linking traffic-associated air pollutants 

with exacerbation of adult respiratory 

symptoms and lung function decrement. 

It categorized as ‘‘inadequate and 

insufficient’’ evidence of a causal 

relationship between traffic-related air 

pollution and health care utilization for 

respiratory problems, new onset adult 

asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary 

disease (COPD), nonasthmatic 

respiratory allergy, and cancer in adults 

and children. Other literature reviews 

have been published with conclusions 

similar to the HEI panel’s.146 147 148

Health outcomes with few publications 

suggest the possibility of other effects 

still lacking sufficient evidence to draw 

definitive conclusions. Among these 

outcomes with a small number of 

positive studies are neurological 

impacts (e.g., autism and reduced 

cognitive function) and reproductive 

outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth 

weight).149 150 151 152

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 increase systemic 

inflammation, affecting organ systems, 

including blood vessels and 

lungs.153 154 155 156 Long-term exposures 

in near-road environments have been 

associated with inflammation-associated 

conditions, such as atherosclerosis and 

asthma.157 158 159

Several studies suggest that some 

factors may increase susceptibility to 

the effects of traffic-associated air 

pollution. Several studies have found 

stronger respiratory associations in 

children experiencing chronic social 

stress, such as in violent neighborhoods 

or in homes with high family 

stress.160 161 162

The risks associated with residence, 

workplace, or schools near major roads 

are of potentially high public health 

significance due to the large population 

in such locations. According to the 2009 

American Housing Survey, over 22 

million homes (17.0 percent of all U.S. 

housing units) were located within 300 

feet of an airport, railroad, or highway 

with four or more lanes. This 

corresponds to a population of more 

than 50 million U.S. residents in close 

proximity to high-traffic roadways or 

other transportation sources. As 

discussed in Section III, populations 

near major roads have higher fractions 

of minority residents and lower 

socioeconomic status. Furthermore, on 

average, Americans spend more than an 

hour traveling each day, bringing nearly 

all residents into a high-exposure 

microenvironment for part of the day. 

EPA continues to research near-road 

air quality, including the types of 

pollutants found in high concentrations 

near major roads and health problems 

associated with the mixture of 

pollutants near roads. 

7. Environmental Impacts of Motor 

Vehicles and Fuels 

a. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone 

Elevated ozone levels contribute to 

environmental effects, with impacts to 

plants and ecosystems being of most 

concern. Ozone can produce both acute 

and chronic injury in sensitive species 

depending on the concentration level 

and the duration of the exposure. Ozone 

effects also tend to accumulate over the 

growing season of the plant, so that even 

low concentrations experienced for a 

longer duration have the potential to 

create chronic stress on vegetation. 

Ozone damage to plants includes visible 

injury to leaves and impaired 

photosynthesis, both of which can lead 

to reduced plant growth and 

reproduction, resulting in reduced crop 

yields, forestry production, and use of 

sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In 

addition, the impairment of 

photosynthesis, the process by which 

the plant makes carbohydrates (its 

source of energy and food), can lead to 

a subsequent reduction in root growth 

and carbohydrate storage below ground, 

resulting in other, more subtle plant and 

ecosystems impacts. 

These latter impacts include 

increased susceptibility of plants to 

insect attack, disease, harsh weather, 

interspecies competition and overall 

decreased plant vigor. The adverse 

effects of ozone on forest and other 

natural vegetation can potentially lead 

to species shifts and loss from the 

affected ecosystems, resulting in a loss 

or reduction in associated ecosystem 

goods and services. Lastly, visible ozone 

injury to leaves can result in a loss of 

aesthetic value in areas of special scenic 

significance like national parks and 

wilderness areas. The final 2006 Ozone 

Air Quality Criteria Document presents 

more detailed information on ozone 

effects on vegetation and ecosystems. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29839 

163National 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/. 

164U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science 

Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–08/139F. 

165 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). 

166 62 FR 38680–38681 (July 18, 1997). 

167U.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. 

168U.S. EPA. (2004). National Coastal Condition 

Report II. Office of Research and Development/ 

Office of Water. EPA–620/R–03/002. 

169 Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. (2002). 

Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on 

PM2.5 particulate matter over the New York-New 

Jersey harbor estuary. Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077– 

1086. 

170 Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. 

Church. (2000). Factors influencing the atmospheric 

depositional fluxes of stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be 

into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 65–79. 

171Lu, 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. 

172Marvin, 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. 

b. Visibility 

Visibility can be defined as the degree 

to which the atmosphere is transparent 

to visible light.163 Visibility impairment 

is caused by light scattering and 

absorption by suspended particles and 

gases. Visibility is important because it 

has direct significance to people’s 

enjoyment of daily activities in all parts 

of the country. Individuals value good 

visibility for the well-being it provides 

them directly, where they live and 

work, and in places where they enjoy 

recreational opportunities. Visibility is 

also highly valued in significant natural 

areas, such as national parks and 

wilderness areas, and special emphasis 

is given to protecting visibility in these 

areas. For more information on visibility 

see the final 2009 PM ISA.164

EPA is pursuing a two-part strategy to 

address visibility impairment. First, 

EPA developed the regional haze 

program which was put in place in July 

1999 to protect the visibility in 

Mandatory Class I Federal areas.165

There are 156 national parks, forests and 

wilderness areas categorized as 

Mandatory Class I Federal areas.166

These areas are defined in CAA section 

162 as those national parks exceeding 

6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 

memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, 

and all international parks which were 

in existence on August 7, 1977. Second, 

EPA has concluded that PM2.5 causes 

adverse effects on visibility in other 

areas that are not protected by the 

Regional Haze Rule, depending on PM2.5

concentrations and other factors that 

control their visibility impact 

effectiveness such as dry chemical 

composition and relative humidity (i.e., 

an indicator of the water composition of 

the particles). EPA revised the PM2.5

standards in December 2012 and 

established a target level of protection 

that is expected to be met through 

attainment of the existing secondary 

standards for PM2.5. 

i. Current Visibility Levels 

As mentioned in Section II.B.2.c, 

millions of people live in nonattainment 

areas for the PM2.5 NAAQS. These 

populations, as well as large numbers of 

individuals who travel to these areas, 

are likely to experience visibility 

impairment. In addition, while visibility 

trends have improved in mandatory 

class I federal areas, the most recent 

data show that these areas continue to 

suffer from visibility impairment. In 

summary, visibility impairment is 

experienced throughout the U.S., in 

multi-state regions, urban areas, and 

remote mandatory class I federal areas. 

c. Atmospheric Deposition 

Wet and dry deposition of ambient 

particulate matter delivers a complex 

mixture of metals (e.g., mercury, zinc, 

lead, nickel, aluminum, cadmium), 

organic compounds (e.g., polycyclic 

organic matter, dioxins, furans) and 

inorganic compounds (e.g., nitrate, 

sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems. The chemical form of the 

compounds deposited depends on a 

variety of factors including ambient 

conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, 

oxidant levels) and the sources of the 

material. Chemical and physical 

transformations of the compounds occur 

in the atmosphere as well as the media 

onto which they deposit. These 

transformations in turn influence the 

fate, bioavailability and potential 

toxicity of these compounds. 

Atmospheric deposition has been 

identified as a key component of the 

environmental and human health 

hazard posed by several pollutants 

including mercury, dioxin and PCBs.167

Adverse impacts on water quality can 

occur when atmospheric contaminants 

deposit to the water surface or when 

material deposited on the land enters a 

waterbody through runoff. Potential 

impacts of atmospheric deposition to 

waterbodies include those related to 

both nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse 

effects to human health and welfare can 

occur from the addition of excess 

nitrogen via atmospheric deposition. 

The nitrogen-nutrient enrichment 

contributes to toxic algae blooms and 

zones of depleted oxygen, which can 

lead to fish kills, frequently in coastal 

waters. Deposition of heavy metals or 

other toxics may lead to the human 

ingestion of contaminated fish, 

impairment of drinking water, damage 

to freshwater and marine ecosystem 

components, and limits to recreational 

uses. Several studies have been 

conducted in U.S. coastal waters and in 

the Great Lakes Region in which the role 

of ambient PM deposition and runoff is 

investigated.168 169 170 171 172

Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen 

and sulfur contributes to acidification, 

altering biogeochemistry and affecting 

animal and plant life in terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems across the United 

States. The sensitivity of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems to acidification from 

nitrogen and sulfur deposition is 

predominantly governed by geology. 

Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen 

and sulfur deposition in sensitive areas 

acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. 

Increased acidity in surface waters 

creates inhospitable conditions for biota 

and affects the abundance and 

nutritional value of preferred prey 

species, threatening biodiversity and 

ecosystem function. Over time, 

acidifying deposition also removes 

essential nutrients from forest soils, 

depleting the capacity of soils to 

neutralize future acid loadings and 

negatively affecting forest sustainability. 

Major effects include a decline in 

sensitive forest tree species, such as red 

spruce (Picea rubens) and sugar maple 

(Acer saccharum), and a loss of 

biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton, and 

macro invertebrates. 

In addition to the role nitrogen 

deposition plays in acidification, 

nitrogen deposition also leads to 

nutrient enrichment and altered 

biogeochemical cycling. In aquatic 

systems increased nitrogen can alter 

species assemblages and cause 

eutrophication. In terrestrial systems 

nitrogen loading can lead to loss of 

nitrogen sensitive lichen species, 

decreased biodiversity of grasslands, 

meadows and other sensitive habitats, 

and increased potential for invasive 

species. For a broader explanation of the 

topics treated here, refer to the 

description in Section 6.3.2 of the RIA. 

Adverse impacts on soil chemistry 

and plant life have been observed for 

areas heavily influenced by atmospheric 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29840 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

173U.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. 

174U.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. 

175U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals 

in the atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3– 

91/001. 

176Cape 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. 

177Cape 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. 

178 Viskari E–L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of 

Norway spruce needles as indicator of traffic 

pollutant deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 

121:327–337. 

179Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). 

Uptake and transformation of benzene and toluene 

by plant leaves. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 37:24–29. 

180 Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A 

Ziegler-Jons, D Knoppik, B Hock. (1987). Toxic 

components of motor vehicle emissions for the 

spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235–243. 

deposition of nutrients, metals and acid 

species, resulting in species shifts, loss 

of biodiversity, forest decline, damage to 

forest productivity and reductions in 

ecosystem services. Potential impacts 

also include adverse effects to human 

health through ingestion of 

contaminated vegetation or livestock (as 

in the case for dioxin deposition), 

reduction in crop yield, and limited use 

of land due to contamination. 

Atmospheric deposition of pollutants 

can reduce the aesthetic appeal of 

buildings and culturally important 

articles through soiling, and can 

contribute directly (or in conjunction 

with other pollutants) to structural 

damage by means of corrosion or 

erosion. Atmospheric deposition may 

affect materials principally by 

promoting and accelerating the 

corrosion of metals, by degrading paints, 

and by deteriorating building materials 

such as concrete and limestone. 

Particles contribute to these effects 

because of their electrolytic, 

hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and 

their ability to adsorb corrosive gases 

(principally sulfur dioxide). 

i. Current Nitrogen and Sulfur 

Deposition 

Over the past two decades, the EPA 

has undertaken numerous efforts to 

reduce nitrogen and sulfur deposition 

across the U.S. Analyses of long-term 

monitoring data for the U.S. show that 

deposition of both nitrogen and sulfur 

compounds has decreased over the last 

17 years. The data show that reductions 

were more substantial for sulfur 

compounds than for nitrogen 

compounds. In the eastern U.S., where 

data are most abundant, total sulfur 

deposition decreased by about 44 

percent between 1990 and 2007, while 

total nitrogen deposition decreased by 

25 percent over the same time frame.173

These numbers are generated by the 

U.S. national monitoring network and 

they likely underestimate nitrogen 

deposition because neither ammonia 

nor organic nitrogen is measured. 

Although total nitrogen and sulfur 

deposition has decreased over time, 

many areas continue to be negatively 

impacted by deposition. Deposition of 

inorganic nitrogen and sulfur species 

routinely measured in the U.S. between 

2005 and 2007 were as high as 9.6 

kilograms of nitrogen per hectare (kg N/ 

ha) averaged over three years and 20.8 

kilograms of sulfur per hectare (kg S/ha) 

averaged over three years.174

d. Environmental Effects of Air Toxics 

Emissions from producing, 

transporting and combusting fuel 

contribute to ambient levels of 

pollutants that contribute to adverse 

effects on vegetation. Volatile organic 

compounds, some of which are 

considered air toxics, have long been 

suspected to play a role in vegetation 

damage.175 In laboratory experiments, a 

wide range of tolerance to VOCs has 

been observed.176 Decreases in 

harvested seed pod weight have been 

reported for the more sensitive plants, 

and some studies have reported effects 

on seed germination, flowering and fruit 

ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or 

their role in conjunction with other 

stressors (e.g., acidification, drought, 

temperature extremes) have not been 

well studied. In a recent study of a 

mixture of VOCs including ethanol and 

toluene on herbaceous plants, 

significant effects on seed production, 

leaf water content and photosynthetic 

efficiency were reported for some plant 

species.177

Research suggests an adverse impact 

of vehicle exhaust on plants, which has 

in some cases been attributed to 

aromatic compounds and in other cases 

to nitrogen oxides.178 179 180

III. How would this proposal reduce 

emissions and air pollution? 

A. Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and 

Fuel Changes on Mobile Source 

Emissions 

The vehicle and fuel standards that 

EPA is proposing would significantly 

reduce the tailpipe and evaporative 

emissions of light- and heavy-duty 

vehicles in several ways, as described in 

this section. In addition, the proposed 

gasoline sulfur standard would reduce 

emissions of SO2 from existing gasolinepowered vehicles and equipment. As 

described in Section II, all of these 

emission reductions would in turn 

improve air quality nationwide and 

reduce the health effects associated with 

air pollution from mobile sources. 

As with the Tier 2 program, EPA is 

proposing to implement closelycoordinated requirements for both 

automakers and refiners in the same 

rulemaking action. The proposed 

vehicle emission standards and gasoline 

sulfur standards represent a ‘‘systems 

approach’’ to reducing vehicle-related 

exhaust and evaporative emissions. By 

recognizing the relationships among the 

various sources of emissions addressed 

by this proposed rule, we have been 

able to integrate the provisions into a 

single, coordinated program. 

1. How do vehicles produce the 

emissions addressed in this proposal? 

The degree to which vehicles produce 

exhaust and evaporative emissions 

depends on the design and functionality 

of the engine and the associated exhaust 

and evaporative emission controls, in 

concert with the properties of the fuel 

on which the vehicle is operating. In the 

following paragraphs, we discuss how 

light- and heavy-duty vehicles produce 

each of these types of emissions, both 

from the tailpipe and from the fuel 

system. 

a. Tailpipe (Exhaust) Emissions 

Which pollutants are emitted at the 

vehicle’s tailpipe and their quantities 

depend on how the fuel is combusted in 

the engine and how the resulting gases 

are treated in the exhaust system. 

Historically, much of tailpipe emission 

control has focused on hydrocarbon 

compounds (HC) and NOX. The portion 

of hydrocarbons that is methane is 

minimally reactive in forming ozone. 

Thus, for emission control purposes, the 

focus is generally on non-methane 

hydrocarbons (NMHC), which are also 

expressed as non-methane organic gases 

(NMOG) in order to account for 

oxygenates (usually ethanol) now 

usually present in the fuel. 

Tailpipe hydrocarbon emissions also 

include several toxic pollutants, 

including benzene, acetaldehyde, and 

formaldehyde. To varying degrees, the 

mass emissions of these pollutants are 

reduced along with other hydrocarbons 

by the catalytic converter and improved 

engine controls. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29841 

181Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources 

Final Rule, EPA 420–R–07–002, Chapter 6. 

182Ball 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. 

Light- and heavy-duty gasoline 

vehicles also emit PM and CO. PM 

forms directly as a combustion product 

(primarily as elemental carbon, usually 

called soot) and also indirectly as semivolatile hydrocarbon compounds that 

form particles in the exhaust system or 

soon after exiting the tailpipe. CO is a 

product of incomplete fuel combustion. 

When operating properly, modern 

exhaust emission controls (centering on 

the catalytic convertor) can reduce 

much of the HC (including toxics), NOX

and CO exiting the engine. However, 

tailpipe emissions are increased during 

periods of vehicle startup, as catalytic 

convertors must warm up to be 

effective; during subsequent operation 

due to the interference of sulfur in the 

gasoline; during high load operating 

events, as the catalyst is overwhelmed 

or its operation is modified to protect 

against permanent damage; and as a 

vehicle ages, as the catalyst degrades in 

performance due to the effects of high 

temperature operation and 

contaminants in the fuel and lubricating 

oil. 

b. Evaporative Emissions 

Gasoline vehicles also produce vapors 

in the fuel tank and fuel system that can 

be released as evaporative emissions. 

These vapors are primarily the lighter, 

more volatile hydrocarbon compounds 

in the gasoline, which, like exhaust 

hydrocarbons, contribute to 

concentrations of VOCs in the 

atmosphere. 

As discussed in Section IV below, 

vehicle evaporative (‘‘evap’’) control 

systems are designed to block or capture 

vapors as they are generated. Vapors are 

generated in the vehicle fuel tank and 

fuel system (and released to the 

atmosphere if not adequately controlled) 

as fuel heats up due to ambient 

temperature increase and/or vehicle 

operation. Fuel vapors are also released 

when they permeate through hose 

material, when they leak at connections 

or due to damaged components, and 

during refueling events. 

In general, the evap emission controls 

on current vehicles (and that would be 

improved under this proposed rule) 

consist of a canister filled with activated 

charcoal and connected by hoses to the 

fuel system. The hoses direct generated 

vapors to the canister, which collects 

the vapors on the carbon and stores 

them until the system experiences a 

‘‘purge’’ event. During purge, the engine 

draws fresh air through the canister, 

carrying vapors released by the carbon 

to the engine to be combusted and 

restoring the capacity of the canister. 

Evaporative emissions occur when 

vapors are emitted to the atmosphere 

because the evap system is 

compromised, the carbon canister is 

overwhelmed, or vapors permeate or 

leak. As such, evaporative emission 

controls also involve proper material 

selection for fuel system components, 

careful design of these components, and 

onboard diagnostics to check the system 

for failure. 

2. How would the proposed changes to 

gasoline sulfur content affect vehicle 

emissions? 

Gasoline vehicles depend to a great 

degree on catalytic converters to reduce 

levels of pollutants in their exhaust, 

including NMOG and NOX, as well as 

PM (specifically, the volatile 

hydrocarbon fraction), CO, and most air 

toxics. The presence of sulfur in 

gasoline has a strong impact on these 

emissions, particularly NOX, due to its 

impact on proper catalyst operation. 

Sulfur naturally occurs in crude oil 

and thus in gasoline. In vehicle catalytic 

converters, the precious metals that 

catalyze the reactions that convert the 

pollutants become significantly less 

efficient when sulfur is deposited 

(adsorbed) onto them. The Tier 2 

rulemaking required refiners to take 

steps to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline 

by approximately 90 percent, to an 

average of 30 ppm. At the time there 

were indications that sulfur reductions 

below 30 ppm may continue to provide 

additional emission benefits. However, 

the data was insufficient to quantify the 

benefits to the existing fleet, and the 

Tier 2 vehicle standards could be 

achieved without lowering sulfur 

further. As a result, to minimize the cost 

of the Tier 2 program, the sulfur 

standard was not further reduced below 

30 ppm. 

As discussed in Section IV.A.6, 

subsequent research provides a 

compelling case that even this level of 

sulfur degrades the emission 

performance of vehicles on the road 

today, and inhibits necessary further 

reductions in vehicle emissions 

performance, which depend on 

optimum catalyst performance to reach 

emission targets. A study conducted by 

EPA and the auto industry in support of 

the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) 

rule found significant reductions in 

NOX, CO and total HC when nine Tier 

2 vehicles were tested on low sulfur 

fuel, relative to 32-ppm fuel.181 In 

particular, the study found a nearly 50 

percent increase in NOX when sulfur 

was increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. 

Another recent study by Umicore 

showed reductions of 41 percent for 

NOX and 17 percent for HC on a PZEV 

operating on fuel with 33-ppm and 3- 

ppm fuel.182

A larger study recently completed by 

EPA confirmed these results, showing 

significant reductions in FTP-composite 

NOX (23 percent), CO (12 percent) and 

total HC (13 percent) on the 5-ppm fuel, 

relative to 28-ppm fuel. For NOX, the 

majority of overall reductions were 

driven by large reductions on warmedup periods of the test cycle (Bag 2), 

which showed a 59 percent reduction 

between 28 and 5-ppm fuel, consistent 

with the role of sulfur in catalyst 

degradation discussed above. Applying 

individual bag reductions to in-use 

activity patterns from EPA emission 

models suggests an overall NOX

reduction of nearly 40 percent on the 

road. 

Based on these studies, the benefits of 

the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standard are 

significant in two ways: they enable 

vehicles designed to the proposed Tier 

3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet 

these standards for the duration of their 

useful life, and they facilitate immediate 

emission reductions from all the 

vehicles on the road at the time the 

sulfur controls are implemented. 

B. How would emissions be reduced? 

The proposed standards would reduce 

emissions of VOC, NOX (including 

NO2), direct PM2.5, CO, SO2, and air 

toxics. The proposed sulfur standards 

would reduce emissions from the onroad fleet immediately upon 

implementation, so to reflect these early 

reductions, we present emission 

reductions in calendar year 2017. The 

proposed vehicle standards would begin 

to reduce emissions as the cleaner cars 

and trucks begin to enter the fleet in 

model year 2017. The magnitude of 

reduction would grow as more Tier 3 

vehicles enter the fleet. Therefore, we 

also present emission reductions in 

calendar year 2030, when model year 

2017 and later cars and trucks 

contribute nearly 90 percent of fleetwide vehicle miles travelled. Although 

2030 is the farthest year that is feasible 

for air quality modeling, the full 

reduction of the vehicle program would 

be realized after 2030, when the fleet 

has fully turned over to Tier 3 vehicles. 

In Chapter 7 of the RIA, we present 

emission reductions projected in 2050, 

as well as additional calendar years 

between 2017 and 2030. 

Emission reductions are estimated on 

an annual basis, for all 50 U.S. states 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29842 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

plus the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The 

reductions were estimated using a 

version of EPA’s MOVES model 

updated for this analysis, as described 

in detail in Chapter 7 of the RIA. This 

version of MOVES includes our most 

recent data on how vehicle emissions 

are affected by changes in sulfur, 

ethanol, and other fuel properties. We 

estimated emission reductions 

compared to a reference case that 

assumed partial RFS2 implementation 

by 2017, with full implementation in 

2022 and beyond. The ethanol scenarios 

used for the reference and control cases 

were the ‘‘post-EPAct/EISA’’ scenario 

defined in Chapter 7 of the RIA, 

reflecting a mix of E10 and E15 in 2017, 

and E15 only in 2030. The reference 

case also assumed continuation of the 

Tier 2 vehicle program indefinitely, and 

an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (10 

ppm in California). 

As discussed throughout this 

preamble, implementation of the 

proposed Tier 3 standards is aligned 

with the 2017 LD GHG standards to 

achieve significant criteria pollutant and 

GHG emissions reductions while 

providing regulatory certainty and 

compliance efficiency to the auto and 

oil industries. The 2017 LD GHG 

standards were still in a preliminary 

state of development (pre-proposal) at 

the time we finalized our assumptions 

for the Tier 3 emissions, air quality, and 

cost analyses, so we were not able to 

reflect them in these analyses. However, 

we continue to expect vehicle criteria 

pollutant performance to be neutral 

under the GHG program, because 

exhaust and evaporative emissions are 

not proportional to the amount of fuel 

burned; rather, our standards are 

expressed on a per-mile basis, not on a 

per-gallon basis. Vehicle criteria 

emissions are almost exclusively 

controlled by a vehicle’s emissions 

aftertreatment system and not by the 

efficiency of the engine. 

The majority of the NMOG that is 

emitted from a gasoline engine is 

generated during cold start, before the 

catalyst is lit off, and NOX is often 

created during higher load operation. 

Optimizing catalyst efficiency, 

minimizing thermal parasitics, 

minimizing fuel system leaks, and lower 

gasoline sulfur will be key enablers for 

all vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards, 

regardless of the vehicle’s fuel 

efficiency. Because we do not expect the 

increase in fuel efficiency to result in 

lower criteria pollutant emissions, we 

did not claim in the 2017 LD GHG rule 

any reductions attributable to the ability 

of vehicles to meet lower criteria 

emission levels (see 77 FR 62899– 

62901, October 15, 2012). In other 

words, in the 2017 LD GHG rule, we 

assumed that, absent the proposed Tier 

3 standards, the light-duty fleet would 

continue to meet the Tier 2 standards. 

Thus, we believe that the inclusion of 

the light-duty GHG standards in our cost 

and benefit analyses for the proposed 

Tier 3 standards would have had little 

or no impact on the results or our 

conclusions, as discussed in Sections 

7.1.2 and 7.1.3.2.1 of the draft RIA. 

Nevertheless, for the final rulemaking 

we will include the LD GHG 

requirements in the analysis. 

The analysis described here does 

account for the following national 

onroad rules: 

• Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 

Control Requirements (65 FR 6698, 

February 10, 2000) 

• Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle 

Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel 

Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 

5002, January 18, 2001) 

• Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (72 FR 

8428, February 26, 2007) 

• Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel 

Standard Program (75 FR 14670, 

March 26, 2010) 

• Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Standards and Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards for 

2012–2016 (75 FR 25324, May 7, 

2010) 

The analysis also accounts for many 

other national rules and standards. In 

addition, the modeling accounts for 

state and local rules including local fuel 

standards, Inspection/Maintenance 

programs, Stage II refueling controls, the 

National Low Emission Vehicle Program 

(NLEV), and the section 177 states LEV 

and LEVII programs. See the Tier 3 

emissions modeling TSD for more 

detail. 

A summary of emission reductions 

projected to result from Tier 3, relative 

to the reference case, is shown in 

calendar years 2017 and 2030 for NOX, 

VOC, direct PM2.5, CO, SO2, and total air 

toxics in Table III–1. For many 

pollutants, the immediate reductions in 

2017 are significant; for example, 

combined NOX and VOC emissions 

would be reduced by over 300,000 tons. 

By 2030, combined NOX and VOC 

emissions would be reduced by roughly 

750,000 tons, one quarter of the onroad 

inventory. Many of the modeled air 

toxics would be significantly reduced as 

well, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 

acetaldehyde, acrolein and ethanol 

(ranging from 20 to nearly 40 percent of 

the national onroad inventory by 2030). 

The relative reduction in overall 

emissions would continue to increase 

beyond 2030 as more of the fleet 

continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicles; 

for example, by 2050, when nearly all of 

the fleet would have turned over to Tier 

3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 

program would reduce onroad 

emissions of NOX and VOC nearly 40 

percent from the level of emissions 

projected without Tier 3 controls. 

TABLE III–1—ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM THE PROPOSED TIER 3 STANDARDS

[Annual U.S. short tons] a

2017 2030 

Tons 

Percent of 

onroad 

inventory 

Tons 

Percent of 

onroad 

inventory 

NOX ................................................................................................................ 284,381 8 524,790 28 

VOC ............................................................................................................... 44,782 3 226,028 23 

CO .................................................................................................................. 746,683 4 5,765,362 30 

Direct PM2.5 .................................................................................................... 121 0 .1 7,458 10 

Benzene ......................................................................................................... 1,625 4 8,582 36 

SO2 ................................................................................................................ 16,261 51 17,267 51 

1,3-Butadiene ................................................................................................. 322 5 1,087 37 

Formaldehyde ................................................................................................ 727 3 2,707 12 

Acetaldehyde ................................................................................................. 762 3 4,414 26 

Acrolein .......................................................................................................... 23 1 184 15 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29843 

183Rao, V. (2001) Fuel Sulfur Effects on Exhaust 

Emissions: Recommendations for MOBILE6, 

EPA420–R–01–039. 

TABLE III–1—ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM THE PROPOSED TIER 3 STANDARDS—Continued 

[Annual U.S. short tons] a

2017 2030 

Tons 

Percent of 

onroad 

inventory 

Tons 

Percent of 

onroad 

inventory 

Ethanol ........................................................................................................... 2,684 2 27,821 24 

aThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for 

LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. 

Reductions for each pollutant are 

discussed in the following sections, 

focusing on the contribution of program 

elements to the total reductions 

summarized above. 

1. NOX

The proposed sulfur standards would 

significantly reduce NOX emissions 

immediately upon implementation of 

the program. As discussed above, recent 

research on the impact of sulfur on Tier 

2 technology vehicles shows the 

potential for significant reductions in 

NOX emissions from the existing fleet of 

Tier 2 vehicles by lowering sulfur levels 

to 10 ppm. Prior research shows that 

NOX emissions would also be expected 

to decrease from the fleet of older (preTier 2) light-duty vehicles as well as 

heavy-duty gasoline vehicles,183

although at 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 2017 and 

2030. The reductions are split into those 

attributable to the introduction of low 

sulfur fuel in the pre-Tier 3 fleet 

(defined for this analysis as model years 

prior to 2017); and reductions 

attributable to vehicle standards enabled 

by low sulfur fuel (model year 2017 and 

later). As shown, upon implementation 

of the proposed sulfur standards, total 

onroad NOX emissions are projected to 

drop 8 percent. This is primarily due to 

large reductions from Tier 2 gasoline 

vehicles, which contribute about onequarter of the NOX emissions from the 

on-road fleet in 2017. The relative 

reduction grows as cleaner vehicles turn 

over into the fleet. By 2030, we project 

that the reduction in overall onroad 

NOX inventory would be close to 30 

percent. 

TABLE III–2—PROJECTED NOX REDUCTIONS FROM TIER 3 PROGRAM

[Annual U.S. Tons] a

2017 2030 

Total reduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 284,381 524,790 

Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard ........................................................................................... 264,653 66,286 

Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards ............................................................................ 19,728 458,504 

Percent reduction in onroad NOX emissions .......................................................................................................... 8% 28% 

aThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for 

LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. 

2. VOC 

Table III–3 shows the reduction in 

VOC emissions, in annual short tons, 

projected in calendar years 2017 and 

2030 resulting from the proposed 

standards. In 2017, as with NOX, we 

project reductions from the pre-Tier 3 

fleet with the proposed fuel standards. 

By 2030 the reduction in overall onroad 

VOC emissions would be over 20 

percent, the majority of this from the 

Tier 3 fleet. The proposed evaporative 

standards are projected to account for 

roughly one quarter of the overall 

vehicle program reduction in 2030. 

TABLE III–3—PROJECTED VOC REDUCTIONS FROM TIER 3 PROGRAM

[Annual U.S. tons] a

2017 2030 

Total reduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 44,782 226,028 

Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard ........................................................................................... 39,561 13,739 

Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards ............................................................................ 5,222 212,289 

Exhaust .................................................................................................................................................................... 41,433 168,264 

Evaporative .............................................................................................................................................................. 3,349 57,764 

Percent reduction in onroad VOC emissions .......................................................................................................... 3% 23% 

aThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for 

LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29844 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3. CO 

Table III–4 shows the reductions for 

CO, broken down by pre- and post-Tier 

3 in the manner described for NOX and 

VOC above. Based on research showing 

sizeable CO reductions from lower 

sulfur fuel, the immediate reductions in 

the onroad fleet from sulfur control are 

also significant. The CO exhaust 

standards are projected to reduce 

onroad CO emissions 30 percent by 

2030. 

TABLE III–4—PROJECTED CO REDUCTIONS FROM TIER 3 PROGRAM

[Annual U.S. tons] 

2017 2030 

Total reduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 746,683 5,765,362 

Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard ........................................................................................... 608,502 139,074 

Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards ............................................................................ 138,181 5,626,288 

Percent reduction in onroad CO emissions ............................................................................................................ 4% 30% 

aThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for 

LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. 

4. Direct PM2.5

Reductions in direct emissions of 

PM2.5 are projected to result solely from 

the proposed vehicle tailpipe standards, 

so meaningful reductions are realized 

mainly as the fleet turns over. By 2030, 

we project a reduction of about 7,500 

tons annually, which represents 

approximately 10 percent of the onroad 

direct PM2.5 inventory. However, since 

the PM standards are mainly focused on 

improving engine durability through the 

end of a vehicle’s useful life, the relative 

reduction in onroad emissions is 

projected to grow to 17 percent with full 

fleet turnover in 2050. Reductions in 

NOX and VOC emissions would also 

reduce secondary PM formation, which 

is quantified as part of the air quality 

analysis described in Section III.C. 

5. Air Toxics 

Emissions of air toxics also would be 

reduced by the proposed sulfur, exhaust 

and evaporative standards. Air toxics 

are generally a subset of compounds 

making up VOC, so the reduction trends 

tend to track the VOC reductions 

presented above. Table III–5 presents 

reductions for certain key air toxics, and 

Table III–6 presents reductions for the 

sum of 71 different toxic compounds. 

TABLE III–5—REDUCTIONS FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL COMPOUNDS

[Annual U.S. tons] 

Tons reduced 

in 2017 

Percent reduction in onroad 

emissions 

Tons reduced 

in 2030 

Percent reduction in onroad 

emissions 

Acetaldehyde ................................................................................................... 762 3 4,414 26 

Formaldehyde .................................................................................................. 727 3 2,707 12 

Acrolein ............................................................................................................ 23 1 184 15

1,3-Butadiene ................................................................................................... 322 5 1,087 37 

Benzene ........................................................................................................... 1,625 4 8,581 36 

Naphthalene ..................................................................................................... 96 2 420 17 

Ethanol ............................................................................................................. 2,684 2 27,821 24 

aThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for 

LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. 

The totals shown in Table III–6 

represent the sum of 71 species 

including the toxics in Table III–5, 15 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) 

compounds in gas and particle phase, 

and additional gaseous compounds such 

as toluene, xylenes, styrene, hexane, 

2,2,4-trimethylpentane, n-hexane, and 

propionaldehyde (Appendix 7A in the 

draft RIA). As shown, in 2030 the 

overall onroad inventory of total toxics 

would be reduced by over 20 percent, 

with nearly one third of the vehicle 

program reductions coming from the 

proposed evaporative standards. 

TABLE III–6—REDUCTIONS IN TOTAL MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS

[Annual U.S. Tons] 

2017 2030 

Total reduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 15,156 89,685 

Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard ........................................................................................... 12,452 5,022 

Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards ............................................................................ 2,683 84,663 

Exhaust .................................................................................................................................................................... 13,748 64,144 

Evaporative .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,408 25,541 

Percent reduction in onroad toxics emissions ......................................................................................................... 3% 23% 

aThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for 

LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29845 

184U.S. Energy Information Administration 

(2011), Annual Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA– 

0383 (2011). 

185Huai, 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. 

186Michaels, H. (1998) Emissions of Nitrous 

Oxide from Highway Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA 

EPA420–R–98–009. 

187Behrentz, et al. (2004), Measurements of 

nitrous oxide emissions from light-duty motor 

vehicles: a pilot study Atmospheric Environment 

4291–4303. 

188Meffert, et. al (2000) Analysis of Nitrous Oxide 

Emissions from Light Duty Passenger Cars, SAE 

2000–01–1952. 

189Meszler, D. (2004), Light Duty Vehicle 

Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions: Greenhouse 

Gas Impacts Study for Northeast States Center for 

a Clean Air Future. 

190 Graham, L. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

1997–2005 Model Year Light Duty Vehicles 

Environment Canada ERMD Report #04–44. 

191The global warming potentials (GWP) used in 

this rule are consistent with the 100-year time frame 

values in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report 

(AR4). At this time, the 1996 IPCC Second 

Assessment Report (SAR) 100-year GWP values are 

used in the official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory 

submission to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (per the reporting 

requirements under that international convention, 

which were last updated in 2006). N2O has a 100- 

year GWP of 298 and CH4 has a 100-year GWP of 

25 according to the 2007 IPCC AR4. 

192 Keller, P. (February, 2013). New Source 

Review Permitting Impact Analysis for Proposed 

Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to the 

docket. 

6. SO2

SO2 emissions from mobile sources 

are a direct function of sulfur in the 

fuel, and reducing sulfur in gasoline 

would result in immediate reductions in 

SO2 from the on and off-road fleet. The 

reductions, shown in Table III–7, are a 

function of the sulfur level and fuel 

consumption. This is reflected in the 

relative contribution of on-road vehicles 

and off-road equipment, where off-road 

gasoline consumption accounts for 

approximately 5 percent of overall 

gasoline use.184

TABLE III–7—PROJECTED SO2 REDUCTIONS FROM TIER 3 PROGRAM

[Annual U.S. Tons] 

2017 2030 

Total reduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 16,261 17,267 

Reduction from onroad vehicles due to sulfur standard ......................................................................................... 15,494 16,370 

Reduction from off-road equipment due to sulfur standard .................................................................................... 767 897 

Percent reduction in onroad SO2 emissions ........................................................................................................... 51% 51% 

7. Greenhouse Gases 

Reductions in nitrous oxide (N2O) 

emissions and methane (CH4) emissions, 

both potent greenhouse gas emissions, 

are projected for gasoline cars and 

trucks due to the proposed sulfur and 

tailpipe standards. A study conducted 

by the University of California at 

Riverside found a 29 percent reduction 

in N2O emissions over the FTP when 

sulfur was reduced from 30 to 5 ppm,185

while EPA research described in Section 

IV.A on sulfur effects found a 25 percent 

reduction in CH4 emissions when sulfur 

was reduced from 28 to 5 ppm. Several 

studies have established correlations 

between reductions in tailpipe NOX

emissions and reductions in N2O from 

gasoline cars and trucks,186 187 188 as well 

as correlations between reductions in 

tailpipe HC emissions and reductions in 

CH4.189 190 One such study (Behrentz et 

al.) reported an N2O: NOX ratio of 0.095 

± 0.035, and supported the application 

of N2O: NOX ratios to NOX emissions as 

a reasonable method for estimating N2O 

emission inventories. As detailed in RIA 

Chapter 7.3, a range of N2O reductions 

is bounded by applying this ratio to 

NOX reductions projected for this 

proposal (from Table III–1), and 

applying the UC Riverside sulfur results 

to MOVES N2O inventories for pre-Tier 

3 vehicles. Using a 100-year global 

warming potential of 298 for N2O 

according to the 2007 IPCC AR4,191 the 

range of reductions calculated for N2O 

is from 2.9 to 7.3 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) 

in 2017, growing to 12.3 to 13.5 

MMTCO2e in 2030. MOVES can be used 

to directly estimate CH4 reductions from 

the sulfur and vehicle standards, 

estimating an additional 0.1 MMTCO2e 

reduction in 2017, growing to 0.5 

MMTCO2e in 2030. The range of total 

GHG reductions from the Tier 3 rule is 

3.0 to 7.4 MMTCO2e in 2017, growing 

to 12.8 to 14.0 MMTCO2e in 2030. 

These reductions would be offset to 

some degree by CO2 emissions 

associated with higher energy use 

required in the process of removing 

sulfur within the refinery. To assess the 

potential refinery permitting 

implications of the Tier 3 proposal, we 

calculated the CO2 emission impacts on 

a refinery-by-refinery basis. We used the 

projected refinery-specific changes from 

our refinery-by-refinery modeling (see 

Chapter 5 of the draft RIA) to estimate 

changes in process energy and then 

applied emission factors that 

correspond to those changes. The results 

showed an increase of up to 4.6 

MMTCO2e in 2017 for all U.S. refineries 

complying with the lower sulfur 

standards assuming that the proposed 

sulfur standards are fully phased-in.192

The actual increase is expected to be 

considerably lower, since this is a 

permitting analysis and refineries will 

not be operating at their permit 

capacity. The actual increase will also 

be a function of several factors, 

including technology options selected 

by the refineries and the projected use 

of averaging, banking and trading in 

avoiding the need for investments at 

some refineries. As a result, 4.6 

MMTCO2e represents an upper-bound 

estimate of the possible increase in 

refinery CO2 emissions due to the need 

for additional process heat and 

hydrogen production to enable the 

additional hydrotreating required. 

In 2017, the range of potential 

decrease in CH4 and N2O emissions 

overlaps with the range of projected 

increase in CO2 from refinery processes, 

suggesting that a net increase or 

decrease in GHG emissions cannot be 

quantified with certainty. However, we 

estimate the program would result in 

net GHG reductions as the program 

continues into the future, as shown by 

our 2030 estimates. 

We do not expect the Tier 3 vehicle 

standards to result in any discernible 

changes in vehicle CO2 emissions or 

fuel economy. Emissions of the 

pollutants that we have designed the 

program to address—NMOG, NOX, and 

PM—are not a function of the amount of 

fuel consumed, since manufacturers 

need to design their catalytic emission 

control systems to reduce these 

emissions regardless of their engine-out 

levels. However, there may be some 

slight reduction of vehicle mass if 

manufacturers explore lighter exhaust 

manifold materials in order to reduce 

thermal mass and promote earlier 

catalyst light-off. EPA invites comments 

on any potential impacts of the 

proposed Tier 3 program on vehicle CO2

emissions and fuel economy. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29846 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

C. How would air pollution be reduced? 

Reductions in emissions of NOX, 

VOC, PM2.5 and air toxics expected as a 

result of the proposed Tier 3 standards 

are projected to lead to significant 

decreases in ambient concentrations of 

ozone, PM2.5, and air toxics. The results 

of our air quality modeling of the 

impacts of the Tier 3 proposal are 

summarized in the following section. 

The air quality modeling predicts 

significant improvements in ozone 

concentrations due to the proposed Tier 

3 standards. Ambient PM2.5 and NO2

concentrations are also expected to 

improve as a result of the proposed Tier 

3 program. Decreases in ambient 

concentrations of air toxics are projected 

with the proposed standards, including 

notable nationwide reductions in 

benzene concentrations. Our air quality 

modeling also predicts improvements in 

visibility and sulfur deposition, as well 

as substantial decreases in nitrogen 

deposition as a result of the proposed 

standards. 

1. Ozone 

The air quality modeling done for this 

proposal projects that in 2017, with all 

current controls in effect but excluding 

the emissions changes expected to occur 

as a result of this proposed action or any 

other additional controls, at least 40 

counties, with a projected population of 

almost 50 million people, would have 

projected design values above the level 

of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 

ppb. Even in 2030 the modeling projects 

that in the absence of additional 

controls there would be 12 counties 

with a population of almost 32 million 

people with projected design values 

above the level of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard of 75 ppb. Since the emission 

changes from this proposal go into effect 

during the period when some areas are 

still working to attain the ozone 

NAAQS, the projected emission changes 

would help state and local agencies in 

their effort to attain and maintain the 

ozone standard. 

Air quality modeling indicates ozone 

design value concentrations would 

decrease dramatically in many areas of 

the country as a result of this action and 

in some places those decreases would 

be enough to change the projected 

design values from being above the 

NAAQS to being below the NAAQS. 

The decreases in ozone design values 

are likely due to projected tailpipe 

reductions in NOX and VOCs from 

reductions in fuel sulfur and engine 

controls. 

In 2017, the majority of the design 

value decreases are between 0.5 and 1.0 

ppb. The projected population-weighted 

average design value concentration 

without the proposed rule is 71.3 ppb in 

2017. The proposed rule would also 

reduce the projected ozone design 

values in three counties from above the 

level of the standard to below. These 

three counties are Bucks County in 

Pennsylvania, Arlington County in 

Virginia and St Louis County in 

Missouri. The projected population in 

these three counties in 2017 is almost 2 

million people. In 2030, the proposed 

rule would result in larger decreases in 

ozone design values, with the majority 

of counties projecting decreases of 

between 1.0 and 1.5 ppb, and over 200 

more counties with decreases greater 

than 1.5 ppb. The projected populationweighted average design value 

concentration without the proposed rule 

is 66.7 ppb in 2030. There are also two 

more counties whose projected design 

values would be reduced from above the 

level of the ozone standard to below by 

the proposed rule in 2030. These 

counties are Hudson County in New 

Jersey and Brazoria County in Texas. 

The projected population in these two 

counties in 2030 is over 1 million 

people. 

Table III–8 and Table III–9 show the 

average change in 2017 and 2030 8-hour 

ozone design values for: (1) All counties 

with 2005 baseline design values, (2) 

counties with 2005 baseline design 

values that exceeded the 2008 ozone 

standard, (3) counties with 2005 

baseline design values that did not 

exceed the 2008 standard, but were 

within 10 percent of it, (4) counties with 

2017/2030 design values that exceeded 

the 2008 ozone standard, and (5) 

counties with 2017/2030 design values 

that did not exceed the standard, but 

were within 10 percent of it. Counties 

within 10 percent of the standard are 

intended to reflect counties that 

although not violating the standards, 

will also be impacted by changes in 

ozone as they work to ensure long-term 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. All 

of these metrics show a decrease in 2017 

and 2030, indicating in five different 

ways the overall improvement in air 

quality. 

On a population-weighted basis, the 

average modeled future-year 8-hour 

ozone design values are projected to 

decrease by 0.47 ppb in 2017 and 1.55 

ppb in 2030. On a population-weighted 

basis design values in those counties 

that are projected to be above the 2008 

ozone standard in 2017 and 2030 are 

projected to decrease by 0.30 and 1.62 

ppb respectively due to the proposed 

standards. 

TABLE III–8—AVERAGE CHANGE IN PROJECTED 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUE IN 2017 c

Average a Number of 

U.S. counties 

2020 

population b

Change in 

2017 design 

value (ppb) 

All ................................................................................................................................................. 676 238,026,106 ¥0.50 

All, population-weighted ............................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.47 

Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ......................... 393 176,910,535 ¥0.56 

Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, populationweighted ................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.51 

Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ....... 201 40,516,171 ¥0.47 

Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, 

population-weighted ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥0.42 

Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ...................... 37 47,659,433 ¥0.35 

Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, populationweighted ................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.30 

Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ... 124 68,625,934 ¥0.51 

Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, 

population-weighted ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥0.49 

aAverages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values. 

bPopulation numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. 

cThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will 

account for LEV III vehicle standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29847 

193The projections from the modeling analysis for 

the Tier 3 proposal differ from what was presented 

in the recent PM NAAQS RIA (http://www.epa.gov/ 

pm/actions.html). The differences in modeling 

between the analyses stem primarily from the 

difference in modeling platform and the different 

years being evaluated (2020 vs. 2030). 

TABLE III–9—AVERAGE CHANGE IN PROJECTED 8-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUE IN 2030 c

Averagea Number of 

U.S. counties 

2030 

population b

Change in 

2030 design 

value (ppb) 

All ................................................................................................................................................. 676 261,497,900 ¥1.35 

All, population-weighted ............................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥1.55 

Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ......................... 393 194,118,748 ¥1.54 

Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, populationweighted ................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥1.69 

Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ....... 201 44,436,103 ¥1.18 

Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, 

population-weighted ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥1.25 

Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ...................... 10 30,619,714 ¥1.49 

Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, populationweighted ................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥1.62 

Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard ... 40 21,541,863 ¥1.37 

Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, 

population-weighted ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥1.50 

aAverages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values. 

bPopulation numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. 

cThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will 

account for LEV III vehicle standards. 

2. Particulate Matter 

The air quality modeling conducted 

for this proposal projects that in 2030, 

with all current controls in effect but 

excluding the emissions changes 

expected to occur as a result of this 

proposal or any other additional 

controls, at least 14 counties, with a 

projected population of over 28 million 

people, would have projected design 

values above the level of the annual 

standard of 12 mg/m3 and at least 21 

counties, with a projected population of 

over 31 million people, would have 

projected design values above the level 

of the 24-hour standard of 35 mg/m3. 193

Since the emission changes from this 

proposed action would go into effect 

during the period when some areas are 

still working to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the projected emission changes would 

be useful to state and local agencies in 

their effort to attain and maintain the 

PM2.5 standard. 

The proposed rule would reduce 24- 

hour and annual PM2.5 design values in 

2030. Annual PM2.5 design values in the 

majority of modeled counties would 

decrease by between 0.01 and 0.05 mg/ 

m3 and in over 100 additional counties 

design values are projected to decrease 

by greater than 0.05 mg/m3. The 

projected population-weighted average 

design value concentration without the 

proposed rule is 9.5 mg/m3 in 2030. The 

average modeled future-year annual 

PM2.5 design values in 2030 decrease by 

0.06 mg/m3 on a population-weighted 

basis. Design values in those counties 

that are projected to be above the annual 

PM2.5 standard in 2030 decrease even 

more, by 0.11 mg/m3 on a populationweighted basis, due to the proposed 

standards. In addition, the average 

modeled future-year 24-hour PM2.5

design values in 2030 decrease by 0.20 

mg/m3 on a population-weighted basis. 

The projected population-weighted 

average design value concentration 

without the proposed rule is 24.3 mg/m3

in 2030. The decreases in PM2.5 design 

values are likely due to the projected 

tailpipe reductions in primary PM2.5, 

NOX and VOCs. The proposed rule has 

little impact on PM2.5 design values for 

the majority of counties in 2017, 

although our air quality modeling 

underestimated the PM decreases that 

would result from this proposal (see 

Section 7.4.2.3 of the draft RIA for more 

detail). 

Table III–10 and Table III–11 present 

the average change in 2030 annual and 

24-hour PM2.5 design values for: (1) All 

counties with 2005 baseline design 

values, (2) counties with 2005 baseline 

design values that exceeded the PM2.5

standard, (3) counties with 2005 

baseline design values that did not 

exceed the standard, but were within 10 

percent of it, (4) counties with 2030 

design values that exceeded the PM2.5

standard, and (5) counties with 2030 

design values that did not exceed the 

standard, but were within 10 percent of 

it. Counties within 10 percent of the 

standard are intended to reflect counties 

that although not violating the 

standards, will also be impacted by 

changes in PM2.5 as they work to ensure 

long-term maintenance of the annual 

and/or 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. All of 

these metrics show a decrease in 2030. 

On a population-weighted basis, there is 

a 0.06 mg/m3 decrease in the average 

modeled future-year annual PM2.5

design values in 2030 and a decrease of 

0.11 mg/m3 in those counties that are 

projected to be above the annual PM2.5

standard in 2030. In addition, the 

average population-weighted modeled 

future-year 24-hour PM2.5 design values 

are projected to decrease by 0.20 mg/m3

due to the proposed standards and 

design values in those counties that are 

projected to be above the 24-hour PM2.5

standard in 2030 would decrease by 

0.32 mg/m3. 

TABLE III–10—AVERAGE CHANGE IN PROJECTED ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES IN 2030 c

Average a Number of 

U.S. counties 

2030 

Population 

Change in 

2030 design 

value (μg/m3) 

All ................................................................................................................................................. 576 247,415,381 ¥0.05 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29848 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III–10—AVERAGE CHANGE IN PROJECTED ANNUAL PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES IN 2030 c—Continued 

Average a Number of 

U.S. counties 

2030 

Population 

Change in 

2030 design 

value (μg/m3) 

All, population-weighted ............................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.06 

Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM2.5 standard ................................... 314 152,109,569 ¥0.05 

Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM2.5 standard, population-weighted ........................ ........................ ¥0.07 

Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual PM2.5 standard ................. 83 31,863,376 ¥0.05 

Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual PM2.5 standard, population-weighted ......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.05 

Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM2.5 standard d ............................. 14 28,624,758 ¥0.11 

Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM2.5 standard, population-weighted d ........................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.10 

Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the annual PM2.5 standard ............. 28 23,840,272 ¥0.07 

Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the annual PM2.5 standard, population-weighted ......................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.09 

aAverages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values. 

bPopulation numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. 

cThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will 

account for LEV III vehicle standards. dEight of these counties are in California, see Table 7–35 in the DRIA. 

TABLE III–11—AVERAGE CHANGE IN PROJECTED 24-HOUR PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES IN 2030 c

Average a Number of 

U.S. counties 

2030 

Population b

Change in 

2030 design 

value (μg/m3) 

All ................................................................................................................................................. 569 245,111,480 ¥0.16 

All, population-weighted ............................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.20 

Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard ........................ 108 91,474,036 ¥0.29 

Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, populationweighted ................................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥0.27 

Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard ...... 140 53,990,060 ¥0.18 

Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, 

population-weighted ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥0.21 

Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard d ................... 21 31,002,272 ¥0.50 

Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, populationweighted d ................................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥0.32 

Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard .. 7 4,212,913 ¥0.37 

Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, 

population-weighted ................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥0.50 

aAverages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values. 

bPopulation numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. 

cThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will 

account for LEV III vehicle standards. dEleven of these counties are in California, see Table 7–37 in the DRIA. 

3. Nitrogen Dioxide 

Although our modeling indicates that 

by 2030 the majority of the country will 

experience decreases of less than 0.1 

ppb in their annual NO2 concentrations 

due to this proposal, annual NO2

concentrations are projected to decrease 

by more than 0.3 ppb in most urban 

areas. These emissions reductions 

would also likely decrease 1-hour NO2

concentrations and help any potential 

nonattainment areas to attain and 

maintain the standard. Additional 

information on the emissions reductions 

that are projected with this proposal is 

available in Section 7.2.1 of the draft 

RIA. 

4. Air Toxics 

Our modeling indicates that the 

impacts of proposed Tier 3 standards 

include generally small decreases in 

ambient concentrations of air toxics, 

especially in urban areas, with notable 

nationwide reductions in benzene. 

Although reductions are greater in 2030 

(when Tier 3 cars and trucks would 

contribute nearly 90 percent of fleetwide vehicle miles travelled) than in 

2017 (the first year of the proposed 

program), our modeling projects there 

would be small immediate reductions in 

ambient concentrations of air toxics due 

to the proposed sulfur controls in 2017. 

Furthermore, the full reduction of the 

vehicle program would be realized after 

2030, when the fleet has fully turned 

over to Tier 3 vehicles. Air toxics 

pollutants dominated by primary 

emissions (or a decay product of a 

directly emitted pollutant) have the 

largest impacts, rather than air toxics 

that primarily result from 

photochemical transformation. 

Specifically, in 2030, our modeling 

projects that the proposal would 

decrease ambient benzene 

concentrations across much of the 

country on the order of 1 to 5 percent, 

with reductions ranging from 10 to 25 

percent in some urban areas. Our 

modeling also shows reductions of 1,3- 

butadiene and acrolein concentrations 

in 2030 ranging between 1 and 25 

percent, with 1,3-butadiene decreases of 

at least 0.005 mg/m3 in urban areas. 

These toxics are national risk drivers 

and the reductions in ambient 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29849 

194The level of visibility impairment in an area 

is based on the light-extinction coefficient and a 

unitless visibility index, called a ‘‘deciview’’, which 

is used in the valuation of visibility. The deciview 

metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes 

over the entire range of conditions, from clear to 

hazy. Under many scenic conditions, the average 

person can generally perceive a change of one 

deciview. The higher the deciview value, the worse 

the visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is 

a decrease in deciview value. 

195 Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and 

environmental equity: do housing choices 

determine exposure to air pollution? North Caroline 

State University Center for Environmental and 

Resource Economic Policy. 

concentrations from this proposed rule 

would result in reductions in risks from 

cancer and noncancer health effects. In 

some parts of the country (mainly urban 

areas), ethanol and formaldehyde 

concentrations are projected to decrease 

on the order of 1 to 5 percent in 2030 

as a result of the proposal. Decreases in 

ethanol concentrations are expected due 

to reductions in VOC as a result of the 

proposed standards. Changes in ambient 

acetaldehyde concentrations are 

generally less than 1 percent across the 

U.S., although the proposal may 

decrease acetaldehyde concentrations in 

some urban areas by 1 to 2.5 percent in 

2030. 

Although the reductions in ambient 

air toxics concentrations expected from 

the proposed Tier 3 standards are 

generally small, they are projected to 

benefit the majority of the U.S. 

population. As shown in Table III–12, 

over 80 percent of the total U.S. 

population is projected to experience a 

decrease in ambient benzene and 

acrolein concentrations of at least 2.5 

percent, with more than 90 percent of 

the populations projected to experience 

1,3-butadiene concentrations of similar 

magnitude. Over 80 percent of the U.S 

population is projected to experience at 

least a 1 percent decrease in ambient 

ethanol concentrations, and over 60 

percent would experience a similar 

decrease in ambient formaldehyde 

concentrations with the proposed 

standards. 

TABLE III–12—PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION EXPERIENCING CHANGES IN ANNUAL AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF

TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN 2030 AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS a

Percent change Benzene 

(percent) 

Acrolein 

(percent) 

1,3-Butadiene 

(percent) 

Formaldehyde 

(percent) 

Ethanol 

(percent) 

Acetaldehyde 

(percent) 

≤ ¥50 ...................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

> ¥50 to ≤ ¥25 ...................................... ........................ ........................ 0.1 ........................ ........................ ........................

> ¥25 to ≤ ¥10 ...................................... 2.8 0.7 56.8 ........................ ........................ ........................

> ¥10 to ≤ ¥5 ........................................ 23.7 36.8 30.8 ........................ ........................ ........................

> ¥5 to ≤ ¥2.5 ....................................... 54.5 43.7 7.1 1.2 33.0 0.3 

> ¥2.5 to ≤ ¥1 ....................................... 17.7 15.3 3.4 63.2 55.3 25.1 

> ¥1 to < 1 .............................................. 1.4 3.5 1.7 35.6 11.6 74.6 

≥ 1 to < 2.5 .............................................. ........................ ........................ 0.0 ........................ ........................ ........................

≥ 2.5 to < 5 .............................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

≥ 5 to < 10 ............................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

≥ 10 to < 25 ............................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

≥ 25 to < 50 ............................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

≥ 50 .......................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................

aThis analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will 

account for LEV III vehicle standards. 

5. Visibility 

Air quality modeling conducted for 

this proposed action was used to project 

visibility conditions in 139 mandatory 

class I federal areas across the U.S. The 

results show that in 2030 all the 

modeled areas would continue to have 

annual average deciview levels above 

background and the proposed rule 

would improve visibility in all these 

areas.194 The average visibility at all 

modeled mandatory class I federal areas 

on the 20 percent worst days is 

projected to improve by 0.04 deciviews, 

or 0.28 percent, in 2030. Section 7.2.5.5 

of the draft RIA contains more detail on 

the visibility portion of the air quality 

modeling. 

6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition 

Our air quality modeling projects 

substantial decreases in nitrogen 

deposition as a result of the proposed 

standards. The standards would result 

in annual percent decreases of greater 

than 5 percent in most major urban 

areas and greater than 7 percent in a few 

areas. In addition, smaller decreases, in 

the 1 to 1.5 percent range, would occur 

over most of the rest of the country. The 

impacts of the proposed standards on 

sulfur deposition are smaller, ranging 

from no change to decreases of over 2 

percent in some areas. For maps of 2030 

deposition impacts and additional 

information on these impacts see 

Section 7.2.5.6 of the draft RIA. 

7. Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice (EJ) is a 

principle asserting that all people 

deserve fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement with respect to 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. EPA seeks to provide the same 

degree of protection from environmental 

health hazards for all people. As 

referenced below, numerous studies 

have found that some environmental 

hazards are more prevalent in areas with 

high population fractions of racial/ 

ethnic minorities and people with low 

socioeconomic status (SES), as would be 

expected on the basis of those areas’ 

share of the general population. 

As discussed in Section II of this 

document, concentrations of many air 

pollutants are elevated near high-traffic 

roadways. If minority populations and 

low-income populations 

disproportionately live near such roads, 

then an issue of EJ may be present. Such 

disparities may be due to multiple 

factors.195

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29850 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

196Clougherty, 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]. 

197Clougherty, 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]. 

198Finkelstein, 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. 

199Shankardass, 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]. 

200Lewis, 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]. 

201Rosa, 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]. 

202Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental 

inequality: air pollution exposures in California’s 

South Coast Air Basin. 

203Su, 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]. 

204Chakraborty, 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]. 

205 Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; 

McLaughlin, R.; Ostro, B. (2003) Proximity of 

California public schools to busy roads. Environ 

Health Perspect 112: 61–66. doi:10.1289/ehp.6566 

[http://dx.doi.org]. 

206Wu, 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]. 

207Su, 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. 

208This variable primarily represents roadway 

proximity. According to the Central Intelligence 

Agency’s World Factbook, in 2010, the United 

States had 6,506,204 km or roadways, 224,792 km 

of railways, and 15,079 airports. As such, highways 

represent the overwhelming majority of 

transportation facilities described by this factor in 

the AHS. 

209Bailey, C. (2011) Demographic and Social 

Patterns in Housing Units Near Large Highways and 

other Transportation Sources. Memorandum to 

docket. 

210http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/. 

211Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of 

Schools within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and 

Secondary Roads. Memorandum to the docket. 

pollution.196 197 198 199 Household-level 

stressors such as parental smoking and 

relationship stress also may increase 

susceptibility to the adverse effects of 

air pollution.200 201

To address the existing conditions in 

areas near major roadways, in 

comparison with other locations, we 

reviewed existing scholarly literature 

examining the topic, and conducted our 

own evaluation of two national datasets: 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s American 

Housing Survey for calendar year 2009 

and the U.S. Department of Education’s 

database of school locations. 

Existing publications that address EJ 

issues generally report that populations 

living near major roadways (and other 

types of transportation infrastructure) 

tend to be composed of larger fractions 

of nonwhite residents. People living in 

neighborhoods near such sources of air 

pollution also tend to be lower in 

income than people living elsewhere. 

Numerous studies evaluating the 

demographics and socioeconomic status 

of populations or schools near roadways 

have found that they include a greater 

percentage of minority residents, as well 

as lower SES (indicated by variables 

such as median household income). 

Locations in these studies include Los 

Angeles, CA, Seattle, WA, Wayne 

County, MI, Orange County, FL, and the 

State of California 202 203 204 205 206 207

We analyzed two national databases 

that allowed us to evaluate whether 

homes and schools were located near a 

major road. One database, the American 

Housing Survey (AHS), includes 

descriptive statistics of over 70,000 

housing units across the nation. The 

study is conducted every two years by 

the U.S. Census Bureau. We analyzed 

data from the 2009 AHS. The second 

database we analyzed was the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Common 

Core of Data, which includes enrollment 

and location information for schools 

across the U.S. 

In analyzing the 2009 AHS, we 

focused on whether or not a housing 

unit was located within 300 feet of ‘‘4- 

or-more lane highway, railroad, or 

airport.’’ 208 We analyzed whether there 

were differences between houses and 

householders in such locations and 

those not in them.209 We found that 

houses with a nonwhite householder 

were 22–34 percent more likely to be 

located within 300 feet of these large 

transportation facilities, while houses 

with a Hispanic householder were 17– 

33 percent more likely. Households near 

large transportation facilities were, on 

average, lower in income and 

educational attainment, more likely to 

be a rental property and located in an 

urban area. 

In examining schools near major 

roadways, we examined the Common 

Core of Data (CCD) from the U.S. 

Department of Education, which 

includes information on all public 

elementary and secondary schools and 

school districts nationwide.210 To 

determine school proximities to major 

roadways, we used a geographic 

information system (GIS) to map each 

school and roadways based on the U.S. 

Census’s TIGER roadway file.211 We 

found that minority students were 

overrepresented at schools within 200 

meters of the largest roadways, and that 

schools within 200 meters of the largest 

roadways also had higher than expected 

numbers of students eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunches. For example, 

Black students represent 21.57 percent 

of students at schools located within 

200 meters of a primary road, whereas 

Black students represent 16.62 percent 

of students in all U.S. schools. Hispanic 

students represent 30.13 percent of 

students at schools located within 200 

meters of a primary road, whereas 

Hispanic students represent 21.93 

percent of students in all U.S. schools. 

Overall, there is substantial evidence 

that people who live or attend school 

near major roadways are more likely to 

be of a minority race, Hispanic 

ethnicity, and/or low SES. The 

reduction of near-roadway 

concentrations of many pollutants, 

discussed above, is likely to help in 

mitigating this disparity in racial, 

ethnic, and economically-based 

exposures. 

IV. Proposed Vehicle Emissions 

Program 

In the more than 10 years since EPA 

finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle Program, 

manufacturers of light-duty vehicles 

have continued to develop a wide range 

of improved technologies capable of 

reducing key exhaust emissions, 

especially hydrocarbons, nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), and particulate matter 

(PM). The California LEV II program has 

been instrumental in the continuous 

technology improvements by requiring 

year after year reductions in fleet 

average hydrocarbon levels in addition 

to requiring the introduction of 

advanced exhaust and evaporative 

emission controls in partial zero 

emission vehicles (PZEVs). This 

progress in vehicle technology has made 

it possible for manufacturers to achieve 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29851 

212LEV III program as approved by the California 

Air Resources Board, January 2012. 

emission reductions well beyond the 

requirements of the Tier 2 program if 

gasoline sulfur levels are lowered 

further. 

Extensive data from existing Tier 2 

(and California LEV II) vehicles show 

the opportunity for further reductions, 

especially in addressing emissions 

produced at start-up, emissions under 

high-speed, high-load conditions, the 

effects of sulfur in gasoline, the effects 

of increased oil consumption, and the 

effects of vehicle and control systems 

age. For these reasons, we are proposing 

more stringent standards designed to 

reduce emissions, primarily nonmethane organic gases (NMOG), NOX, 

and PM from new vehicles. As 

discussed in detail below and in the 

draft RIA, we have concluded that, in 

conjunction with the reductions in fuel 

sulfur proposed in this action, the 

proposed vehicle emissions standards 

are feasible and cost-effective across the 

fleet in the proposed timeframe. We 

believe that simultaneous reductions in 

fuel sulfur would be a key factor in 

enabling the entire fleet of light-duty 

vehicles to meet the proposed emission 

standards in-use, throughout the life of 

the vehicle. 

This section describes in detail the 

proposed program for reducing tailpipe 

and evaporative emissions from lightduty vehicles (LDVs, or passenger cars), 

light-duty trucks (LDT1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s), 

Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles 

(MDPVs), and heavy-duty vehicles 

(HDVs). Sections IV.A and B discuss the 

proposed tailpipe emission standards 

and time lines, and other provisions for 

new light-duty vehicles and MDPVs and 

for new heavy-duty vehicles up to 

14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

(GVWR). Section IV.C presents the 

proposed evaporative emissions 

standards and program as well as 

proposed improvements to the existing 

Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) provisions. 

In Section IV.D, we describe our 

proposal to update our federal 

certification fuel to better match today’s 

in-use fuel and to be forward-looking 

with respect to potential future gasoline 

ethanol and sulfur content. We also 

discuss in this section proposed 

compliance flexibilities for small 

companies and small-volume 

manufacturers (IV.E) and test procedure 

and other compliance provisions (IV.F). 

A. Tailpipe Emission Standards for 

Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-Duty Trucks, 

and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles 

1. Overview 

The proposed Tier 3 standards are 

very similar in structure to those in the 

Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 

program, the proposed standards would 

apply to all LDVs and LDTs below 8,500 

lbs GVWR, and MDPVs (8,500 to 10,000 

lbs GVWR). (We discuss the proposed 

standards for heavy-duty vehicles up to 

14,000 lbs GVWR other than MDPVs, in 

Section IV.B below.) Also as with Tier 

2, manufacturers would select from 

several ‘‘bins’’ of emission standards 

such that the average of their vehicles’ 

emissions complies with the proposed 

fleet-average standards. 

In the discussions of the various 

elements of our proposed program for 

light- and heavy-duty vehicles 

throughout this preamble, we describe 

how the provisions would be consistent 

with the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) LEV III program.212 Auto 

manufacturers have stressed to us the 

importance of their being able to design 

and produce a single fleet of vehicles in 

all 50 states that would comply with 

requirements under the Tier 3 program 

and the LEV III program, as well as 

greenhouse gas/CAFE requirements in 

the same timeframe. Consistency among 

the federal and California programs 

means that special versions of vehicles 

with different emission control 

hardware and calibrations would not be 

necessary for different geographic areas. 

This would allow manufacturers to 

avoid the additional costs of parallel 

design, development, calibration, and 

manufacturing. Consistency among 

programs would also eliminate the need 

to supply aftermarket parts for repair of 

multiple versions of a vehicle. We 

believe that the most cost-effective 

national program will result from close 

coordination of CARB LEV III and 

federal Tier 3 program elements and 

their implementation. To that end, we 

worked closely with CARB and the 

vehicle manufacturers, both 

individually and through their trade 

associations, to align the two programs. 

The Tier 3 program we are proposing 

is identical to LEV III in most major 

respects for both light-duty and heavyduty vehicle exhaust and evaporative 

emissions requirements, as discussed in 

detail below in this section. The levels 

and the timing of the light-duty and 

heavy-duty declining fleet-average 

NMOG+NOx standards that we are 

proposing would be identical to those in 

LEV III. Also, the Tier 3 emissions bins 

to which manufacturers would certify 

individual vehicle models in order to 

comply with the average standards, for 

both light- and heavy-duty vehicles, 

would also be identical to those in LEV 

III. Similarly, the proposed Tier 3 pervehicle PM standards match LEV III 

standards through MY 2024. In 

addition, our proposed primary 

evaporative emissions standards and 

onboard diagnostics requirements are 

also identical to the LEV III 

requirements. 

We note there are a few proposed Tier 

3 provisions that CARB and EPA 

understand would be different, for 

reasons discussed below. Specifically, 

these include the LEV III program and 

our proposed Tier 3 program would 

have different light-duty PM 

requirements late in the program (i.e., 

after MY 2024 (IV.A.3.b.)), would 

require different test fuels (E10 and E15, 

respectively (IV.A.3.c)), and only EPA 

would have an evaporative leak test 

(IV.C.5.b). EPA and CARB will continue 

to work toward additional consistency 

between our programs whenever 

practicable as both programs are 

implemented. Beyond these three 

provisions, the differences between the 

programs would not be major and 

would exist only in the early 

transitional years of the Tier 3 program. 

These differences would result from the 

fact that the LEV III requirements begin 

slightly earlier and that a limited phasein of some provisions would be 

necessary for a smooth transition to 

overall aligned programs. These 

temporary differences would include 

the process for how early compliance 

credits would be generated and used 

(e.g., Section IV.A.7.a); how quickly 

manufacturers would need move toward 

certifying all of their vehicle models to 

longer useful-life values (e.g., Section 

IV.A.7.b) and on the new test fuel (e.g., 

Section IV.A.7.c); and transitional 

emissions bins to facilitate the transition 

from Tier 2 to Tier 3 (IV.A.7.m). 

Similarly, the primary Tier 3 

evaporative standards would have a 

brief phase in period, temporarily 

resulting in requirements that would be 

slightly different from those in LEV III. 

The proposed Tier 3 program is 

designed primarily to reduce exhaust 

and evaporative emissions during 

summer ambient temperature 

conditions when NMOG, NOX and PM 

emissions contribute to air quality 

concerns. We are not proposing new 

emission requirements for any vehicle 

or fuel over the cold temperatures test 

cycles (i.e., the 20 °F cold CO and 

NMHC tests). However, we seek 

comment on the need for doing so, 

including vehicles operating on E85 

fuel, and on the appropriate form and 

level for any such cold-temperature 

requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29852 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

213The proposed declining NMOG+NOX fleetaverage standards would consist of one set of 

declining standards that would apply to light-duty 

vehicles (LDVs) and small light trucks (LDT1s) and 

a second set of declining standards that would 

apply to heavier light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s. 

LDT4s), and MDPVs. 

214This preamble presents the proposed 

standards in terms of milligrams per mile for 

convenience. The associated regulatory language 

will continue to present the standard in terms of 

grams per mile for consistency with earlier 

programs. 

215 In the past, EPA has taken a similar combinedstandard approach for heavy-duty highway engines 

and many categories of nonroad engines. 

2. Summary of Proposed FTP and SFTP 

Tailpipe Standards 

We are proposing a comprehensive 

program that would address the key 

pollutants of concern. We are proposing 

new standards for the sum of NMOG 

and NOX emissions, presented as 

NMOG+NOX, and PM. As discussed in 

Section III above, these proposed 

standards would result in very 

significant improvements in vehicle 

emissions from the levels of the Tier 2 

program. For these pollutants, we are 

proposing standards as measured on test 

procedures that represent a range of 

vehicle operation, including the Federal 

Test Procedure (FTP) and the 

Supplemental Federal Test Procedure 

(SFTP). Unless otherwise specified, the 

proposed FTP and SFTP standards 

would apply to vehicles operating on 

gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuels, 

including both flexible fuel and 

dedicated alternative fuel vehicles. 

The proposed FTP and SFTP 

NMOG+NOX standards would be fleetaverage standards, meaning that the 

manufacturer would calculate the 

average emissions of the vehicles it sells 

in each model year and compare that 

average to the applicable standard for 

that model year. The proposed fleet 

average standards for NMOG+NOX

evaluated over the FTP are summarized 

in Table I–1. (For comparison, the 

average NMOG and NOX standard for 

the Tier 2 program, when added 

together, equal 160 mg/mi). The 

standards would begin in MY 2017 at a 

level representing a 46 percent 

reduction from the current Tier 2 

requirements for lighter vehicles and 

would become increasingly stringent, 

culminating in an 81 percent reduction 

in MY 2025. The proposed FTP 

NMOG+NOX program includes separate 

fleet average standards for lighter and 

heavier vehicles that would converge at 

30 milligrams per mile (mg/mi) in MY 

2025 and later.213 214

Manufacturers would determine their 

fleet average FTP NMOG+NOX emission 

values based on the per-vehicle ‘‘bin 

standards’’ to which they certified each 

vehicle model. As with the Tier 2 

program, manufacturers would be free 

to choose to certify vehicles to any of 

the bins, so long as the sales-weighted 

average of the NMOG+NOX values from 

the selected bins met the fleet average 

standard for that model year. Table IV– 

1 presents the per-vehicle bin standards. 

Similarly, the proposed fleet average 

NMOG+NOX standards measured over 

the SFTP are summarized in Table I–2. 

The proposed SFTP NMOG+NOX fleet 

average standards decline from MY 

2017 until MY 2025. In this case, the 

same standards would apply to both 

lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 

2025, the SFTP NMOG+NOX standard 

would reach its fully phased-in fleet 

average level of 50 mg/mi. We are also 

proposing PM standards as part of this 

Tier 3 program. The proposed PM 

standards would apply to each vehicle 

separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). 

Also, in contrast to the declining 

NMOG+NOX standards, the proposed 

certification PM standard on the FTP is 

3 mg/mi for all vehicles and for all 

model years, but phasing in beginning 

in MY 2017 for vehicles at or below 

6,000 lbs GVWR and in MY 2018 for 

vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. Based 

on EPA and CARB test programs, most 

current light duty vehicles are already 

performing at or below this level. 

However, some vehicles are emitting 

above this level, due to such factors as 

combustion chamber designs, and fuel 

and oil consumption controls that are 

not optimized for low PM emissions. 

The intent of the proposed 3 mg/mi 

standard is to bring all light-duty 

vehicles to the PM level typical of that 

being demonstrated by most light-duty 

vehicles today. 

To address the uncertainties that will 

accompany the introduction of new 

technologies, the proposed program also 

includes a separate in-use FTP PM 

standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of inuse vehicles during the phase-in period, 

as described in more detail below. As 

presented in Table I–3, for vehicles at or 

below 6000 lbs GVWR, these FTP 

certification and in-use standards would 

be phased in beginning with a 

requirement that at least 20 percent of 

a company’s U.S. sales meet the 

standards in MY 2017 and reaching a 

100 percent compliance requirement in 

MY 2021. The proposed standards 

represent a significant numerical 

reduction from the Tier 2 PM emission 

standards of 10 mg/mi for light-duty 

vehicles. Finally, the proposed Tier 3 

program includes PM standards 

evaluated over the US06 cycle (a 

component of the SFTP test, discussed 

further below) at a level of 10 mg/mi for 

vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR 

and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. We 

are proposing separate standards for 

different sizes of vehicles because PM 

generation typically increases when 

vehicles are carrying heavier loads and/ 

or when they are pulling trailers. The 

US06 PM standards would phase in on 

the same schedule as the FTP PM 

standards, reaching 100 percent of each 

company’s U.S. sales by MY 2022. 

These US06 standards would apply to 

the same vehicle models that a 

manufacture chose to certify to the FTP 

PM standard during the percent phase 

in period. PM levels over the US06 are 

typically higher than the PM emitted 

over the FTP due to the increased load 

on the vehicle. As in the case of the FTP 

PM standards, the intent of the 

proposed standard is to bring the 

emission performance of all vehicles to 

that already being demonstrated by 

many vehicles in the current light-duty 

fleet. 

As with the FTP PM standard, we 

propose a separate in-use US06 PM 

standard during the percent phase-in 

period of 15 and 25 mg/mi for vehicles 

of 6000 lbs GVWR and less, and for 

vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, 

respectively. 

The next subsections describe in more 

detail the proposed standards, how they 

would be implemented over time, and 

the technological approaches that we 

believe will be available to 

manufacturers in order to comply. 

3. Proposed FTP Standards 

As summarized above, we propose 

new standards for the primary 

pollutants of concern for this rule 

(NMOG, NOX, and PM) as measured on 

the FTP. The following paragraphs 

describe in more detail these FTP 

standards for NMOG+NOX and PM, as 

well as for carbon monoxide (CO) and 

formaldehyde (HCHO). 

a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards 

We propose that the Tier 3 NMOG 

and NOX standards, both of which are 

important to reduce ambient ozone 

concentrations, be expressed in terms of 

the sum of the two pollutants, or as 

NMOG+NOX in mg/mi.215 This 

approach contrasts with the Tier 2 

standards, which were expressed as 

separate NMOG and NOX standards. We 

believe that the combined standard is 

appropriate for this proposed program 

for several reasons. At the stringent 

proposed emission levels, combining 

NMOG and NOX would provide a small 

amount of compliance flexibility, while 

at the same time significantly reducing 

both NMOG and NOX emission levels. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29853 

216See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) & 

GHG 2012 regulations adopted by State of 

California Air Resources Board, March 22, 2012, 

Resolution 12–21 incorporating by reference 

Resolution 12–11, which was adopted January 26, 

2012. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ 

2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm (last accessed 

November 19, 2012). 

For example, the combined standard 

would allow a gasoline vehicle 

manufacturer to have slightly higher 

NMOG if it were offset by lower NOX, 

or allow a diesel vehicle manufacturer 

to have slightly higher NOX if offset by 

lower NMOG. This approach still 

ensures major reductions in both 

pollutants compared to today’s levels. 

This is because the very stringent level 

of the fully phased-in proposed 

combined standard (30 mg/mi 

NMOG+NOX) means that even with a 

degree of allowed trading off of one 

pollutant for the other, the maximum 

emissions of either pollutant would 

need to be well below current levels. 

The standards of the California LEV III 

program would also be expressed as 

NMOG+NOX; aligning Tier 3 with LEV 

III in this respect would facilitate an 

important element of a national 

program. 

We believe that a fully phased-in level 

for the proposed fleet-average standard 

of 30 mg/mi is the most stringent level 

that we could reasonably propose in the 

context of our proposed 10-ppm average 

standard for gasoline sulfur. As 

discussed in the feasibility Section 

IV.A.5 below, when necessary margins 

of compliance are considered, this 

proposed standard is very close to zero. 

We request comment on this level for 

the proposed standard, as well as the 

declining standards during the 

transition years (see Table IV–3 below). 

EPA is proposing compliance 

mechanisms for the new Tier 3 FTP 

standards that are the same in most 

respects as those of the Tier 2 program. 

Using the Tier 2 approaches as much as 

possible would streamline the 

implementation of the program by 

maintaining most of the compliance 

processes that manufacturers are 

familiar with today. 

A key compliance mechanism 

adapted from the Tier 2 program is a 

‘‘bin’’ structure for the proposed 

emission standards. For these purposes, 

a bin is a set of several standards that 

are intended to be complied with as a 

group. Thus each Tier 3 bin would have 

an NMOG+NOX standard and a PM 

standard, as well as CO and HCHO 

standards. A manufacturer choosing to 

certify a vehicle to a certain bin would 

need to meet each of that bin’s 

standards for the full useful life of the 

vehicle. In this approach, manufacturers 

could certify vehicles to any of the bins, 

but they would have to ensure that 

average NMOG+NOX of the bins to 

which all of its vehicles were certified 

met the fleet average standard specific 

to the vehicle category (i.e., LDV/LDT1 

and LDT2/3/4/MDPVs) for that model 

year. That is, a manufacturer would 

comply by ensuring that the salesweighted average of the NMOG+NOX

values of the bins to which each of its 

vehicle models was certified was lower 

than the fleet average standard that 

applied for that model year. 

For each proposed bin, we are 

including CO and HCHO standards at 

levels intended to prevent new engine 

and emission control designs that would 

result in increases in today’s CO and 

HCHO emissions. The standards are 

based on the comparable current LEV II 

and Tier 2 bin standards for these 

pollutants. The current standards do not 

appear to be technology-forcing, and we 

believe that this would continue to be 

the case as Tier 3 technologies are 

developed. 

The bin structure that we are 

proposing for light duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and MDPVs standards is 

presented in Table IV–1. 

TABLE IV–1—PROPOSED FTP STANDARDS FOR LDVS, LDTS AND MDPVS (MG/MI) 

Bin NMOG+NOX

(mg/mi) 

PM a

(mg/mi) 

CO 

(g/mi) 

HCHO 

(mg/mi) 

Bin 160 ............................................................................................................. 160 3 4.2 4

Bin 125 ............................................................................................................. 125 3 2.1 4

Bin 70 ............................................................................................................... 70 3 1.7 4

Bin 50 ............................................................................................................... 50 3 1.7 4

Bin 30 ............................................................................................................... 30 3 1.0 4

Bin 20 ............................................................................................................... 20 3 1.0 4

Bin 0 ................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

a In MYs 2017–20, the PM standard applies only to that segment of a manufacturer’s vehicles covered by the percent of sales phase-in for that 

model year. 

Consistent with the Tier 2 principle of 

vehicle and fuel neutrality, we are 

proposing that the same standards apply 

to LDVs, LDTs, or MDPVs, regardless of 

the fuel they use. That is, vehicles 

certified to operate on any fuel (e.g., 

gasoline, diesel fuel, E85, CNG, LNG, 

hydrogen, and methanol) would all be 

subject to the same standards. 

We propose to maintain the fleetaverage approach of the Tier 2 

standards. Unlike Tier 2, the proposed 

Tier 3 fleet-average standards would 

decline annually to a fully phased-in 

level of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX. (The 

Tier 2 program, after a period of 

transition, established a single fleet 

average standard for all model years.) 

Specifically, we are proposing 

NMOG+NOX standards as measured on 

the FTP that would reduce the 

combined fleet-average emissions 

gradually from MY 2017 through 2025, 

as shown in Table IV–2 below. 

Beginning in MY 2017, we propose 

separate fleet average standards for 

lighter and heavier vehicles that would 

both decline annually, converging in 

MY 2025. These proposed declining 

average standards are identical to 

CARB’s LEV III standards.216

The declining fleet-average 

NMOG+NOX standard requirement 

would begin in 2017 for light-duty 

vehicles and light-duty trucks with a 

GVWR up to and including 6,000 lbs 

and in 2018 for all other light-duty 

vehicles and light-duty trucks (i.e., 

those with a GVWR greater than 6,000 

lbs). The standards would apply to the 

heavier vehicles a year later to facilitate 

the transition to a 50-state program for 

all manufacturers. During this transition 

period, there would be two fleet-average 

NMOG+NOX standards for each model 

year, one for LDVs and LDT1s and a 

second fleet-average standard for all 

other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) 

and for MDPVs. We are proposing that 

the fleet-average standards decline in a 

linear way from MY 2017 through MY 

2025, at which point the two fleetaverage standards would converge and 

stabilize for later model years at the 

same level, 30 mg/mi, as shown in Table 

IV–2. Note that these fleet average 

standards are for LDT2 and larger 

vehicles, and for LDVs and LDT1s that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29854 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

217Nam, E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; 

Michaels, H.; Bauldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and 

Scarboro, C. Analysis of Particulate Matter 

Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles in 

Kansas City, EPA420–R–08–010. Assessment and 

Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ann 

Arbor, MI, April 2008. 

manufacturers certify to the 150,000 

mile useful life value. Section IV.A.7.b 

discusses how the Clean Air Act defines 

the useful life values for certification 

purposes and how EPA proposes to also 

provide for certification to slightly 

lower emissions standards to a useful 

life value of 120,000 miles, representing 

a level of stringency that is equivalent 

to that of the emission standards 

corresponding to the 150,000 mile 

useful life, for LDVs and LDT1s. 

TABLE IV–2—PROPOSED LDV, LDT, AND MDPV FLEET AVERAGE FTP NMOG+NOX STANDARDS

[mg/mi] 

Model Year 

2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and 

later 

LDV/LDT1b ................................... 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30 

LDT2,3,4 and MDPV .................... 101 92 83 74 65 56 47 38 30 

aFor vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. 

bThese proposed standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify all of their LDVs and LDV1s to a useful 

life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet average standard would 

apply, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg. 

EPA is also proposing an alternative 

phase-in of the 30 mg/mi FTP 

NMOG+NOX standard that would be 

available if a manufacturer prefers a 

stable standard and four full years of 

lead time, as specified in the Clean Air 

Act for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. 

For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer 

would certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs 

GVWR to the primary declining FTP 

fleet average standards, as in the 

primary program. Then, beginning in 

MY 2019, a stable fleet average standard 

of 30 mg/mi would apply to an 

increasing percentage of a 

manufacturer’s light-duty vehicles, 

light-duty trucks, and MDPVs, both up 

to and above 6,000 lbs GVWR. The 

percent phase-in would match the 

proposed PM percent phase-in 

schedule, as discussed below— 

specifically 40 percent of sales in MY 

2019, 70 percent in MY 2020, and 100 

percent in MY 2021 and later model 

years. A manufacturer choosing to 

certify any vehicle to this alternative 

phase-in would need to use this 

approach for all its models in MYs 2019 

and later; certifying part of its fleet to 

the declining fleet average after MY 

2018 would not be permitted, since the 

structures of the two approaches, 

including the early credits provisions of 

the NMOG+NOx fleet average program, 

would not be consistent. A 

manufacturer certifying to this 

alternative phase-in would also need to 

comply with the alternative SFTP 

NMOG+NOx phase-in and the 

alternative FTP PM and US06 PM 

phase-ins as described below. Vehicles 

covered by the alternative phase-in 

programs would be considered ‘‘final 

Tier 3’’ vehicles and thus would also 

comply with the Tier 3 certification fuel 

and full useful life provisions. EPA 

requests comment on this alternative 

phase-in approach as well as on the 

primary option above. 

b. FTP PM Standards 

We also propose new FTP standards 

for PM emissions, as summarized in 

Table IV–3 below. For many years, 

EPA’s focus for mobile source PM was 

on diesel engine emissions. In recent 

years, the very effective controls on PM 

exhaust emissions that manufacturers 

have developed for heavy-duty diesel 

engines have been successfully applied 

to light-duty diesel engines as well. At 

the same time, attention to gasoline 

engine PM emissions has increased as 

research has demonstrated that the level 

of PM from gasoline light duty vehicles 

is more significant than had been 

previously thought.217

Under typical driving, as simulated by 

the FTP, the PM emissions of most 

current-technology gasoline vehicles are 

fairly low, well below the Tier 2 PM 

standards. At the same time we see 

considerable variation in PM emissions 

among vehicle models not consistently 

associated with any specific engine or 

emission control technology (Section 

1.5.1 of the draft RIA). As a result, we 

are proposing a new FTP PM standard 

that is set to ensure that all new vehicles 

would perform at a level representing 

what is already being achieved by welldesigned Tier 2 emission control 

technologies. 

PM emissions over the FTP are 

generally attributed to the cold start, 

when PM formation from combustion of 

the fuel is facilitated by the operating 

conditions, including a cold combustion 

chamber and fuel enrichment. During 

cold start, PM control via oxidation of 

semi-volatile organic compounds from 

the lubricating oil by catalytic 

converters is less effective. We believe 

that the proposed FTP PM standard can 

be achieved with improvements to the 

fuel controls during the cold start 

without the need for any new 

technology or hardware. Improvements 

in cold-start exhaust catalyst 

performance for NMOG+NOx control 

will also reduce emissions of semivolatile organic PM. As such, cold start 

PM levels are relatively independent of 

vehicle application and therefore we are 

proposing a single FTP PM standard for 

all light-duty and MDPV vehicles. The 

PM standard level we are proposing 

would ensure that future PM 

performance is consistent with current 

well-performing Tier 2 vehicles. Unlike 

the NMOG+NOX FTP standard, the PM 

standard would not decline over time, 

since most manufacturers are already 

producing vehicles that would meet the 

proposed new standards. 

Although we believe it is important 

that the proposed FTP PM standard 

apply from the beginning of the Tier 3 

program, we are proposing several 

provisions to provide a degree of 

flexibility for manufacturers in how 

many vehicle models would need to 

meet that standard in the early years of 

the program. Manufacturers have raised 

several issues that we believe these 

provisions would address. 

In meetings with EPA, several 

manufacturers have expressed concerns 

about how a PM standard in the range 

of the proposed 3 mg/mi standard 

would be implemented. One concern 

related to the initial uncertainties about 

PM emissions performance that will 

accompany the development of new 

engine technologies, including those 

that may be introduced to address the 

GHG emissions/fuel economy standards 

that EPA and NHTSA recently finalized 

for these vehicles. Also, manufacturers 

expressed concerns related to the testing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29855 

218 Durability groups are a subset of engine 

families. Several engine families may have the same 

durability group. 

219California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial 

Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider 

LEV III, December 7, 2011 

of PM on the FTP, particularly about 

potential updates to the test procedures 

required to accurately measure PM at 

very low levels. Finally, related to the 

concerns about the new test procedures 

are the current limitations that exist for 

some manufacturers regarding the 

capacity of their test facilities to perform 

a significant volume of gasoline vehicle 

PM testing. 

For these reasons, we are proposing a 

percent-of-sales phase-in during the first 

5 years of the program to address these 

concerns. Beginning in MY 2017 (and in 

MY 2018 for vehicles over 6,000 lbs 

GVWR), manufacturers would comply 

with the PM standard with a minimum 

of 20 percent of their U.S. sales. As 

shown in Table IV–3, the percentage of 

the manufacturer’s sales that would 

need to comply would increase each 

year, reaching 100 percent in MY 2021. 

In addition to this percent phase-in, we 

are proposing a separate PM standard of 

6 mg/mi that would apply only for inuse testing of vehicles certified to the 

new standards, and only during the 

percent phase-in period. 

Due to the MY 2018 start date for 

vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR, 

manufacturers that have few or no 

vehicle models over 6,000 lbs GVWR 

would be required to certify a larger 

percentage of their total light-duty sales 

in MY 2017 than full line 

manufacturers. While we believe that 

most manufacturers would likely choose 

a single large-volume durability group 

to meet the 2017 requirements, we seek 

comment on an option to comply with 

the MY 2017 PM requirements by 

allowing manufactures to certify 10 

percent of all their light-duty vehicle 

sales in MY 2017 to the new PM 

standards, including light-duty vehicles 

over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. This 

approach would be consistent with the 

CARB LEVIII program, which requires 

that 10 percent of all light-duty vehicle 

sales meet the new PM standards in MY 

2017. 

Because of the expected time and 

expense of performing emission tests on 

the improved PM test procedures, we 

are proposing to limit the number of 

tests using the new procedures that a 

manufacturer would need to perform at 

certification and during in-use testing. 

Specifically, manufacturers would be 

required to test vehicles representing a 

minimum of 25 percent of a model’s 

durability test groups during 

certification each model year (and a 

minimum of 2 durability groups).218

Manufacturers could select which 

durability groups to test, but would 

need to rotate the groups tested each 

year to eventually cover their whole 

fleet. Similarly, manufacturers 

performing in-use testing under the InUse Verification Program could limit 

their testing to 50 percent of their lowand high-mileage test vehicles. Again, 

manufacturers would need to rotate 

their vehicle models so that each model 

would be tested every other year. 

Overall, we believe that the flexibility 

that these proposed provisions would 

provide would facilitate the expeditious 

implementation of the proposed 

program, with no significant impact on 

the potential benefits of the program. 

The PM standards that we are 

proposing are the most stringent 

technically feasible standards within the 

implementation timeframe of this 

proposal. Although the CARB LEV III 

program includes a 1 mg/mi standard 

which will begin phasing in starting in 

MY 2025, they acknowledge that there 

is a need for continuing PM 

measurement method development 

prior to implementing this standard.219

In order for EPA to propose a standard 

at this level, there must be established 

methods to reliably and consistently 

measure PM below that standard, for 

compliance purposes. 

We request comment on all of the 

proposed FTP standards, their structure, 

and their implementation schedules. 

TABLE IV–3—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED FTP STANDARDS

Program Element Units Model Year Notes 

a 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet average) mg/mi Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV-2) b

PM Standards 

Phase-in % ...... 20 20 40 70 100 100 100 

FTP .................................. Certification ..................... mg/mi 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Note c 

In-use .............................. mg/mi 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 Note d 

aFor vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM would apply beginning in MY 2018. 

bThe percent phase-in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards. 

c Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year’s durability groups, minimum of 2. 

d Manufacturers would be required to test 50 percent of their low and high mileage in-use vehicles. 

As with the proposed FTP 

NMOG+NOX standards, EPA is also 

proposing an alternative phase-in of the 

3 mg/mi FTP PM standard that would 

be available if a manufacturer prefers 4 

full years of lead time for vehicles above 

6,000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that 

chooses the alternative phase-in for the 

FTP NMOG+NOX program above could 

also postpone the beginning of the 

phase-in for PM compliance for vehicles 

above 6,000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. 

For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer 

would certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs 

GVWR to the 3 mg/mi FTP PM standard 

(and have a 6 mg/mi in-use PM 

standard) for 20 percent of its sales in 

each of those years, as with the primary 

PM percent phase-in schedule. Then, for 

MYs 2019 and later, it would comply 

with the 3 mg/mi (and 6 mg/mi in-use) 

PM standards for their LDVs, LDTs, and 

MDPVs, both up to and above 6,000 lbs 

GVWR. For MYs 2019 and 2020 (i.e., 

before the phase-in is fully implemented 

in MY 2021), manufacturers choosing 

this alternative would be required to 

meet the PM standard on the same 

segment of their fleet vehicles being 

used to meet the NMOG+ NOX fleet 

average standard, and at the applicable 

phase-in percentage of sales for the 

given model year. Manufacturers 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29856 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

certifying to the alternative PM phase-in 

standard would also need to comply 

with the alternative US06 PM phase-in 

as described below, as well as the 

NMOG+ NOX FTP and SFTP phase-ins. 

EPA requests comment on this 

alternative phase-in approach as well as 

on the primary PM phase-in option 

above. 

4. Proposed SFTP Standards 

In addition to the proposed FTP 

standards, we are proposing 

NMOG+NOX and PM standards as 

measured on the SFTP. The SFTP (and 

specifically the US06 component of the 

test) is designed to simulate higher 

speeds and higher acceleration rates 

(and thus higher loads) when 

substantially more heat can be generated 

during the combustion process. It is 

during these kinds of operation that 

engines can go into a fuel ‘‘enrichment’’ 

mode, where the engine’s controls may 

temporarily create a rich air/fuel 

mixture to protect exhaust components 

from thermal damage. Enrichment can 

increase emissions of NMOG+NOX and 

PM, primarily due to the incomplete 

combustion that occurs under rich 

conditions and the diminished 

effectiveness of the catalyst in these 

circumstances. However, enrichment 

can be minimized or eliminated in 

current and future engines, where 

components can be thermally protected 

even under high-load conditions by 

careful electronic management of the 

air/fuel mixture and the combustion 

process. To reduce emissions caused by 

excessive enrichment, we are proposing 

new SFTP standards. Further, as 

described in Section IV.A.4.c below, we 

are proposing limitations on the 

magnitude of enrichment that could be 

commanded by the vehicle operator. We 

describe the proposed SFTP standards 

in the following paragraphs. 

We are also proposing an SFTP 

composite CO standard of 4.2 g/mi for 

all model years 2017 (or 2018) and later. 

This standard represents no effective 

change from the current Tier 2 SFTP CO 

standard, which we believe is already at 

a level that is sufficiently stringent. 

a. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards 

We have reviewed certification and 

in-use NMOG and NOX data on a wide 

range of recent vehicles as tested on the 

US06 cycle. See Chapter 1 of the draft 

RIA for an analysis of this data. It is 

clear that most current vehicles are 

generally avoiding significant 

enrichment events during high-load 

operation and thus achieve relatively 

low NMOG+NOX emissions on the 

US06 test. The data shows that with 

minor (if any) improvements to engine 

calibrations and with no significant loss 

of performance, manufacturers are able 

to essentially eliminate enrichment 

events and their emissions 

consequences. Thus, as presented in 

Table IV–5 below, we are proposing 

new composite SFTP standards for 

NMOG+NOX at levels that would be 

more stringent than those required by 

the existing Tier 2 program. We believe 

that the new standards would require 

emission performance at levels 

currently achieved today by most 

vehicles under high-load operation, and 

we do not believe that significant 

additional reductions would result from 

SFTP standards more stringent than the 

proposed 50 mg/mi fully phased-in 

level. The SFTP emissions value for 

certification of gaseous pollutants 

would continue to be calculated as a 

weighted composite value of emissions 

on three cycles (0.35 × FTP + 0.28 × 

US06 + 0.37 × SC03), as is done for the 

Tier 2 SFTP standards. 

We believe that the proposed 

standards could be more challenging in 

the early years of the program. Thus, we 

propose a declining fleet average 

standard that would become 

increasingly stringent from MY 2017 to 

MY 2025. Manufacturers would comply 

with a declining NMOG+NOX fleetaverage SFTP standard for each year 

beginning in MY 2017 (MY 2018 for 

vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR) and 

culminating for MY 2025 and later with 

a fleet-average standard of 50 mg/mi. 

To provide flexibility in meeting the 

fleet-average standards, manufacturers 

would determine for themselves what 

the specific SFTP composite standard 

would be for an individual vehicle 

family and report that self-selected 

standard and the measured emission 

performance. (These self-selected 

standards are analogous to ‘‘family 

emission limits,’’ or ‘‘FELs,’’ used in 

other programs (e.g., heavy-duty 

highway engine standards).) For each 

family, a manufacturer would choose 

any composite NMOG+NOX standard, 

up to 180 mg/mi, in even 10 mg/mi 

increments. The manufacturer would 

then calculate the sales-weighted 

average of all the selected standards of 

the families across its fleet and compare 

that emissions value to the applicable 

fleet-average standards for that model 

year. Table IV–4 presents the proposed 

declining fleet-average SFTP 

NMOG+NOX standards. 

As with the proposed FTP 

NMOG+NOX and PM standards, EPA is 

also proposing an alternative phase-in of 

the 50 mg/mi SFTP NMOG+NOX

standard that would be available if a 

manufacturer prefers a stable standard 

and four full years of lead time for 

vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. For 

MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer 

would certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs 

GVWR to the primary SFTP declining 

fleet average standards, as in the 

primary program. Then, beginning in 

MY 2019, a stable fleet average standard 

of 50 mg/mi would apply to an 

increasing percentage of a 

manufacturer’s light-duty vehicles, 

light-duty trucks, and MDPVs, both up 

to and above 6,000 lbs GVWR. The 

percent phase-in would match the 

proposed PM percent phase-in 

schedule, as discussed below. A 

manufacturer certifying to this 

alternative phase-in would also need to 

comply with the alternative FTP 

NMOG+NOX phase-in and the 

alternative FTP PM and US06 PM 

phase-ins, as described elsewhere in 

this section. EPA requests comment on 

this alternative phase-in approach as 

well as on the primary option above. 

b. US06 PM Standards 

Our proposed approach to addressing 

PM emissions on the US06 test (a 

component of the composite SFTP 

standard) is somewhat different from 

the SFTP standards that we are 

proposing for NMOG and NOX

emissions. In the case of PM, US06 data 

on recent vehicles shows that current 

gasoline vehicles can have very low PM 

emissions, but US06 PM emission levels 

vary depending on many factors. In 

some cases, manufacturer emission 

control strategies that are sensitive to 

variations in operating conditions (e.g., 

variation due to driver behavior or 

automatic transmission shift points) 

appear to result in very low PM levels 

during some tests and yet higher PM on 

other tests on the same vehicle when 

driven slightly differently. We also 

believe that some of the observed high 

PM emissions may be partly due to 

increasing oil consumption in vehicles 

as they age, especially under higherload conditions or hard closed-throttle 

deceleration conditions. Thus, we now 

believe that more focus on vehicles as 

they age is important. 

We have designed the proposed US06 

PM standards in light of all of these 

factors, which relate to PM emission 

formation under relatively extreme 

driving conditions. For these standards, 

we are proposing to focus on the US06 

cycle component of the composite 

SFTP, since most of our concern about 

PM formation and sensitivity of engine 

controls arises from high-speed, highload driving conditions. Similarly, the 

quantity of PM emissions from warmedup engines is closely related to engine 

load, since the higher rate of fuel 

consumption results in more 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29857 

opportunities for PM to form. For this 

reason, we propose that heavier 

vehicles, which face high-load 

conditions more frequently than lighter 

vehicles, comply with a higher US06 

standard and lighter vehicles comply 

with a lower standard. The proposed 

US06 PM standard would be 10 mg/mi 

for vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR 

and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. 

EPA is seeking comment on the use of 

vehicle weight to establish separate 

US06 PM standards for cars and trucks. 

The data presented in Chapter 1 of the 

draft RIA demonstrate that today’s 

heavier vehicles are already achieving 

PM emission levels well below our 

proposed 20 mg/mi standard and are 

approximately equivalent to the 

performance of lighter vehicles. 

According to our data, manufacturers 

appear to be controlling PM emissions 

in heavier vehicles over severe duty 

cycles. Thus, EPA seeks comment on 

the proposed US06 PM standards in 

general, including whether EPA should 

adopt a common US06 standard of 10 

mg/mi for all light-duty vehicles. 

As is the case for the proposed FTP 

PM standards, we are proposing a single 

per-vehicle maximum standard to apply 

in each model year, with an allowable 

percentage phase-in schedule identical 

to the FTP PM phase-in. 

Finally, as with the FTP PM standard 

(and for the same reasons), we propose 

a slightly less stringent in-use US06 PM 

standard that would apply during the 

percent phase-in period only. The 

proposed in-use SFTP PM standards 

would be 15 mg/mi for vehicles at or 

below 6,000 lbs GVWR and 25 mg/mi 

for heavier vehicles. 

As with the proposed FTP and SFTP 

NMOG+NOX standards and FTP PM 

standards, EPA is also proposing an 

alternative phase-in of the 20 mg/mi PM 

standard as measured on the US06 

cycle, that would be available if a 

manufacturer prefers 4 full years of lead 

time for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. 

A manufacturer that chooses the 

alternative phase-in for the FTP 

NMOG+NOX program above could also 

postpone the beginning of the phase-in 

for US06 PM compliance for vehicles 

above 6,000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. 

For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer 

would certify vehicles up to 6,000 lbs 

GVWR to the 10 mg/mi FTP PM 

standard (and have a 15 mg/mi in-use 

standard) for 20 percent of its sales in 

each of those years, as with the primary 

PM percent phase-in schedule. Then, for 

MYs 2019 and later, it would comply 

with the respective standards for 

vehicles up to and above 6,000 lbs 

GVWR for their LDVs, LDTs, and 

MDPVs (i.e., 10 mg/mi and 15 mg/mi 

(in-use) for vehicles up to 6,000 lbs 

GVWR, and 20 mg/mi and 25 mg/mi (inuse) for vehicles above 6,000 lbs 

GVWR.) For MYs 2019 and 2020, 

manufacturers choosing this alternative 

would be required to meet both the FTP 

PM and the US06 PM standards on the 

same segment of their fleet vehicles 

being used to meet the 30 mg/mi fleet 

average NMOG+NOX standards, at the 

applicable percent phase-in requirement 

for the given model year. Manufacturers 

certifying to the alternative US06 PM 

phase-in standard would also need to 

comply with the alternative FTP PM 

phase-in as described above, as well as 

the NMOG+NOX FTP and SFTP phaseins. EPA requests comment on this 

alternative phase-in approach as well as 

on the primary US06 phase-in option 

above. 

All of the proposed SFTP/US06 

standards are shown in Table IV–4 and 

Table IV–5. 

TABLE IV–4—PROPOSED LD AND MDPV SFTP COMPOSITE FLEET AVERAGE STANDARDS

Model year 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and 

later 

NMOG+NOX (mg/mi) ................... a 103 97 90 83 77 70 63 57 50 

CO (g/mi) ..................................... a 4.2 

aFor vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the NMOG+NOX and CO standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. 

TABLE IV–5—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SFTP STANDARDS

Program element Units 

Model year 

Notes a 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 

NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet average) .......... mg/mi .. Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV-4) b

PM Standards: 

Phase-in .................................................. % ......... 20 20 40 70 100 100 100 

US06: 

LDV, LDT1&2 Certification ...................... mg/mi .. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Note c. 

LDV, LDT1&2 In-use ............................... mg/mi .. 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 Note d. 

US06: 

LDT3&4, MDPV Certification .................. mg/mi .. 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Note c. 

LDT3&4, MDPV In-use ........................... mg/mi .. 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 Note d. 

aFor vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, the standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. 

bThe percent phase-in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards. 

c Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year’s durability groups, minimum of 2. 

d Manufacturers would be required to test 50 percent of their low and high mileage in-use vehicles. 

We request comment on our proposed 

SFTP NMOG+NOX and PM standards, 

their structure, and their 

implementation schedules. 

c. Enrichment Limitation for SparkIgnition Engines 

To prevent emissions from excessive 

enrichment during operating conditions 

represented by the SFTP cycles, we are 

proposing limitations on the magnitude 

of enrichment that could be 

commanded, including enrichment 

episodes encountered during in-use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29858 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

220Our technology, feasibility, and cost 

assessments are also consistent with an assumption 

that certification fuel would contain 15 percent 

ethanol and would have other properties as 

specified in Section IV.D below. 

operation. During conditions where 

enrichment was demonstrated to be 

present on the SFTP, the nominal air to 

fuel ratio could not be richer at any time 

than the leanest air to fuel ratio required 

to obtain maximum torque (lean best 

torque or LBT). An air to fuel ratio of 

LBT plus a tolerance of 4 percent 

additional enrichment would be 

allowed in actual vehicle testing to 

protect for any in-use variance in the air 

to fuel ratio from the nominal LBT air 

to fuel determination, for such reasons 

as air or fuel distribution differences 

from production variances or aging. 

LBT is defined as the leanest air to 

fuel ratio required at a speed and load 

point with a fixed spark advance to 

make peak torque. Specifically, an 

increase in fuel would not result in an 

increase in torque while maintaining a 

fixed spark advance. LBT is determined 

by setting the spark advance to a setting 

that is less than or equal to the spark 

advance required for best torque (MBT) 

and maintaining that spark advance 

when sweeping the air to fuel ratio. This 

fixed spark advance requirement is 

intended to prevent torque changes 

related to spark changes masking true 

LBT. Manufacturers may request 

approval of an alternative LBT 

definition for a unique technology or 

control strategy. The Agency could 

determine that an enrichment amount 

was excessive or not necessary and 

therefore deem that the approach did 

not meet the air to fuel ratio 

requirements. 

Enrichment required for thermal 

protection would continue to be 

allowed upon demonstration of 

necessity to the Agency, based upon 

temperature limitations of the engine or 

exhaust components. Manufacturers 

would be required to provide 

descriptions of all components requiring 

thermal protection, temperature 

limitations of the components, how the 

enrichment strategy will detect overtemperature 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. 

5. Feasibility of the Proposed 

NMOG+NOX and PM Standards 

In this section, with additional 

support in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA, 

we describe how we reached our 

conclusion that the proposed Tier 3 

standards would be technologically 

feasible in the time frame of the 

program. For each of the proposed 

emission standards, the lead time 

provided by the proposed program is 

more than sufficient for all 

manufacturers to comply. First, 

manufacturers in many cases are already 

adopting complying technologies for 

reasons other than this proposed 

rulemaking. For example, many of the 

technologies that manufacturers will 

begin to develop as early as MY 2014 in 

response to the CARB LEV III FTP and 

SFTP NMOG+NOX standards for the 

California market will likely represent 

steps toward compliance with this 

proposed national program. Similarly, 

manufacturers are already building 

some vehicles that comply with our 

proposed evaporative emissions 

standards in response to the CARB LEV 

III evaporative standards. In addition, as 

described above, our proposed program 

incorporates a number of phase-in 

provisions that would ease the 

transition to compliance, including time 

some manufacturers would need to 

install PM testing capability and to 

ramp up production on a national scale. 

We invite comment on our conclusions 

relating to the feasibility of the proposed 

program for each of the standards, as 

discussed below, including our overall 

conclusion that technological lead time 

is not a driving factor in complying with 

any of the proposed standards. 

This feasibility assessment is based on 

a variety of complementary technical 

data, studies, and analyses. As 

described below, these include our 

analysis of the stringency of the 

proposed standards as compared to 

current Tier 2 emission levels. We also 

discuss below our observation that 

manufacturers are currently certifying 

several vehicle models under the 

California LEV II program that could 

likely achieve the proposed Tier 3 

NMOG+NOX and PM standards or 

similar levels. EPA has assessed the 

emissions control challenges 

manufacturers would generally face 

(e.g., cold start NMOG reductions and 

running (warmed-up) NOX emissions 

under typical and more aggressive 

driving conditions) and the 

corresponding technologies that we 

expect to be available to manufacturers 

to meet these challenges. Our feasibility 

assessment accounts for the fact that the 

proposed Tier 3 program would apply to 

all types of new vehicles, ranging from 

small cars to large pick-up trucks and 

MDPVs and representing a wide 

diversity in applications and in specific 

engine designs. 

It is important to note that our 

primary assessment of the feasibility of 

engine and emission control 

technologies is based on the assumption 

that vehicles would be certified on 

gasoline with a fuel sulfur content of 10 

ppm and operated on in-use gasoline 

with 10 ppm sulfur or less.220 Therefore, 

our primary assessment does not 

incorporate the degradation of emission 

control system caused by higher levels 

of sulfur content, as is discussed in 

Section IV.6 below and in the draft RIA. 

This assessment reinforces the critical 

role of gasoline sulfur control, as 

proposed in Section V below, in making 

it possible for EPA to propose emission 

standards at these very stringent levels. 

See Section IV.6 below for a full 

discussion of our current knowledge of 

the effects of gasoline sulfur on current 

vehicle emissions as well as our 

projections of how we expect that sulfur 

would affect compliance with standards 

in the range of the proposed Tier 3 

standards. 

Since there are multiple aspects to the 

Tier 3 program, it is necessary to 

consider technical feasibility in light of 

the different program requirements and 

their interactions with each other. In 

many cases, manufacturers would be 

able to address more than one 

requirement with the same general 

technological approach (e.g., faster 

catalyst light-off can improve both FTP 

NMOG+NOX and PM emissions). At the 

same time, the feasibility assessment 

must consider that different 

technologies may be needed on different 

types of vehicle applications (i.e., cars 

versus trucks) and must consider the 

relative effectiveness of these 

technologies in reducing emissions for 

the full useful life of the vehicle while 

operating on expected in-use fuel. For 

example, certain smaller vehicles with 

correspondingly small engines may be 

less challenged to meet FTP standards 

than larger vehicles with larger engines. 

Conversely, these smaller vehicles may 

have more difficulty meeting the more 

aggressive SFTP requirements than 

vehicles with larger and more powerful 

engines. Additionally, the ability to 

meet the proposed SFTP emission 

requirements can also be impacted by 

the path taken to meet the FTP 

requirements (e.g., larger volume 

catalysts for US06 emissions control vs. 

smaller catalysts for improved FTP coldstart emissions control). Throughout the 

following discussion, we address how 

these factors, individually and in 

interaction with each other, affect the 

feasibility of the proposed program. We 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29859 

221The current Tier 2 program does not combine 

NMOG and NOX emissions into one fleet-average 

standard. The fleet-average standard in that 

program is for NOX emissions alone. 

222A modal analysis provides a second-by-second 

view of the total amount of emissions over the 

entire cycle being considered. 

invite comment on our assessments of 

these or any other such potential 

interactions. Also, although we are not 

aware of any technological reasons that 

vehicle emission controls responding to 

new Tier 3 requirements should affect 

vehicle CO2 emissions or fuel economy 

in any significant way, it is possible that 

such interactions could occur. For 

example, there may be some slight 

change in vehicle mass if manufacturers 

explore lighter exhaust manifold 

materials in order to reduce thermal 

mass and promote earlier catalyst lightoff or add emissions control equipment 

such as hydrocarbon adsorbers. We 

invite comment on any such potential 

effects as well. 

a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards 

The proposed new emission 

requirements include stringent 

NMOG+NOX standards on the FTP that 

would require new vehicle hardware in 

order to achieve the 30 mg/mi fleet 

average level in 2025. The type of new 

hardware that would be required would 

vary depending on the specific 

application and emission challenges. 

Smaller vehicles with corresponding 

smaller engines would generally need 

less new hardware while larger vehicles 

may need additional hardware and 

improvements beyond what would be 

needed for the smaller vehicles. While 

some vehicles, especially larger light 

trucks, may face higher costs in meeting 

the proposed standards, it is important 

to remember that not every vehicle 

needs to meet the standard. The 

proposed program has been structured 

to provide higher emission standard 

‘‘bins’’ (see Table IV–1 above) to which 

manufacturers may certify more 

challenged vehicles, so long as these 

vehicles are offset with vehicles 

certified in lower emission bins such 

that the fleet-wide average meets the 

standard. We believe that the 

availability of the proposed lessstringent bins would allow for feasible 

and cost-effective compliance for all 

vehicles. In the Tier 2 program, 

manufacturers took advantage of this 

flexibility, especially in the early years 

of the program. Then, as technologies 

improved and/or became less expensive 

and the need for averaging diminished, 

manufacturers began certifying all or 

most of their fleets to the average bin 

(Tier 2 Bin 5). We anticipate that 

manufacturers will follow a similar 

trend with the proposed Tier 3 

standards, relying on fleet averaging 

more significantly in the transitional 

years but certifying increasing numbers 

of their vehicles to the final fleet average 

standard of 30 mg/mi in the later years 

of the program. 

In order to assess the technical 

feasibility of a 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX

national fleet average FTP standard, 

EPA conducted two supporting 

analyses. The initial analyses performed 

were of the current Tier 2 and LEV II 

fleets. This provided a baseline for the 

current federal fleet emissions 

performance, as well as the emissions 

performance of the California LEV II 

fleet. The second consideration was a 

modal analysis of typical vehicle 

emissions under certain operating 

conditions. In this way EPA determined 

the specific emissions performance 

challenges that vehicle manufacturers 

would face in meeting the lower fleet 

average emission standards. Each of 

these considerations is described in 

greater detail below. 

The current federal fleet is certified to 

an average of Tier 2 Bin 5, equivalent to 

160 mg/mi NMOG+NOX.221 For MY 

2009, 92 percent of LDVs and LDT1s 

were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 91 

percent of LDT2s through LDT4s were 

certified to Tier 2 Bin 5. This was not 

an unexpected result as there is 

currently no motivation for vehicle 

manufacturers to produce a federal fleet 

that over-complies with respect to the 

current Tier 2 standards. By 

comparison, in the California fleet, 

where compliance with the ‘‘PZEV’’ 

program encourages manufacturers to 

certify vehicles to cleaner levels, only 

30 percent of the LDVs and LDT1s are 

certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 60 percent 

are certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. The 

situation regarding the truck fleet in 

California is similarly stratified, with 37 

percent of the LDT2s through LDT4s 

being certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 55 

percent being certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. 

In many cases identical vehicles are 

being certified to a lower standard in 

California and a higher standard 

federally. We note that vehicles certified 

to a lower standard in California are 

operated on gasoline with an average 

sulfur content of 10 ppm and thereby 

are able to maintain their emissions 

performance in-use. Based on these 

patterns of federal and California 

certification, EPA believes that much of 

the existing Tier 2 fleet could be 

certified to a lower federal fleet average 

immediately, with no significant 

feasibility concerns, if lower sulfur 

gasoline were made available 

nationwide. 

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, the compliance margin 

for a Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle averaged 

approximately 60 percent. In other 

words, actual vehicle emissions 

performance was on average about 40 

percent of a 160 mg/mi NMOG+NOX

standard, or about 64 mg/mi. By 

comparison, for California-certified 

vehicles, the average Super Ultra Low 

Emission Vehicle (SULEV) compliance 

margin was somewhat less for the more 

stringent standards, approximately 50 

percent. We believe that the recent 

California experience is a likely 

indicator of compliance margins that 

manufacturers would design for in order 

to comply with the proposed Tier 3 FTP 

standards. Thus, a typical Tier 2 Bin 5 

vehicle, performing at 40 percent of the 

current standard (i.e., at about 64 mg/ 

mi) would need improvements 

sufficient to reach about 15 mg/mi (50 

percent of a 30 mg/mi standards). 

To understand how the several 

currently-used technologies described 

below could be used by manufacturers 

to reach the stringent proposed Tier 3 

NMOG+NOX standards, it is helpful to 

consider emissions formation in 

common modes of operation for 

gasoline engines, or modal analysis.222

The primary challenge faced by 

manufacturers for producing Tier 3 

compliant light-duty gasoline vehicle 

powertrains would be to reduce the 

emissions during cold-start operation 

which, based on modal analysis of a 

gasoline powered vehicle being 

operated on the FTP cycle, occurs 

during about the first 50 seconds after 

engine start. Thus, effective control of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29860 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

these cold-start emissions would be the 

primary technological goal of 

manufacturers complying with the 

proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. As 

discussed below, light-duty 

manufacturers are already applying 

several technologies capable of 

significant reductions in these cold start 

emissions to vehicles currently on the 

road. 

b. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards 

The increase in the stringency of the 

SFTP NMOG+NOX standards, 

specifically across the US06 cycle, 

would generally only require additional 

focus on fuel control of the engines and 

diligent implementation of new 

technologies that manufacturers are 

already introducing or are likely to 

introduce in response to the current and 

2017 LD GHG emission standards. 

These include downsized gasoline 

direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged 

engines, which may also include 

improvements to the engine and 

emission control hardware to tolerate 

higher combustion and exhaust 

temperatures expected in these future 

GHG-oriented engine designs. The 

upgraded materials or components 

would enable manufacturers to rely less 

on fuel enrichment during high-speed/ 

high-load operation to protect 

components from overheating. This fuel 

enrichment is currently the source of 

elevated VOC, NOX, and PM emissions 

seen in a subset of the current Tier 2 

fleet. 

With respect to enrichment, changes 

to the fuel/air mixture by increasing the 

fuel fraction has historically been the 

primary method available to 

manufacturers to protect the catalyst 

and other exhaust components from 

over-temperature conditions. Changing 

the fuel/air mixture is no longer the 

only tool available to manufacturers for 

this purpose. With the application of 

electronic throttle controls, variable 

valve timing, exhaust gas recirculation 

and other exhaust temperature 

influencing technologies on nearly 

every light-duty vehicle, the 

manufacturer has the ability to 

systematically control the operation and 

combustion processes of the engine to 

minimize or altogether avoid areas and 

modes of operation where thermal 

issues can occur. While some of these 

solutions could in some cases result in 

a small and temporary reduction in 

vehicle performance (absolute power 

levels), we believe that it could be an 

effective way to reduce NMOG+NOX

emissions over the SFTP test. 

Additionally, some components, 

especially catalysts, can experience 

accelerated thermal deterioration that 

occurs when operating at higher 

temperatures for more time than 

expected under normal operation (e.g., 

trailer towing, mountain grades). Some 

upgrades of existing vehicle emission 

control technology, like catalyst 

substrates and washcoats may be 

required to limit thermal deterioration 

and ensure vehicle emissions 

compliance throughout the useful life of 

the vehicle. 

In order to assess the technical 

feasibility of a 50 mg/mi NMOG+NOX

national fleet average SFTP standard, 

EPA conducted an analysis of SFTP 

levels of Tier 2 and LEV II vehicles. The 

analysis was performed on the US06 

results from current Tier 2 and LEV II 

vehicles tested in the in-use verification 

program (IUVP) by manufacturers and 

submitted to EPA. This analysis 

provided a baseline for the current Tier 

2 and LEV II fleet emissions 

performance, as well as the SFTP 

emissions performance capability of the 

cleanest vehicles meeting the proposed 

Tier 3 FTP standards. The analysis 

concluded that most vehicles in the 

IUVP testing program are already 

capable of meeting the composite SFTP 

standard of 50 mg/mi when the Tier 3 

FTP standard levels are factored into the 

composite calculation. With the 

technological improvements already 

underway as discussed above, we 

believe all 2017 and later vehicles 

would be able to comply with the 

proposed SFTP standards, directly, or 

through the flexibility of the averaging, 

banking and trading program. For 

further information on the analysis see 

Chapter 1 of the draft RIA. 

c. FTP and SFTP PM Standards 

As described above for NMOG+NOX

over the SFTP, the increase in the 

stringency of the FTP and SFTP PM 

standards would generally also only 

require additional focus on fuel control 

of the engines and diligent 

implementation of new technologies 

like gasoline direct injection (GDI) and 

turbocharged engines. Some upgrades of 

existing vehicle emission control 

technology may be required to ensure 

vehicle emissions performance is 

maintained throughout the useful life of 

the vehicle. These upgrades may 

include improvements to the engine to 

control wear that could result in 

increased PM from oil consumption and 

selection of GDI systems that would be 

capable of continuing to perform 

optimally even as the systems age. 

We based our conclusions about the 

ability of manufacturers to meet the 

proposed PM standards largely on the 

PM performance of the existing fleet, 

both on the FTP and SFTP. In the case 

of FTP testing of current vehicles, data 

on both low and high mileage light-duty 

vehicles demonstrate that the majority 

of vehicles are currently achieving 

levels at or below the proposed Tier 3 

FTP standards. 

The testing results can be found in 

Chapter 1 of the draft RIA. A small 

number of vehicles are at or just over 

the proposed FTP PM standard at low 

mileage and could require calibration 

changes and/or catalyst changes to meet 

the new standards. It is our expectation 

that the same calibration and catalyst 

changes required to address NMOG 

would also provide the necessary PM 

control. Vehicles that currently have 

higher PM emissions over the FTP or 

SFTP at higher mileages would likely be 

required to control oil consumption and 

combustion chamber deposits. 

We also analyzed PM test data on 

US06 emissions for current Tier 2 

vehicles. The data show that many 

vehicles are already at or below the 

proposed standards on the US06. 

Vehicles that have high PM emission 

rates on the US06 would likely need to 

control enrichment, and oil 

consumption particularly later in life. 

As described above for SFTP 

NMOG+NOX control, enrichment can be 

more accurately managed through 

available electronic engine controls. The 

strategies for reducing oil consumption 

are similar to those described above for 

controlling oil consumption on the FTP. 

However, given the higher engine 

speeds experienced on the US06 and the 

increase in oil consumption that can 

accompany this kind of operation, 

manufacturers would most likely focus 

on oil sources stemming from the piston 

to cylinder interface and positive 

crankcase ventilation (PCV). 

Manufacturers have informed us that 

they have already reduced or are 

planning to reduce the oil consumption 

of their engines by improved sealing of 

the paths of oil into the combustion 

chamber and improved piston-tocylinder interfaces. They are already 

taking or considering these actions to 

address issues of customer satisfaction 

and cost of ownership. In addition, 

many vehicle manufacturers 

acknowledge the relationship between 

combustion chamber deposits and PM 

formation and are actively pursuing 

design changes to mitigate fuel 

impingement within the combustion 

chamber and its commensurate PM 

effects. Both types of controls are being 

widely applied by manufacturers today. 

d. Technologies Manufacturers Are 

Likely To Apply 

Most of the technologies expected to 

be applied to light-duty vehicles to meet 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29861 

the stringent proposed standards would 

address the emissions control system’s 

ability to control emission during cold 

start. The effectiveness of current 

vehicle emissions control systems 

depends in large part on the time it 

takes for the catalyst to light off, which 

is typically defined as the catalyst 

reaching a temperature of 250 °C. In 

order to improve catalyst light-off, we 

expect that manufacturers would add 

technologies that provide heat from 

combustion more readily to the catalyst 

or improve the catalyst efficiency at 

lower temperatures. These technologies 

include calibration changes, thermal 

management, close-coupled catalysts, 

catalyst platinum group metals (PGM) 

loading and strategy, and secondary air 

injection, all which generally improve 

emission performance of all pollutants. 

In some cases where the catalyst lightoff and efficiency are not enough to 

address the cold start NMOG emissions, 

hydrocarbon adsorbers may be applied 

to trap hydrocarbons until such time 

that the catalyst is lit off. Note that with 

the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers 

each of these technologies addresses 

NMOG, NOX, and PM performance. The 

technologies are described in greater 

detail below. Additional information on 

these technologies can also be found in 

Chapter 1 of the RIA. 

• Engine Control Calibration 

Changes—These include changes to 

retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel 

mixtures such that more combustion 

heat is created during the cold start. 

Control changes may include injection 

strategies in GDI applications, unique 

cold-start variable valve timing and lift, 

and other available engine parameters. 

Engine calibration changes can affect 

NMOG, NOX and PM emissions. 

• Catalyst PGM Loading—Additional 

PGM loading, increased loading of other 

active materials, and improved 

dispersion of PGM and other active 

materials in the catalyst provide a 

greater number of sites available to 

catalyze emissions and addresses 

NMOG, NOX and PM emissions. 

Catalyst PGM loading, when 

implemented in conjunction with low 

sulfur gasoline, will effectively 

eliminate NOX emissions under 

warmed-up conditions. 

• Thermal Management—This 

category of technologies includes all 

design attributes meant to conduct the 

combustion heat into the catalyst with 

minimal cooling. This includes 

insulating the exhaust piping between 

the engine and the catalyst, reducing the 

wetted area of the exhaust path, 

reducing the thermal mass of the 

exhaust system, and/or using 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. 

• Hydrocarbon Adsorber—Traps 

hydrocarbons during a cold start until 

the catalyst lights off, and then releases 

the hydrocarbons to be converted by the 

catalyst. 

• Gasoline Sulfur—The relative 

effectiveness for NMOG and NOX

control of the exhaust-catalyst related 

technologies are constrained by gasoline 

fuel sulfur levels. Thus, reduced sulfur 

in gasoline is an enabling technology to 

achieve the standards and maintain this 

performance during in-use operation. 

We discuss the relationship between 

gasoline sulfur and emissions in greater 

detail in Section IV.6 below and in the 

draft RIA. 

Discussions between EPA, CARB, 

vehicle manufacturers, and major 

component suppliers indicated that 

large light-duty trucks (e.g., pickups and 

full-size sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in 

the LDT3 and LDT4 categories) would 

be the most challenging light-duty 

vehicles to bring into compliance with 

the proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NOX

standards at the 30 mg/mi corporate 

average emissions level. A similar 

challenge was addressed when large 

light-duty trucks were brought into 

compliance with the Tier 2 standards 

over the past decade. Figure IV–1 

provides a graphical representation of 

the effectiveness of Tier 3 technologies 

for large light-duty truck applications. A 

compliance margin is shown in both 

cases. Note that the graphical 

representation of the effectiveness of 

catalyst technologies on NOX and 

NMOG when going from Tier 2 to Tier 

3 levels also includes a reduction in 

gasoline sulfur levels from 30 ppm to 10 

ppm. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29862 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

223The 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. 

224Beck, 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. 

225Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995). ‘‘Impact of 

sulfur on the performance of vehicle aged 

palladium monoliths.’’ Applied Catalysis B: 

Environmental 6, 185–200. 

226Beck, 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. 

227Waqif, M., Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., 

Blanchard, G., Touret, O. (1997), Study of ceria 

sulfation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 11, 

193–205. 

228Bazin, 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. 

229Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. 

Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Fuel Property Requirement for 

Advanced Technology Engines. SAE Technical 

Paper 2000–01–2019. 

230Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. 

Fujimoto, Y. (2001). ‘‘Fuel properties for advanced 

engines.’’ Automotive Engineering International 109 

12, 117–120. 

231 Kubsh, J.E., Anthony, J.W. (2007). The 

Potential for Achieving Low Hydrocarbon and NOX

Exhaust Emissions from Large Light-Duty Gasoline 

Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2007–01–1261. 

232Shen, Y., Shuai, S., Wang, J. Xiao, J. (2008). 

Effects of Gasoline Fuel Properties on Engine 

Performance. SAE Technical Paper 2008–01–0628. 

233Ball, 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. 

6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on 

the Feasibility of the Proposed Vehicle 

Emission Standards 

a. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Exhaust 

Catalysts 

Modern three-way catalytic exhaust 

systems utilize platinum group metals 

(PGM), metal oxides and other active 

materials to selectively oxidize organic 

compounds and carbon monoxide in the 

exhaust gases. These systems 

simultaneously reduce nitrogen oxides 

when air-to-fuel ratio control operates in 

a condition of relatively low amplitude/ 

high frequency oscillation about the 

stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a 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.224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233

The nature of sulfur interactions with 

washcoat materials, active catalytic 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29863 

234Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5: 

Catalyst Deactivation in Catalytic Air Pollution 

Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

materials and catalyst substrates is 

complex and varies with catalyst 

composition and exhaust gas 

composition and exhaust temperature. 

The variation of these interactions with 

exhaust gas composition and 

temperature means that the operational 

history of a vehicle is an important 

factor; continuous light-load operation, 

throttle tip-in events and enrichment 

under high-load conditions can all 

impact sulfur interactions with the 

catalyst. 

Sulfur from gasoline is oxidized 

during spark-ignition engine 

combustion primarily to SO2 and, to a 

much lesser extent, SO3

¥2. Sulfur 

oxides selectively chemically bind 

(chemisorb) with, and in some cases 

react with, active sites and coating 

materials within the catalyst, thus 

inhibiting the intended catalytic 

reactions. Sulfur oxides inhibit 

pollutant catalysis chiefly by selective 

poisoning of active PGM, ceria sites, and 

alumina washcoatings (see Figure 

IV–2).234 The amount of sulfur retained 

by the catalyst is primarily a function of 

its operating temperature, the active 

materials and coatings used within the 

catalyst, the concentration of sulfur 

oxides in the incoming exhaust gases, 

and air-to-fuel ratio feedback and 

control by the engine management 

system. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.001</GPH>
29864 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

235Luo, 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. 

236Li-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. 

237Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: 

Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution 

Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

238Maricq, 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. 

239Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: 

Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution 

Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

240Luo, 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. 

241Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of 

Fuel Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 

4 Cylinder Application. SAE Technical Paper No. 

2011–01–0300. 

242Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995) Impact of 

sulfur on the performance of vehicle aged 

palladium monoliths. Applied Catalysis B: 

Environmental 6, 185–200. 

243Maricq, 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. 

244Maricq, 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. 

245See Chapter 1 of the RIA (Section 1.2.3.2) for 

more details on this study and its results. 

246Tier 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 420– 

R–99–023, December 22, 1999), available at http:// 

epa.gov/tier2/finalrule.htm#regs. 247This test program is described in Chapter 6 of 

the RIA of the MSAT2 final rulemaking, EPA 420– 

R–07–002, February 2007, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420r07002chp6.pdf. 

248See Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Control of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 

420–R–07–002. 

Selective sulfur poisoning of platinum 

(Pt) and rhodium (Rh) is primarily from 

surface-layer chemisorption. Sulfur 

poisoning of palladium (Pd) and ceria 

appears to be via chemisorption 

combined with formation of more stable 

metallic sulfur compounds, e.g. PdS and 

Ce2O2S, present in both surface and 

bulk form (i.e., below the surface 

layer.235 236 237 238 Ceria, zirconia and 

other oxygen storage components (OSC) 

play an important role that is crucial to 

NOX reduction over Rh as the engine 

air-to-fuel ratio oscillates about the 

stoichiometric closed-loop control 

point.239 Water-gas-shift reactions are 

important for NOX reduction over 

catalysts combining Pd and ceria. This 

reaction can be blocked by sulfur 

poisoning and may be responsible for 

observations of reduced NOX activity 

over Pd/ceria catalysts even with 

exposure to fairly low levels of sulfur 

(equivalent to 15 ppm in gasoline).240 241

Pd is also of increased importance for 

meeting Tier 3 standards due to its 

unique application in the closedcoupled-catalysts location required for 

vehicles certifying to very stringent 

emission standards. Pd is required in 

closed-coupled catalysts due to its 

resistance to high temperature thermal 

sintering. Sulfur removal from Pd 

requires rich operation at higher 

temperatures than required for sulfur 

removal from other PGM catalysts.242

In addition to its interaction with 

catalyst materials, sulfur can also react 

with the washcoating itself to form 

alumina sulfate, which in turn can block 

coating pores and reduce gaseous 

diffusion to active materials below the 

coating surface.243 This may be a 

significant mechanism for the observed 

storage of sulfur compounds at light and 

moderate load operation with 

subsequent, rapid release as sulfate 

particulate matter when high-load, hightemperature conditions are 

encountered.244

Operating the catalyst at a sufficiently 

high temperature under net reducing 

conditions (e.g., air-to-fuel equivalence 

that is net fuel-rich of stoichiometry) 

can effectively release the sulfur oxides 

from the catalyst components. Thus, 

regular operation at sufficiently high 

temperatures at rich air-to-fuel ratios 

can minimize the effects of fuel sulfur 

levels on catalyst active materials and 

catalyst efficiency. However, it cannot 

completely eliminate the effects of 

sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 

vehicles in the in-use fleet recently 

completed by EPA shows that emission 

levels immediately following high 

speed/load operation is still a function 

of fuel sulfur level, suggesting that 

lower fuel sulfur levels will bring 

emission benefits unachievable by 

catalyst regeneration procedures 

alone.245 Furthermore, regular operation 

at these temperatures and at rich air-tofuel ratios is not desirable, for several 

reasons. The temperatures necessary to 

release sulfur oxides are high enough to 

lead to thermal degradation of the 

catalyst over time via thermal sintering 

of active materials. Sintering reduces 

the surface area available to participate 

in reactions. Additionally, it is not 

always possible to maintain these 

catalyst temperatures (because of cold 

weather, idle conditions, light load 

operation) and the rich air-to-fuel ratios 

necessary can result in increased PM, 

NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, 

reducing fuel sulfur levels has been the 

primary regulatory mechanism to 

minimize sulfur contamination of the 

catalyst and ensure optimum emissions 

performance over the useful life of a 

vehicle. The impact of gasoline sulfur 

has become even more important as 

vehicle emission standards have become 

more stringent. Some studies have 

suggested an increase in catalyst 

sensitivity to sulfur (in terms of percent 

conversion efficiency) when standards 

increase in stringency and emissions 

levels decrease. Emission standards 

under the programs that preceded the 

Tier 2 program (Tier 0, Tier 1 and 

National LEV, or NLEV) were high 

enough that the impact of sulfur was 

considered negligible. The Tier 2 

program recognized the importance of 

sulfur and reduced the sulfur levels in 

the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 

ppm in conjunction with the new 

emission standards.246 At that time, 

very little work had been done to 

evaluate the effect of further reductions 

in fuel sulfur, especially on in-use 

vehicles that may have some degree of 

catalyst deterioration due to real-world 

operation. 

In 2005, EPA and several automakers 

jointly conducted a program that 

examined the effects of sulfur and other 

gasoline properties, benzene, and 

volatility on emissions from a fleet of 

nine Tier 2 compliant vehicles. Section 

1.2.3 of the draft RIA provides details of 

the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) 

Study.247 The study found significant 

reductions in NOX, CO and total 

hydrocarbons (HC) when the vehicles 

were tested on low sulfur fuel, relative 

to 32 ppm fuel.248 In particular, the 

study found a nearly 50 percent increase 

in NOX over the FTP when sulfur was 

increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Given 

the prep procedures related to catalyst 

clean-out and loading used by these 

studies, these results may represent a 

‘‘best case’’ scenario relative to what 

would be expected under more typical 

driving conditions. Nonetheless, these 

data suggested the effect of sulfur 

loading was reversible for Tier 2 

vehicles, and that there were likely to be 

significant emission reductions possible 

with further reductions in gasoline 

sulfur level. For more discussion of the 

impact of gasoline fuel sulfur on the 

current light-duty vehicle fleet, see 

Section III.A. 

b. EPA Gasoline Sulfur Effects Testing 

Both the MSAT and Umicore studies 

showed the emission reduction 

potential of lower sulfur fuel on Tier 2 

and later technology vehicles over the 

FTP cycle. However, assessing the 

potential for reduction on the in-use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29865 

fleet requires understanding how sulfur 

exposure over time impacts emissions, 

and what the state of loading is for the 

typical vehicle in the field. In response 

to these data needs, EPA conducted a 

new study to assess the emission 

reductions expected from the in-use 

Tier 2 fleet with a reduction in fuel 

sulfur level from current levels. It was 

designed to take into consideration what 

was known from prior studies on sulfur 

build-up in catalysts over time and the 

effect of periodic regeneration events 

that may result from higher speed and 

load operation over the course of dayto-day driving. 

The study sample described in this 

analysis consisted of 81 cars and light 

trucks recruited from owners in 

southeast Michigan, covering model 

years 2007–9 with approximately 

20,000–40,000 odometer miles. The 

makes and models targeted for 

recruitment were chosen to be 

representative of high sales vehicles 

covering a range of types and sizes. Test 

fuels were two non-ethanol gasolines 

with properties typical of certification 

test fuel, one at a sulfur level of 5 ppm 

and the other at 28 ppm. A nominal 

concentration of approximately 25 ppm 

was targeted for the high level to be 

representative of retail fuel available to 

the public in the vehicle recruiting area. 

All emissions data was collected using 

the FTP cycle at a nominal temperature 

of 75 °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, suggesting that reversible 

sulfur loading exists in the in-use fleet 

and has a measurable effect on 

aftertreatment performance (Table IV– 

6). For example, Bag 2 NOX emissions 

dropped 32 percent between the preand post-cleanout tests on 28 ppm fuel. 

TABLE IV–6—AVERAGE CLEAN-OUT EFFECT ON IN-USE EMISSIONS USING 28 PPM TEST FUELa

NOX

(p-value) 

THC 

(p-value) 

CO 

(p-value) 

NMHC 

(p-value) 

CH4

(p-value) 

PM 

(p-value) 

Bag 1 ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 4.7% 

(0.0737) 

........................ ........................ 15.4% 

(<0.0001) 

Bag 2 ........................................................ 31.9% 

(0.0009) 

16.5% 

(0.0024) 

........................ 17.8% 

(0.0181) 

15.3% 

(0.0015) 

........................

Bag 3 ........................................................ 38.3% 

(<0.0001) 

21.4% 

(<0.0001) 

19.5% 

(0.0011) 

27.8% 

(<0.0001) 

12.0% 

(<0.0001) 

24.5% 

(<0.0001) 

FTP Composite ........................................ 11.4% 

(<0.0001) 

4.1% 

(0.0187) 

7.6% 

(0.0008) 

3.0% 

(0.0751) 

6.9% 

(0.0003) 

13.7% 

(<0.0001) 

Bag 1–Bag 3 ............................................ ........................ ........................ 4.2% 

(0.0714) 

........................ ........................ ........................

aThe 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 differences in the effectiveness of 

the clean-out procedure when done 

using different fuel sulfur levels. Table 

IV–7 presents a comparison of 

emissions immediately following (<50 

miles) the clean-out procedures at the 

low vs. high sulfur level. These results 

show significant emission reductions for 

the 5 ppm fuel relative to the 28 ppm 

fuel immediately after this clean-out; for 

example, Bag 2 NOX emissions were 47 

percent lower on the 5 ppm fuel vs. the 

28 ppm fuel. This indicates that the 

catalyst is not fully desulfurized, even 

after a clean out procedure, as long as 

there is sulfur in the fuel. 

TABLE IV–7—PERCENT REDUCTION IN EXHAUST EMISSIONS WHEN GOING FROM 28 PPM TO 5 PPM SULFUR GASOLINE

FOR THE FIRST THREE REPEAT FTP TESTS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING CLEAN-OUT

NOX

(p-value) 

THC 

(p-value) 

CO 

(p-value) 

NMHC 

(p-value) 

CH4

(p-value) PMa

Bag 1 ........................................................ 5.9% 

(0.0896) 

5.4% 

(0.0118) 

7.3% 

(0.0023) 

4.6% 

(0.0465) 

11.1% 

(<0.0001) 

........................

Bag 2 ........................................................ 47.3% 

(0.0010) 

40.2% 

(<0.0001) 

¥a 34.4% 

(0.0041) 

53.6% 

(<0.0001) 

........................

Bag 3 ........................................................ 51.2% 

(<0.0001) 

35.0% 

(<0.0001) 

10.1% 

(0.0988) 

45.0% 

(<0.0001) 

25.4% 

(<0.0001) 

........................

FTP Composite ........................................ 17.7% 

(0.0001) 

11.2% 

(<0.0001) 

8.3% 

(0.0003) 

8.8% 

(0.0003) 

21.4% 

(<0.0001) 

........................

Bag 1–Bag 3 ............................................ ¥a ¥a 5.8% 

(0.0412) 

¥a ¥a

aSulfur level 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 59 percent between 28 ppm 

and 5 ppm overall. For some pollutants, 

such as Bag 2 NOX, the model fitting did 

not find a significant miles-by-sulfur 

interaction, suggesting the relative 

differences were not dependent on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29866 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

249U.S. EPA. 2013. ‘‘The Effects of Fuel Sulfur 

Level on Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles In-Use.’’ 

EPA–420–D–13–003. Available in the docket for 

this rule. 

250Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: 

Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution 

Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

miles driven after clean-out. Other 

results, such as Bag 1 hydrocarbons, did 

show a significant miles-by-sulfur 

interaction. In this case, determination 

of a sulfur level effect for the in-use fleet 

required estimation of a milesequivalent level of sulfur loading, which 

was determined by the cleanout results 

obtained from the baseline testing on 

the vehicles as-received. 

TABLE IV–8—SUMMARY OF MIXED MODEL RESULTS FOR EMISSION REDUCTIONS WHEN GOING FROM 28 PPM TO 5 PPM

SULFUR GASOLINE, ADJUSTED FOR IN-USE SULFUR LOADING (MILEAGE ACCUMULATION) WHERE APPROPRIATE

NOX

(p-value) 

THC 

(p-value) 

CO 

(p-value) 

NMHC 

(p-value) 

CH4

(p-value) 

NOX+NMOG 

(p-value) PMa

Bag 1 ............................ 10.7% 

(0.0033) 

b8.5% 

(0.0382) 

b7.5% 

(0.0552) 

7.5% 

(< 0.0001) 

b13.9% 

(<0.0001) 

N/A 

Bag 2 ............................ 59.2% 

(<0.0001) 

48.8% 

(<0.0001) 

¥a b44.8% 

(0.0260) 

49.9% 

(<0.0001) 

N/A 

Bag 3 ............................ 62.1% 

(<0.0001) 

40.2% 

(<0.0001) 

20.1% 

(<0.0001) 

49.9% 

(<0.0001) 

29.2% 

(<0.0001) 

N/A 

FTP Composite ............ b23.0% 

(0.0180) 

b13.0% 

(0.0027) 

b11.9% 

(0.0378) 

b10.6% 

(0.0032) 

b25.8% 

(<0.0001) 

17.3% 

(0.0140) 

Bag 1–Bag 3 ................ ¥a 5.2% 

(0.0063) 

4.3% 

(0.0689) 

5.1% 

(0.0107) 

4.6% 

(0.0514) 

N/A 

a Sulfur level not significant at a = 0.10. For THC Bag 1 and CH4 Bag 1, because the effect of clean-out was not statistically significant, the reduction estimates are based on the estimates of least squares means. b Model with significant sulfur and mileage interaction term. 

Major findings from this study 

include: 

• Reversible sulfur loading is 

occurring in the in-use fleet of Tier 2 

vehicles and has a measureable effect on 

emissions of NOX, hydrocarbons, and 

other pollutants of interest. 

• The effectiveness of high speed/ 

load procedures in restoring catalyst 

efficiency is limited when operating on 

higher sulfur fuel. 

• Reducing fuel sulfur levels from 

current levels to levels in the range of 

the proposed gasoline sulfur standards 

would be expected to achieve 

significant reductions in emissions of 

NOX, hydrocarbons, and other 

pollutants of interest in the in-use fleet. 

The overall reductions found in this 

study are in agreement with other low 

sulfur studies conducted on Tier 2 

vehicles. The magnitude of NOX and HC 

reductions found in this study when 

switching from 28 ppm to 5 ppm fuel 

are consistent with those found in 

MSAT and Umicore studies mentioned 

above. For further details regarding the 

Tier 2 In-Use Gasoline Sulfur Effects 

Study, see the draft report on this 

work.249

c. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Vehicles at the 

Proposed Tier 3 Levels 

As discussed in previous sections, the 

Tier 3 Program would reduce fleet 

average NMOG+NOX emissions by over 

80 percent. The feasibility of the 

proposed 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX fleet 

average standard depends on a degree of 

emissions control from exhaust catalyst 

systems that will require gasoline at 10 

ppm sulfur or lower. The most likely 

control strategies would involve using 

exhaust catalyst technologies and 

powertrain calibration primarily 

focused on reducing cold-start 

emissions of NMOG and on both coldstart and warmed-up (running) 

emissions of NOX. An important part of 

this strategy, particularly for larger 

vehicles having greater difficulty 

achieving cold-start NMOG emissions 

control, would be to reduce NOX

emissions to near-zero levels. This 

would allow sufficient NMOG 

compliance margin to allow vehicles to 

meet the combined NMOG+NOX

emissions standards for their full useful 

life. 

Achieving the proposed Tier 3 

emission standards would require very 

careful control of the exhaust chemistry 

and exhaust temperatures to ensure high 

catalyst efficiency. The impact of sulfur 

on OSC components in the catalyst 

makes this a challenge even at relatively 

low (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur levels. 

NOX conversion by exhaust catalysts is 

strongly influenced by the OSC 

components like ceria. Ceria sulfation 

may play an important role in the 

degradation of NOX emission control 

with increased fuel sulfur levels 

observed in the MSAT, Umicore and 

EPA Tier 2 In-Use Gasoline Sulfur 

Effects studies.250

Light-duty vehicles certified to CARB 

SULEV and federal Tier 2 Bin 2 exhaust 

emission standards accounted for 

approximately 3.1 percent and 0.4 

percent, respectively of vehicle sales for 

MY2009. Light-duty vehicles certified to 

SULEV under LEV II are more typically 

certified federally to Tier 2 Bin 3, Bin 

4 or Bin 5, and vehicles certified to 

SULEV and Tier 2 Bins 3–5 comprised 

approximately 2.5 percent of sales for 

MY2009. In particular, nonhybrid 

vehicles certified in California as 

SULEV are not certified to federal Tier 

2 Bin 2 emissions standards even 

though the numeric limits for NOX and 

NMOG are shared between the 

California LEV II and federal Tier 2 

programs for SULEV and Bin 2. 

Confidential business information 

shared by the auto companies indicate 

that the primary reason is an inability to 

demonstrate compliance with SULEV/ 

Bin 2 emission standards after vehicles 

have operated in-use on gasoline with 

greater than 10 ppm sulfur and with 

exposure to gasoline up to the Tier 2 80 

ppm gasoline sulfur cap. While vehicles 

certified to the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 

2 standards both demonstrate 

compliance using certification gasoline 

with 15–40 ppm sulfur content, in-use 

compliance of SULEV vehicles in 

California occurs after operation on 

gasoline with an average of 10 ppm 

sulfur and a maximum cap of 30 ppm 

sulfur while federally certified vehicles 

operate on gasoline with an average of 

30 ppm sulfur and a maximum cap of 

80 ppm sulfur. Although the SULEV 

and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards are 

numerically equivalent, the increased 

sulfur exposure of in-use vehicles 

certified under the federal Tier 2 

program results in a need for a higher 

emissions compliance margin to take 

into account the impact of in-use 

gasoline sulfur on full useful life vehicle 

emissions. As a result, vehicles certified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29867 

251Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: 

Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution 

Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 

252Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of 

Fuel Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 

4 Cylinder Application. SAE Technial Paper No. 

2011–01–0300. 

253Butler, A. and Choi, D. (2012). The Effects of 

Fuel Sulfur Level on Emissions In-Use Tier 2 

Vehicles. Found in the docket, EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0135. 

254Shapiro, E. (2009). National Clean Gasoline— 

An Investigation of Costs and Benefits. Published 

by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 

255The LEV III program as approved by the 

California Air Resources Board, January 2012. 

to California SULEV typically certify to 

emissions standards under the federal 

Tier 2 program that are 1–2 certification 

bins higher (e.g., SULEV certified 

federally as Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4) in 

order to ensure in-use compliance with 

emissions standards out to the full 

useful life of the vehicle when operating 

on higher-sulfur gasoline. 

Emissions of vehicles certified to the 

SULEV standard of the California LEV II 

program, or the equivalent Tier 2 Bin 2 

standards, can provide some insight into 

the impact of fuel sulfur on vehicles at 

the very low proposed Tier 3 emissions 

levels. Vehicle testing by Toyota of LEV 

I, LEV II ULEV and prototype SULEV 

vehicles showed larger percentage 

increases in NOX and HC emissions for 

SULEV vehicles as gasoline sulfur 

increased from 8 ppm to 30 ppm, as 

compared to other LEV vehicles they 

tested. Testing of a SULEV-certified 

PZEV vehicle by Umicore showed a 

pronounced, progressive trend of 

increasing NOX emissions (referred to as 

‘‘NOX creep’’) when switching from a 3 

ppm sulfur gasoline to repeated, backto-back FTP tests using 33 ppm sulfur 

gasoline.251 The PZEV Chevrolet 

Malibu, after being aged to an 

equivalent of 150,000 miles, 

demonstrated emissions at a level 

equivalent to the compliance margin for 

the Tier 3 Bin 30 NMOG+NOX standard 

when operated on 3 ppm sulfur fuel and 

for at least one FTP test after switching 

to 33 ppm certification fuel. Following 

operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm 

sulfur fuel, NOX emissions alone were 

more than double the proposed Tier 3 

30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX standard.252

This represents a NOX percentage 

increase that is approximately 2–3 times 

of what has been reported for similar 

changes in fuel sulfur level for Tier 2 

and older vehicles over a similar 

difference in fuel sulfur.253 254 There are 

no LDTs larger than LDT2 and no larger 

non-hybrid LDVs. We expect that 

additional catalyst technologies, for 

example increasing catalyst surface area 

(volume or substrate cell density) and/ 

or increased PGM loading, would need 

to be applied to larger vehicles in order 

to achieve the catalyst efficiencies 

necessary to comply with the proposed 

Tier 3 standards. Any sulfur impact on 

catalyst efficiency would have a larger 

impact on vehicles and trucks that rely 

more on very high catalyst efficiencies 

in order to achieve very low emissions. 

The negative impact of gasoline sulfur 

on catalytic activity and the resultant 

loss of exhaust catalyst effectiveness to 

chemically reduce NOX and oxidize 

NMOG and air toxic emissions occurs 

across all vehicle categories. However, 

the impact of gasoline sulfur on NOX

emissions control of catalysts in the 

fully-warmed-up condition is 

particularly of concern for larger 

vehicles (the largest LDVs and LDT3s, 

LDT4s, and MDPVs). Manufacturers face 

the most significant challenges in 

reducing cold-start NMOG emissions for 

these vehicles. Because of the need to 

reach near-zero NOX levels, any 

significant degradation in NOX

emissions control over the useful life of 

the vehicle would likely prevent some 

if not most larger vehicles from reaching 

a combined NMOG+NOX low enough to 

comply with the 30 mg/mi fleet-average 

standard. These vehicles represent a 

sufficiently large segment of light-duty 

vehicle sales now and in the foreseeable 

future that their emissions could not be 

offset (and thus the fleet-average 

standard achieved) by certifying 

vehicles to bins below the fleet average. 

Any degradation in catalyst 

performance due to gasoline sulfur 

would reduce or eliminate the margin 

necessary to ensure in-use compliance 

with the proposed Tier 3 emissions 

standards. Certifying to a useful life of 

150,000 miles versus the current 

120,000 miles would further add to 

manufacturers’ compliance challenge 

for Tier 3 large light trucks (See Section 

IV.7.b below for more on the useful life 

requirements.) 

d. Gasoline Sulfur Control Required To 

Meet Tier 3 Emissions Standards 

The impact of gasoline sulfur 

poisoning on exhaust catalyst 

performance and the relative stringency 

of the Tier 3 standards, particularly for 

larger vehicles and trucks, when 

considered together make a compelling 

argument for the virtual elimination of 

sulfur from gasoline. As discussed in 

Section V.A.2, the proposed 10-ppm 

standard for sulfur in gasoline 

represents the lowest practical limit 

from a standpoint of fuel production, 

handling and transport. While lowering 

gasoline sulfur to levels below 10 ppm 

would further help ensure in-use 

vehicle compliance with the Tier 3 

standards, the Agency believes that a 

gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm 

would allow compliance by gasolinefueled engines with a national fleet 

average of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX. The 

level of the proposed Tier 3 standards 

was considered in light of a 10-ppm 

average sulfur level for gasoline. Not 

only should a 10-ppm sulfur standard 

enable vehicle manufacturers to certify 

their entire product line of vehicles to 

the Tier 3 fleet average standards, but 

based on the results of testing both Tier 

2 vehicles and SULEV vehicles as 

discussed above, reducing gasoline 

sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these 

vehicles to maintain their emission 

performance in-use over their full useful 

life. It is important to note that while 

the preceding discussion focused on 

gasoline sulfur control, spark ignition 

engines operating on other fuels (i.e., 

CNG, LPG, E85) and utilizing a three 

way catalyst systems for control of 

emission are similarly affected by the 

sulfur levels in the fuel. We invite 

comment on all aspects of our analysis 

of gasoline sulfur effects and our 

conclusions, especially comments that 

include any additional relevant testing 

data. 

7. Other Provisions 

a. Early Credits 

The California LEV III program is 

scheduled to begin at least two model 

years earlier than the proposed federal 

Tier 3 program.255 As stated earlier, EPA 

proposes to implement the Tier 3 

standards in MY 2017, for vehicles 

6,000 lbs GVWR and less, and in MY 

2018 for vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR. 

As a result, LEV III vehicles sold in 

California beginning in MY 2015 will be 

required to meet a lower fleet average 

NMOG+NOX level than the federal fleet 

is meeting at that time. In addition, the 

California NMOG+NOX standards will 

continue to decline resulting in the gap 

growing between the current federal 

program and LEV III. The early credit 

program we are proposing is designed to 

accomplish three goals: (1) Encourage 

manufacturers to produce a cleaner 

federal fleet earlier than otherwise 

required; (2) provide needed flexibility 

to the manufacturers to facilitate the 

‘‘step down’’ from the current Tier 2 Bin 

5 fleet average required in MY 2016 to 

the LEV III-based declining fleet average 

in MY 2017; and (3) create a Tier 3 

program that is equivalent in stringency 

to the LEV III program such that 

manufacturers will be able to produce a 

50-state fleet at the earliest opportunity. 

The first provision that we are 

proposing to address these goals is to 

allow manufacturers to generate early 

federal credits against the current Tier 2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29868 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

256Tier 2 standards are not set in the form of 

NMOG+NOX. The equivalent Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet 

average in NMOG+NOX terms would be equal to 

160 mg/mi (90 mg/mi NMOG + 70 mg/mi NOX). 

257The useful life of the vehicle should not be 

confused with the vehicle’s emissions warranty. 

The useful life value is relevant for certification and 

in-use compliance purposes; the emissions 

warranty relates to the period during which the 

manufacturer is obligated to repair or replace failing 

emission control equipment on a properly 

maintained vehicle. 

258CARB 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. 259PM, CO, and HCHO 

Bin 5 requirement 256 in MYs 2015 and 

2016 for vehicles under 6,000 lbs GVWR 

and MYs 2016 and 2017 for vehicles 

greater than 6,000 lbs GVWR. (Early 

credits would only be available for 

manufacturers complying under the 

primary program (declining fleet 

average), not the alternative phase-in 

approach (Section IV.A.3.a above). In 

order to generate these credits, 

manufacturers would sum the NMOG 

and NOX certification standards for each 

federally certified Tier 2 vehicle and 

calculate an NMOG+NOX fleet average. 

Credits would be based on the 

difference between the new, cleaner, 

fleet average and the Tier 2 Bin 5 

requirement (160 mg/mi total of NMOG 

and NOX). We expect that 

manufacturers could accomplish this by 

certifying existing Tier 2 vehicles to a 

lower fleet average, mainly for the 

higher bins as the current sulfur content 

in gasoline would preclude them from 

certifying the cleanest bins federally 

(Our analysis, presented in Section 

IV.A.5 above and Chapter 1 of the draft 

RIA, shows that many vehicles currently 

certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 could likely be 

certified to a lower bin with some 

reduction in compliance margin; e.g., 

from Bin 5 to Bin 4 or Bin 3.) We expect 

to realize early environmental benefits, 

as the result of a cleaner federal fleet, 

that justify the credits generated. 

We believe that this provision would 

help us realize both our first and our 

second goals. For example, a 

manufacturer certifying their federal 

fleet to Tier 2 Bin 4 would earn 50 mg/ 

mi of NMOG+NOX credits per vehicle 

(i.e., 160 mg/mi minus 110 mg/mi) 

which should encourage manufacturers 

to certify a cleaner federal fleet and 

provide ample opportunity for credit 

generation to facilitate the ‘‘step down’’ 

in stringency. However, if we allowed 

excessive early credits to be generated it 

could allow manufacturers to delay 

their federal compliance with the same 

fleet average as California for several 

years. This would be in direct conflict 

with our third goal of creating a program 

of equal stringency to the California 

program as early as possible. In order to 

address this concern we are proposing 

that the application of the early federal 

credits be constrained under the 

following conditions: 

• Early federal credits generated 

under the provision described above 

could be used without limitation in MY 

2017. 

• Credits used for compliance in MY 

2018 and beyond would be capped at an 

amount equal to the lesser of the 

manufacturer’s federal credits as 

calculated above or the manufacturer’s 

LEV III credits multiplied by the ratio of 

50-state sales to California only sales. 

Calculation of these credits would 

account for the fact that some LEV III 

credits may have begun to expire and 

would no longer be eligible as a basis for 

Tier 3 early credits. 

By capping the available federal 

credits we believe that the two 

programs, LEV III and Tier 3 would be 

at parity starting in 2018 MY. In 

addition, because the number of federal 

early credits that could be used would 

be based on the number of LEV III 

credits that the manufacturer had 

generated, there may be additional 

motivation for manufacturers to overperform in California during the initial 

model years. 

We are proposing that early credit life 

be limited to 5 years with no 

discounting, consistent with the 

California LEV II and LEV III programs 

and similar to the basic credit carryforward provisions of the recent lightduty and heavy-duty greenhouse gas 

rules. We are not proposing any carryover of Tier 2 credits for use in the Tier 

3 program. We seek comment on the 5- 

year credit life in the context of the 

programs goals of harmonization with 

California LEV III and whether the 

added flexibility would be advantageous 

relative to any added burden associated 

with corresponding record retention 

requirements. 

b. Useful Life 

The ‘‘useful life’’ of a vehicle is the 

period of time, in terms of years and 

miles, during which a manufacturer is 

responsible for the vehicle’s emissions 

performance.257 For LDVs and LDTs 

(including MDPVs) under the Tier 2 

program, there have historically been 

both ‘‘full useful life’’ values, 

approximating the average life of the 

vehicle on the road, and ‘‘intermediate 

useful life’’ values, representing about 

half of the vehicle’s life. For the Tier 3 

program, we are proposing several 

changes to the current useful life 

provisions that are appropriate to the 

proposed standards described above. 

Every vehicle manufacturer with 

which the EPA has met has expressed 

the desire for a single national vehicle 

fleet and has indicated an ability and 

willingness to certify their vehicles to a 

150,000 mile, 15 year full useful life in 

support of that goal, since the LEV III 

program would apply a single 150,000 

mile, 15 year useful life value for all of 

the new standards. However, the CAA, 

written at a time when vehicles did not 

last as long as today, precludes EPA 

from requiring a useful life value longer 

than the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 

year, as applicable) value set in Tier 2, 

for all LDVs and for LDTs up to 3,750 

lbs LVW and up to 6,000 lbs GVWR 

(LDT1s). For vehicles heavier than these 

limits (i.e., LDT2s, 3s, 4s, as well as 

MDPVs, representing a large fraction of 

the light-duty fleet) we are proposing a 

150,000 mile, 15 year useful life value. 

For the lighter vehicles, we are 

proposing to continue to apply the 

120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 year, as 

applicable) full useful life requirement 

from the Tier 2 program. Numerically, 

we are proposing 120,000 mile useful 

life NMOG+NOX standards that are 85 

percent of the respective NMOG+ NOX

150,000 mile standards. (See Chapter 1 

of the draft RIA for a description of our 

analysis of this relationship.) For the 

lighter vehicles, we propose that 

manufacturers be allowed to choose to 

certify to either useful life value in 

complying with the proposed fleet 

average and per-vehicle standards.258 A 

manufacturer choosing to comply with 

the 120,000 mile useful life standards 

for any of their lighter vehicles would 

demonstrate compliance with the 

numerically lower fleet-average NMOG+ 

NOX standards for all LDV and LDT1 

families. Standards for all other 

pollutants 259 would remain the same 

regardless of whether compliance was at 

the 120,000 mile or the 150,000 mile 

useful life periods. If a vehicle 

manufacturer chose to comply with the 

120,000 mile useful life standards for 

their lighter vehicles, it would be 

required to separately demonstrate that 

its larger vehicles complied with the 

150,000 mile fleet average standards. 

Except for vehicles not required to 

meet a 150,000 miles useful life and for 

which a manufacturer chose to apply 

the 120,000 mile useful life value, we 

propose that manufacturers be required 

to certify vehicles to the 150,000 mile 

useful life beginning with the first 

model year that a vehicle model is 

certified to the FTP NMOG+NOX Bin 70 

or lower. This useful-life requirement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29869 

260This includes fuels used for low temperature 

and high altitude testing and durability 

requirements. See Section IV.D below. 

261 Diesel fueled and alternative fueled vehicles 

would continue to test on the fuels used under the 

Tier 2 program. 

262Because the Tier 2 program has NOX fleet 

average standards (instead of the NMOG+NOX fleet 

average standard of LEV III and Tier 3), 

manufacturers certifying to LEV III standards in MY 

2015 and 2016 would not include such vehicles in 

their Tier 2 NOX fleet average calculation. Tier 2 

provisions that are not a part of the California 

program would still apply. For example, high 

altitude testing, which is only required in the 

federal program, would still need be performed on 

federal Tier 2 fuel. 

263That is, a manufacturer that certifies a vehicle 

to LEV III in MY 2015 and MY 2016. 

264High-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). 

would apply beginning in MY 2017. 

Beginning in MY 2020, all vehicles 

would need to certify to the 150,000 

mile useful life, regardless of 

NMOG+NOX certification bin, unless 

they are allowed and the manufacturer 

has chosen to remain at 120,000 mile 

useful life. (Note that the timing of the 

requirement to certify on the new test 

fuel would follow the same approach as 

for the useful life requirement (i.e., 

based on the first year a model is 

certified to Bin 70 or below) as 

described in Section IV.A.7.c below.) 

We request comment on the proposed 

useful life provisions, including the 85 

percent factor we propose to use to 

establish the standards for the 120,000 

mile useful life. 

c. Test Fuels 

We recognize that test fuels are an 

important element of a national 

program. Vehicle manufacturers have 

emphasized the desire to reduce test 

burden by producing one vehicle that is 

tested to a single test procedure and a 

single fuel and meets both California 

and federal requirements. Although we 

have been able to reasonably align the 

proposed Tier 3 program with the LEV 

III program in most key respects, we 

recognize that there would still exist 

some differences in emissions 

performance between vehicles operated 

on the LEV III and Tier 3 certification 

fuels. The largest differences between 

the two fuels are the amount of ethanol 

they contain and the Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP). The proposed Tier 3 

NMOG+NOX standards assume 

operation on federal certification fuel. 

We propose that manufacturers begin 

to certify vehicles on the new Tier 3 

fuels 260 beginning with the first model 

year that a vehicle model is certified to 

the FTP NMOG+NOX Bin 70 or lower, 

independent of its useful life. The newfuel requirement would apply beginning 

in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all 

gasoline-fueled models would need to 

certify on the new fuel, regardless of 

their certification bin.261 As discussed 

in Section IV.A.7.b above, 

manufacturers would also need to apply 

the 150,000 mile useful life value to 

these same vehicles as they begin to be 

certified to Bin 70 and lower. 

During the transition period from Tier 

2 fuel to the new Tier 3 and LEV III 

fuels, manufacturers have indicated a 

substantial workload challenge of 

developing and certifying a vehicle to 

the two new fuels simultaneously. To 

address this potential workload and 

certification challenge, we propose that 

vehicles certified in MY 2015 through 

2019 to California LEV III standards 

using California LEV III certification 

fuels and test procedures could be used 

for certifying to EPA standards. (For 

example, for MY 2015 and 2016, EPA 

would consider such vehicles to be Tier 

2 vehicles, although they could be 

tested on California LEV III fuel.262

Similarly, for MY 2017 through 2019, 

EPA would consider such vehicles to be 

Interim Tier 3 vehicles, although they 

could be tested on California LEV III 

fuel.) For these vehicles only, we would 

not perform or require in-use exhaust 

testing on Tier 3 fuel. 

California does not have fuel 

specifications for high altitude testing or 

cold CO and hydrocarbon testing. For 

this reason, we are proposing that for 

vehicles that manufacturers choose to 

certify using LEV III fuel and test 

procedures, they can use test fuels 

meeting either Tier 2 or Tier 3 fuel 

specifications to comply with these 

federal-only requirements. We would 

perform in-use testing for these vehicles 

on the same fuel as selected by the 

manufacturer at certification. 

Certifications after MY 2019, 

however, would be required to use the 

Tier 3 fuel and carry-over certifications 

using LEV II, LEV III or Tier 2 

certification fuels would not be allowed 

after MY 2019. CARB has indicated that 

they would accept Tier 3 test data (on 

federal certification fuel) to obtain a 

California certificate as early as MY 

2015. In this manner manufacturers 

should be able to avoid compliance 

testing on more than one fuel as 

vehicles certified to LEV III using 

federal certification fuel could obtain 

Final Tier 3 status.263

d. High Altitude Requirements 

FTP emission standards are 

historically designed to be applicable at 

all altitudes. Under Tier 2, the same FTP 

emission bin standards applied to 

vehicles tested at both low and 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). This expected increase in 

emissions is primarily due to the lower 

air density at higher altitudes. Due to 

the lower air density, the needed 

volume of the hot combustion exhaust 

required to quickly heat the catalyst in 

the first minute after a cold start is 

reduced. As a result, catalyst light-off is 

delayed and cold start emissions 

increase. Vehicles under the Tier 2 

program typically had sufficient 

compliance margins to absorb this 

increase in emissions during testing 

under high-altitude conditions. 

However, given the near-zero standards 

we are proposing in Tier 3, vehicles will 

have less compliance margin with 

which to address the issue. 

Under the Tier 3 program, we expect 

that the emission control technologies 

selected for low altitude performance 

would also provide very significant 

emission control at high altitude.264

However, as explained above, unique 

emission challenges exist with 

operation at higher altitude. The 

stringency of the Tier 2 standards is 

such that manufacturers comply with 

the same standards at all altitudes 

without the need to design their 

emission control strategies specifically 

for the more challenging high altitude 

operation. The Tier 3 stringency may 

not allow manufacturers emission 

control strategies at lower altitude to 

maintain sufficient compliance margin 

when tested at higher altitude, therefore 

requiring manufacturers to design their 

emission controls specifically for higher 

altitude. 

To avoid requiring special highaltitude emission control technologies, 

we propose to allow manufacturers the 

limited relief of complying with the 

next less-stringent bin for testing at high 

altitude for vehicles certified at sea level 

to Bin 20, 30, and 50 (e.g., certifying to 

Bin 50 for testing at high altitude versus 

Bin 30 at sea level). For vehicles 

certified at sea level to Bins 70 and 125, 

35 mg/mi of relief will be provided. No 

relief is proposed for Bin 160. 

We do not believe that the impact of 

the fairly small fraction of overall U.S. 

driving that occurs in high altitude 

locations warrants a requirement for 

additional technologies to be applied 

specifically for high-altitude conditions. 

In addition, this provision is intended to 

be applicable to all Final Tier 3 vehicles 

for the duration of the Tier 3 program. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29870 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

While vehicles would need to meet 

the Tier 3 standards at all intermediate 

altitudes, the question remains as to 

what the value of the standard should 

be at a given intermediate altitude. We 

request comment on both the level of 

the proposed high altitude standards 

and the appropriate level of the 

standard at intermediate altitudes. In 

particular, we seek comment on 

whether this could be addressed by 

requiring that all emission control 

strategies remain in effect at altitudes 

that are in between the specific altitudes 

used for high and low altitude testing 

and that any altitude-related auxiliary 

emission control device (AECD) must be 

identified by the manufacturer and 

justified as not being defeat devices. 

TABLE IV–9—PROPOSED HIGH

ALTITUDE STANDARDS

Bin 

Sea level FTP 

standard 

(mg/mi 

NMOG+NOX) 

Altitude FTP 

standard 

(mg/mi 

NMOG+NOX) 

Bin 160 ..... 160 160 

Bin 125 ..... 125 160 

Bin 70 ....... 70 105 

Bin 50 ....... 50 70 

Bin 30 ....... 30 50 

Bin 20 ....... 20 30 

e. Highway Test Standards 

Sustained high-speed operation can 

result in NOX emissions that may not be 

represented on either the FTP or SFTP 

cycles. Although we are not aware of 

any serious issues with this mode of 

operation with current Tier 2 vehicles, 

we are interested in preventing 

increases in these NOX emissions as 

manufacturers develop new or 

improved engine and emission control 

technologies. 

For this reason, we are proposing that 

the same FTP NMOG+NOX standards 

proposed above also apply on the 

Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET), 

which is performed as a part of GHG 

and Fuel Economy compliance testing. 

Thus, the FTP NMOG+NOX standard for 

the bin at which a manufacturer has 

chosen to certify a vehicle would also 

apply on the HFET test. For example, if 

a manufacturer certifies a vehicle to Bin 

70, the vehicle’s NMOG+NOX

performance over the HFET could not 

exceed 70 mg/mi. Manufacturers would 

simply need to ensure that the same 

emission control strategies implemented 

for the FTP and SFTP cycles were also 

effectively utilized during the highway 

test cycle. We believe that this proposed 

requirement would not require 

manufacturers to take any unique 

technological action, would not add 

technology costs, and would not add 

significantly to the certification burden. 

We request comment on this proposed 

provision. 

f. Interim 4,000 mile SFTP Standards 

During the period of the declining 

NMOG+NOX standards, we are 

proposing that interim Tier 3 vehicles 

meet 4,000 mile SFTP standards, 

consistent with the existing Tier 2 and 

LEV II program requirements. The 4,000 

mile standards are designed to prevent 

excessive emission levels from a single 

vehicle or a single SFTP cycle, which 

can occur if only a composite approach 

is taken. Under the Tier 3 program, the 

proposed composite standards would be 

fleet average standards that would 

decline from 2017 until 2025, as 

described in Section IV.A.4. While this 

approach is expected to result in fleetwide reductions in SFTP emissions 

during all years of the declining 

standard, the level of the fleet average 

requirement during the initial years 

provides an opportunity for backsliding 

of SFTP emissions on individual 

vehicles or on individual SFTP cycles. 

We believe it is appropriate to require 

any individual Interim Tier 3 vehicle to 

at a minimum meet the same 

requirements under the Tier 2 and LEV 

II programs. Table IV–10 below presents 

the proposed 4,000 mile SFTP standards 

for interim Tier 3 vehicles. 

TABLE IV–10—PROPOSED 4,000 MILE SFTP EXHAUST STANDARDS FOR INTERIM TIER 3 VEHICLES (GRAMS/MILE) 

Vehicle category US06 

NMOG+NOX

US06 

CO 

SC03 

NMOG+NOX

SC03 

CO 

LDV/LDT1 ...................................................................................................... 0 .14 8.0 0.20 2.7 

LDT2 .............................................................................................................. 0 .25 10.5 0.27 3.5 

LDT3 .............................................................................................................. 0 .4 10.5 0.31 3.5 

LDT4 .............................................................................................................. 0 .6 11.8 0.44 4.0 

We believe that vehicles considered to 

be Final Tier 3 (i.e., they meet the Tier 

3 PM requirements, specifically the 

stringent SFTP PM standards) will have 

sufficiently robust designs that the 4,000 

mile SFTP standards will no longer be 

necessary. Additionally, once the 

program reaches the fully phased-in 

fleet average composite standard of 50 

mg/mi in 2025, high SFTP emissions 

even on a limited portion of a 

manufacturer’s fleet should be 

effectively mitigated. We seek comment 

on this proposed 4,000 mile SFTP 

provision. 

g. Phase-In Schedule 

As described in Section IV.A.3, under 

the proposed Tier 3 program, 

manufacturers would be required to 

certify each vehicle model to an FTP 

bin, which would then be used to 

calculate the NMOG+NOX fleet average 

of all of its vehicles. Manufacturers 

would also need to determine the SFTP 

levels of each model and calculate the 

NMOG+NOX fleet average for the SFTP 

requirements as described in Section 

IV.A.4. These separate FTP and SFTP 

fleet average calculations would satisfy 

one aspect of certification under the 

Tier 3 program, specifically the 

standards associated with each model 

year. 

As described in Sections IV.A.7.b and 

IV.A.7.c above, the longer (150,000 

mile) useful life value, as applicable, 

and the new Tier 3 certification fuel for 

exhaust testing would be implemented 

as manufacturers certified vehicles to 

more stringent NMOG+NOX standards, 

with the threshold to implement both of 

these provisions being Bin 70. 

Beginning in MY 2017, any vehicle 

certified to Bin 70 or lower would be 

required to be certified on Tier 3 test 

fuel. In addition, any vehicle certified to 

Bin 70 or lower that would be required 

to meet the longer 150,000 mile useful 

life would be required to do so. 

Beginning in MY 2020 all vehicles 

would be required to be certified to on 

the Tier 3 test fuel, regardless of the bin 

they are certified to or the useful life 

they are required to meet. 

Manufacturers would also be required 

to comply with more stringent PM 

standards on a percent phase-in 

schedule. Compliance with the PM 

standards, which is consistent with the 

CARB LEV III program, would be 

independent of the fleet average 

requirements described above. The PM 

emission standards for FTP and SFTP 

described in Section IV.A.3 and 4 

respectively would be implemented as a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29871 

percent phase-in requirement as 

described below under a basic phase-in 

schedule or under an optional phase-in 

schedule. 

Vehicles certified to a Tier 3 bin, 

meeting the requirements of the PM 

phase-in schedule, and complying with 

the other Tier 3 requirements (i.e., 

150,000 mile useful life (as applicable) 

and Tier 3 certification fuel, as 

applicable) would be considered ‘‘Final 

Tier 3’’ compliant vehicles. All other 

vehicles certified to Tier 3 bins but not 

yet meeting the PM and other Tier 3 

requirements would be considered 

‘‘Interim Tier 3’’ compliant vehicles. At 

the completion of the percent phase-in 

period for PM (2021 for the basic PM 

phase-in schedule and 2022 for the 

alternative PM phase-in schedule, as 

described below), 100 percent of 

vehicles would need to meet the all Tier 

3 requirements and would be 

considered ‘‘Final Tier 3’’ vehicles. 

For the PM requirements, each year 

manufacturers would be required to 

meet either the basic PM percent phasein or alternative PM phase-in as 

described in the following subsections. 

The basic percent PM phase-in schedule 

is composed of fixed yearly minimum 

phase-in percentages that we expect that 

most manufacturers would meet to 

comply with the Tier 3 requirements. 

The alternative PM phase-in schedule 

provides additional flexibility for 

manufacturers with product offerings 

that may not provide sufficient vehicle 

model granularity to allow for a gradual 

transition into the Final Tier 3 

requirements as described below. In 

either case, Interim Tier 3 vehicles not 

yet meeting the Tier 3 PM standards 

must at a minimum meet the Tier 2 PM 

full useful life FTP standard of 10 mg/ 

mi and the SFTP weighted composite 

standard of 70 mg/mi. 

i. Basic PM Percent Phase-In Schedule 

It is important to note that the percent 

phase-in of the new Tier 3 standards 

that we are proposing and the declining 

fleet average standards to which a 

manufacturer’s fleet is held are separate 

and independent elements of the Tier 3 

program. ‘‘Phase-in’’ in this context 

means the fraction of a manufacturer’s 

fleet that would be required to meet the 

new Tier 3 PM standards in a given 

model year. We expect manufacturer 

fleets to consist of a mix of vehicles 

certified to Tier 2, LEV II, LEV III and 

Tier 3 standards throughout the percent 

phase-in period. 

As discussed above, vehicles 

originally certified to Tier 2, LEV II, and 

LEV III would be carried over into the 

Tier 3 program as Interim Tier 3 

vehicles. A vehicle would be considered 

a ‘‘Final Tier 3 vehicle’’ when it is 

certified to one of the Tier 3 bins; meets 

the Tier 3 PM standards; certifies to the 

150,000 useful life value (for LDT2s, 

LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs); and 

certifies on the new certification test 

fuel. Table IV–11 below presents the 

proposed PM phase-in schedule for 

Final Tier 3 vehicles. 

TABLE IV–11—PM PHASE-IN SCHEDULE FOR FINAL TIER 3 VEHICLES

Model year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later 

Manufacturer’s Fleet (%) ............. 20a ............................. 20 40 70 100 100 

Vehicle Types .............................. ≤ 6,000 lbs GVWR .... All vehicles ≤ 8,500 lbs GVWR and MDPVs 

a In 2017 model year, a manufacturer may optionally include vehicles up to 8,500 lbs GVWR and/or MDPVs in its phase-in calculation. 

ii. Optional PM Phase-In 

The proposed PM percent-of-sales 

phase-in schedule described above 

would allow manufacturers with 

multiple vehicle models to plan the 

phase-in of those models based on 

anticipated volumes of each vehicle 

model. However, manufacturers 

certifying only a few vehicle models 

might not benefit from this schedule. 

This is because, in order to satisfy the 

phase-in schedule percentages, they 

might have to over-comply with the 

required percentages earlier than would 

a manufacturer with many vehicle 

models available for the phase-in. 

For instance, a manufacturer with 

only two models that each equally 

accounted for 50 percent of their sales 

would be required to introduce (at least) 

one of the models in MY 2017 meet the 

PM phase-in requirement of 20 percent 

in the first year. Because it represented 

50 percent of the manufacturer’s sales, 

this model would then also meet the 

requirements for MY 2018 (20 percent) 

and MY 2019 (40 percent). To meet the 

MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of 

sales, however, the manufacturer would 

need to introduce the second Tier 3 

vehicle that year. Thus the manufacturer 

would have introduced 100 percent of 

its Tier 3 models one year earlier than 

would have been required of a 

manufacturer that was able to delay the 

final 30 percent of its fleet until MY 

2021 (by distributing its their models 

over the entire phase-in period). 

To provide for more equal application 

of this benefit among all manufacturers 

in the early years of the program, we are 

proposing an optional ‘‘indexed’’ PM 

phase-in schedule that could be used by 

a manufacturer to meet its PM percent 

phase-in requirements. A manufacturer 

that exceeded the phase-in requirements 

in any given year would be allowed to, 

in effect, offset some of the phase-in 

requirements in a later model year. The 

optional phase-in schedule would be 

acceptable if it passes a mathematical 

test. The mathematical test is designed 

to provide manufacturers a benefit from 

certifying to the standards at higher 

volumes than obligated to under the 

normal phase-in schedule, while 

ensuring that significant numbers of 

vehicles are meeting the new Tier 3 

requirements during each year of the 

optional phase-in schedule. In this 

approach, manufacturers would weight 

the earlier years by multiplying their 

percent phase-in by the number of years 

prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second year 

of the 100 percent phase-in 

requirement). 

The proposed mathematical equation 

for applying the optional PM phase-in is 

as follows: 

(5 × APP2017) + (4 × APP2018) + (3 × 

APP2019) + (2 × APP2020) + (1 × 

APP2021) ≥540, 

where APP is the anticipated phase-in 

percentage for the referenced model 

year. 

The sum of the calculation would 

need to be greater than or equal to 540, 

which is the result when the optional 

phase-in equation is applied to the 

primary percent phase-in schedule (i.e., 

5 × 20% + 4 × 20% + 3 × 40% + 2 × 

70% + 1 × 100% = 540). 

Applying the proposed optional PM 

phase-in equation to the hypothetical 

manufacturer in the example above, the 

manufacturer could postpone its model 

introductions by one year each, to MY 

2018 and MY 2021. Its calculation 

would be (5 × 0% + 4 × 50% + 3 × 50% 

+ 2 × 50% + 1 × 100% = 550, and thus 

the phase-in would be acceptable. 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposed PM phase-in schedules. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29872 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

h. In-Use Standards 

i. NMOG+NOX

The proposed Tier 3 emission 

standards would require a substantial 

migration of emission control 

technology historically used only on a 

small percent of the fleet and typically 

limited to smaller vehicles and engines. 

While we believe that these 

technologies can generally be used on 

any vehicle and are applicable to the 

entire fleet, manufacturers have less 

experience with the in-use performance 

of these technologies across the fleet. 

For example, technologies that 

accelerate catalyst warm-up such as 

catalyst location close to the engine 

exhaust ports and other advanced 

thermal management approaches would 

be new to certain vehicle types, 

particularly larger vehicles (i.e., LDT3/ 

4s), which have historically not relied 

on these technologies to meet emission 

standards. 

To help manufacturers address the 

lack of in-use experience and associated 

challenges with the expanded 

introduction of these technologies 

particularly in the larger vehicles, we 

are proposing temporarily-relaxed inuse NMOG+NOX standards that would 

apply to all vehicles certified to Bins 70 

and cleaner as Interim or Final Tier 3 

vehicles. The in-use standards would 

apply during the entire percent phasein period (i.e., through MY 2021). The 

proposed in-use standards would be 40 

percent less stringent than the 

certification standards, providing a 

significant but reasonable temporary 

cushion for the uncertainties associated 

with new technologies (or new 

applications of existing technologies) 

over the life of the vehicle. 

The proposed in-use NMOG+NOX

standards are shown in Table IV–12. 

TABLE IV–12—PROPOSED FTP IN-USE

STANDARDS FOR LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES AND MDPVS

[mg/mi] 

Bin NMOG+NOX

(mg/mi) 

Bin 160 ................................. 160 

Bin 125 ................................. 125 

Bin 70 ................................... 98 

Bin 50 ................................... 70 

Bin 30 ................................... 42 

Bin 20 ................................... 28 

ii. PM 

As with the proposed NMOG+NOX

standards, the introduction of new 

emission control technologies or new 

applications of existing technologies 

(e.g., GDI, turbocharging, downsized 

engines) would create significant 

uncertainties for manufacturers about 

in-use performance over the vehicle’s 

useful life. We are proposing a 

temporary in-use FTP standard for PM 

of 6 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles 

and MDPVs certified to the Tier 3 full 

useful life 3 mg/mi standard. Since the 

Tier 3 PM standard has a percent phasein schedule spread over several years, 

starting in 2017 with full phase-in 

completed in 2022, we are proposing 

that the in-use standard apply to all 

vehicles certified to the new PM 

standards during the entire percent 

phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021). 

We are also proposing temporarilyrelaxed in-use US06 PM standards. We 

propose in-use standards 5 mg/mi less 

stringent than the certification 

standards, or 15 mg/mi for all light duty 

vehicles up to and including 6,000 lbs 

GVWR and 25 mg/mi for all light duty 

vehicles and light-duty trucks over 

6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. Consistent 

with the FTP in-use standards, these inuse standards would apply to all 

vehicles certified to the new PM 

standards during the entire percent 

phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021). 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposed in-use standards. 

i. FFVs 

Because of the physical and chemical 

differences in how emissions are 

generated and controlled between 

vehicles operating on gasoline and 

ethanol, manufacturers of vehicles 

designed for high-percentage blends of 

ethanol (usually called Flexible Fuel 

Vehicles, or FFVs) may face unique 

compliance challenges under the 

proposed Tier 3 program. Historically, 

under the Tier 2 program, FFVs have 

only been required to meet all Tier 2 

emission standards while operating on 

gasoline; when operating on the 

alternative fuel (generally this means a 

blend that is nominally 85 percent 

ethanol, or E85), they have only been 

required to meet the FTP emission 

standards. 

However, E85 use may rise 

considerably in the future as ethanol use 

increases in response to the Renewable 

Fuels Standards (RFS). Thus, it is 

increasingly important that FFVs 

maintain their emission performance 

when operating on E85 across different 

operating conditions. 

We believe that at standard test 

conditions, requiring manufacturers to 

meet the Tier 3 standards on any blend 

of gasoline and ethanol would not add 

technological feasibility concerns 

beyond compliance on gasoline alone 

(or low-level blends like E10 or E15). 

We are thus proposing that in addition 

to complying with the Tier 3 

requirements when operating on 

gasoline, FFVs also comply with both 

the FTP and the SFTP emission 

standards when operating on E85. This 

would include the requirement to meet 

emission standards for both gasoline 

and E85 for the FTP, highway test, and 

SFTP emission standards at standard 

test temperatures (i.e., 68 °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 emission 

compliance demonstration purposes, we 

will continue to test on gasoline and the 

highest available level ethanol. 

EPA welcomes comment on this 

proposed approach to FFV compliance. 

j. Credit for Direct Ozone Reduction 

(DOR) Technology 

Since the late 1990s, technologies 

have been commercialized with which 

vehicles can remove ozone from the air 

that flows over the vehicle’s coolant 

radiator. In such direct ozone reduction 

(DOR) technology, a catalytic coating on 

the radiator is designed to convert 

ambient ozone into gaseous oxygen, 

addressing the air quality concerns 

about ozone. Detailed technical analyses 

for the California LEV II and the federal 

Tier 2 programs showed that when 

properly designed these systems can 

remove sufficient ozone from the air to 

be equivalent to a quantifiable reduction 

in tailpipe NMOG emissions. In the 

earlier programs, both California and 

EPA provided methodologies through 

which a manufacturer could 

demonstrate the capability and 

effectiveness of the ozone-reducing 

technology and be granted an NMOG 

credit. A small number of vehicle 

models with DOR applications received 

credit under the LEV II program; no 

manufacturer formally applied for 

credits under the federal Tier 2 program. 

Some manufacturers have expressed 

an interest in the continued availability 

of a DOR credit as a part of their 

potential LEV III and Tier 3 compliance 

strategies. EPA believes that when a 

DOR system is shown to be effective in 

reducing ozone, a credit toward Tier 3 

compliance is warranted. We propose 

that manufacturers following the 

California methodology for 

demonstrating effectiveness and 

calculating a appropriate credit for a 

DOR system be granted a specific credit 

toward the NMOG portion of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29873 

265EPA is incorporating the CARB DOR 

methodology by reference. 266Manufacturers choosing to comply with the 

standards for a 120,000 mile useful life for their 

LDVs and LDT1s would not be eligible for this 

extended warranty credit for those vehicles. 267Beardsley, M, et al. (2013, February). Updates 

to MOVES for the Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandum to 

the docket. 

268EPA is incorporating the CARB extended 

emission warranty provisions by reference. 

269 If EPA ultimately decided to continue the 

disaggregated approach to fleet compliance 

calculations, we could potentially base compliance 

with the proposed Tier 3 emission requirements on 

U.S. sales (i.e., sales in non-California and nonSection 177 states). 

NMOG+NOX standard.265 As with the 

California program, such a credit could 

not exceed 5 mg/mi NMOG. We invite 

comment on the appropriateness of this 

proposed DOR credit approach, 

including the application of the 

California methodology to the federal 

Tier 3 program. 

k. Credit for Adopting a 150,000-Mile 

Emissions Warranty 

Under the Tier 3 standards proposed 

above manufacturers would be expected 

to design their emission control systems 

to continue to operate effectively for a 

useful life of 150,000 miles (120,000 

miles for some smaller vehicles). 

However, as with the current Tier 2 

program, manufacturers are only 

required to replace failed emission 

control components or systems on 

customers’ vehicles for a limited time 

period, specified in the Clean Air Act 

(80,000 miles/8 years for key emission 

control components). EPA believes that 

voluntary extension of this warranty 

obligation by manufacturers would 

provide additional emission reductions 

by helping ensure that controls continue 

to operate effectively in actual operation 

through the full life of the vehicle. 

We propose that a manufacturer 

providing its customers with a robust 

emission control system warranty of 15 

years or 150,000 miles be eligible for a 

modest credit of 5 mg/mi 

NMOG+NOX.266 Because of the 

significant liability that manufacturers 

would be accepting, we do not expect 

that the use of this credit opportunity 

would be widespread. However, based 

on our modeling of the expected 

deterioration of the emissions of future 

Tier 3 vehicles absent repair/ 

replacement of failed emission controls, 

we anticipate that the value to the 

environment of long emissions 

warranties in terms of reduced realworld emissions would significantly 

exceed the 5 mg/mi NMOG+NOX

credit.267

We propose to use the same criteria 

for approving such a credit as does the 

parallel California program.268 Thus, in 

addition to committing to customers 

that failing emission controls would be 

repaired or replaced for 15 years/ 

150,000 miles, manufacturers would 

also need to accept the liability that in 

the event that a specific emissions 

control device failed on greater than 4 

percent of a vehicle model’s production, 

they would recall the entire production 

of that model for repair. EPA requests 

comment on this optional credit 

opportunity. 

l. Averaging, Banking, and Trading of 

Credits 

An averaging, banking, and trading 

(ABT) program was established in the 

Tier 2 program to provide for credits to 

be generated by certifying vehicles that 

perform better than the standards, for 

those credits to be used to offset 

vehicles that perform worse than the 

standards, and for credits to be banked 

for later use or traded to other 

manufacturers. The ABT program is 

largely unchanged by this Tier 3 

proposal. In some cases, especially 

during the transitional years, there 

would be specific restrictions on the 

generation of credits, as described 

above. Also, we are proposing that Tier 

3 credits expire after 5 years, consistent 

with the LEV II and LEV III programs 

and similar to the basic credit carryforward provisions in the recent lightduty and heavy-duty greenhouse gas 

rules. We invite comment on the ABT 

program in general, and specific 

comment on a longer Tier 3 credit life, 

including any flexibilities that this may 

provide and any implications for record 

retention requirements by 

manufacturers. 

m. Tier 3 Transitional Emissions Bins 

In discussions with manufacturers, 

EPA has become aware that some 

vehicles may continue to be produced 

as late as MY 2019 that could be 

certified to Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4 

standards. In order to provide 

manufacturers flexibility in meeting the 

fleet average standards and thus to 

further facilitate the transition from Tier 

2 to Tier 3, we will allow manufacturers 

to certify to the combined NMOG+NOX

levels of these bins through MY 2019. 

Two proposed transitional Tier 3 bins, 

Bin 110 and Bin 85, would have 

NMOG+NOX standards on the FTP of 

110 mg/mi and 85 mg/mi, respectively 

(i.e., the sum of the NMOG and NOX

values from the Tier 2 bins); the 

associated FTP standards for CO, PM, 

and HCHO corresponding to these bins 

would be identical to those for vehicles 

certified to the proposed Tier 3 Bin 125. 

Tier 3 SFTP standards would apply to 

these vehicles, and these vehicles would 

be included in the Tier 3 p.m. percent 

phase-in calculations. 

n. Compliance Demonstration 

In general, we are proposing that 

manufacturers demonstrate compliance 

with the proposed Tier 3 light-duty 

vehicle emission standards in a very 

similar manner to current Tier 2 vehicle 

compliance (see § 86.1860 of the 

proposed regulatory language). 

However, we propose for Tier 3 that 

manufacturers calculate their 

compliance with the fleet average 

standards and percent phase-in 

standards based on annual nationwide 

sales, including sales in California and 

Clean Air Act Section 177 states. We 

believe that this approach represents 

another step toward achieving the goal 

of an effectively nationwide program as 

early as possible, which has been a basic 

principle in EPA’s development of this 

proposed program and broadly 

supported by vehicle manufacturers. We 

also believe that basing compliance on 

nationwide sales may reduce the need 

for manufacturers to project future sales 

and track past years’ sales in a 

disaggregated way. Because the 

proposed Tier 3 provisions will become 

increasingly consistent with LEV III 

provisions as the Tier 3 program phases 

in, we believe that any disproportionate 

impacts of different mixes of vehicles in 

different states are unlikely to occur. We 

seek comment on this approach to 

compliance demonstration. 

This proposed nationwide 

compliance calculation approach would 

apply to vehicles as they become subject 

to the Tier 3 provisions, either the 

declining fleet-average NMOG+NOX

curves or the percent phase-in PM 

standards. Were any manufacturer to 

choose to use the alternative FTP and 

SFTP phase-ins, which are not a part of 

the LEV III program, the manufacturer 

would not include sales in California or 

in the Section 177 states in its 

compliance calculations.269

B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

1. Overview 

We are proposing Tier 3 exhaust 

emissions standards for heavy-duty 

vehicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and 

14,000 lbs GVWR that are certified to 

gram per mile standards on a chassis 

dynamometer. Vehicles in this GVWR 

range are often referred to as Class 2b 

(8,501–10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001– 

14,000 lbs) vehicles, and are typically 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29874 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

270 40 CFR 86.1803–01 defines HDVs to also 

include motor vehicles at or below 8,500 lbs GVWR 

that have a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 

lbs or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 

square feet, and we are proposing that these 

vehicles also would be subject to the standards and 

other provisions applicable to Class 2b vehicles 

discussed in this section. 

full-size pickup trucks and work vans 

certified as complete vehicles.270 Most 

are built by companies with even larger 

light-duty truck markets, and as such 

they frequently share major design 

characteristics and potential emissions 

control technologies with their LDT 

counterparts. However, in contrast to 

the largely gasoline-fueled LDT fleet, 

roughly half of the HD pickup and van 

fleet in the U.S. is diesel-fueled, which 

is a consideration in setting emissions 

standards, as diesel engine emissions 

and control strategies differ from those 

of gasoline engines. 

Manufacturers of diesel-fueled 

complete HDVs have the option under 

existing EPA regulations to satisfy EPA 

criteria emissions requirements for these 

vehicles by using engines certified 

through engine dynamometer testing, 

but for the most part have chosen to 

certify whole vehicles on the chassis 

test. We are proposing to codify this 

common practice and require that 

diesel-fueled Class 2b and 3 complete 

Tier 3 vehicles, like their gasolinefueled counterparts, be certified to the 

Tier 3 standards on the chassis test. The 

current prohibition in 40 CFR 86.1863– 

07(d) on averaging, banking, and trading 

(ABT) credit generation and use by 

chassis-certified diesel HDVs would be 

replaced by the proposed fleetwide 

averaging program. We are not 

proposing changes to the heavy-duty 

engine certification requirements at this 

time. 

Manufacturers of incomplete HDVs 

that are sold to secondary manufacturers 

for subsequent completion (less than 10 

percent of the Class 2b and 3 U.S. 

market) are also allowed under existing 

EPA regulations to certify via either the 

chassis or engine test, and those who 

choose to chassis-certify in the future 

would be subject to Tier 3 requirements. 

We are not proposing to mandate 

chassis certification of incomplete Class 

2b and 3 vehicles, but we note that 

California’s LEV III program does 

include such a requirement for Class 2b 

and we request comment on doing the 

same in the federal program. We further 

note that MDPVs are classified as HDVs 

under the Clean Air Act but, as in our 

current Tier 2 program, would be 

covered as part of our Tier 3 light-duty 

program discussed in Section IV.A, and 

not in the proposed program described 

here. 

The key elements of the proposed Tier 

3 program for HDVs parallel those 

proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, 

with adjustments in standards levels, 

emissions test requirements, and 

implementation schedules, appropriate 

to this sector. These key elements 

include a combined NMOG+NOX

declining fleet average standard 

beginning in 2018 and reaching the 

final, fully phased-in level in 2022, 

creation of a bin structure for standards, 

new stringent PM standards phasing in 

on a separate schedule, changes to the 

test fuel for gasoline- and ethanol-fueled 

vehicles, extension of the regulatory 

useful life to 150,000 miles, and a new 

requirement to meet standards over the 

SFTP that would address real-world 

driving modes not well-represented by 

the FTP cycle alone. We believe that 

other requirements already in place for 

HDV testing and compliance remain 

appropriate. In particular, we believe 

the current HDV certification 

requirement to test at the adjusted 

loaded vehicle weight (ALVW), equal to 

vehicle curb weight plus one-half the 

payload weight, is more appropriate for 

these heavy-duty work trucks and vans 

than the LDT requirement to test at curb 

weight plus 300 lbs. These differences 

from light-duty requirements also factor 

into the evaluation of potential control 

technologies and subsequent choice of 

standards levels, as discussed below. 

As with the proposed light-duty Tier 

3 program, we are putting strong 

emphasis on coordinating this HDV Tier 

3 proposal with California’s LEV III 

program for Class 2b and 3 vehicles, 

referred to in LEV III as medium-duty 

vehicles (MDVs). The goal is to create a 

coordinated ‘‘national program’’ in 

which California would accept 

compliance with Tier 3 standards as 

sufficient to also satisfy LEV III 

requirements, thus allowing 

manufacturers to comply nationwide by 

marketing a single vehicle fleet. With 

this goal in mind, we discuss the 

relationship of the proposed HDV Tier 

3 program provisions to LEV III 

throughout this section. As part of this 

effort, we are proposing that 

manufacturers of Tier 3 HDVs calculate 

compliance with the fleet average 

standards and percent phase-in 

standards discussed in this section 

based on annual nationwide sales, 

including sales in California and Clean 

Air Act Section 177 states. This would 

help to create an effectively nationwide 

program, which has been a basic 

principle in EPA’s development of this 

proposed program and broadly 

supported by vehicle manufacturers. If 

this proposed approach to HDV fleet 

compliance calculations is not adopted, 

EPA could base compliance with the 

proposed Tier 3 requirements on U.S. 

sales outside of California and the 

Section 177 states. 

Furthermore, in 2011 EPA and 

NHTSA set first-ever standards for 

GHGs and fuel consumption from HD 

pickups and vans (as well as other 

heavy-duty vehicles and engines). These 

standards phase in over 2014–2018, so 

in developing the Tier 3 HDV proposal 

we have carefully taken this new 

program into account to maximize the 

coordination between the two 

complementary heavy-duty regulatory 

programs and avoid inconsistencies. 

2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards 

a. Bin Standards 

We are proposing that manufacturers 

certify HDVs to Tier 3 requirements by 

having them meet the standards for one 

of the bins listed in Table IV–13. 

Manufacturers would choose bins for 

their vehicles based on their product 

plans and corporate strategy for 

compliance with the fleet average 

standards discussed in Section IV.A.2.b, 

and once a vehicle’s bin is designated, 

those bin standards apply throughout its 

useful life. Because the fleet average 

standards become more stringent over 

time, the bin mix would gradually shift 

from higher to lower bins. As in the 

past, we are proposing numerically 

higher standards levels for Class 3 

vehicles than for Class 2b vehicles, 

reflective of the added challenge in 

reducing per-mile emissions from large 

work trucks designed to carry and tow 

heavier loads. Also, the proposed 

standards levels for both Class 2b and 

Class 3 HDVs are significantly higher 

than those being proposed for light-duty 

trucks due to marked differences in 

vehicle size and capability, and to our 

requirement to test HDVs in a loaded 

condition (at ALVW). By conducting 

emissions testing with loaded vehicles, 

the heavy-duty program ensures that 

emissions controls are effective when 

these vehicles are performing their core 

function: hauling heavy loads. This is a 

key difference between the heavy-duty 

and light-duty truck programs. The 

proposed bin structure and standards 

levels are consistent with those in the 

LEV III program. We request comment 

on the usefulness of creating additional 

bins between Bin 0 and the next lowest 

bin in each vehicle class, as a means of 

encouraging clean technologies and 

adding flexibility. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29875 

TABLE IV–13—PROPOSED FTP STANDARDS FOR HDVS

NMOG+NOX

(mg/mi) 

NMOG 

(mg/mi) 

NOX

(mg/mi) 

PM 

(mg/mi) 

CO 

(g/mi) 

Formaldehyde 

(mg/mi) 

Class 2b (8,501–10,000 lbs GVWR) 

Bin 395 (interim) .................................... ........................ 195 200 8 6 .4 6 

Bin 340 (interim) .................................... ........................ 140 200 8 6 .4 6 

Bin 250 ................................................... 250 ........................ ........................ 8 6 .4 6 

Bin 200 ................................................... 200 ........................ ........................ 8 4 .2 6 

Bin 170 ................................................... 170 ........................ ........................ 8 4 .2 6 

Bin 150 ................................................... 150 ........................ ........................ 8 3 .2 6 

Bin 0 ....................................................... 0 ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

Class 3 (10,001–14,000 lbs GVWR) 

Bin 630 (interim) .................................... ........................ 230 400 10 7 .3 6 

Bin 570 (interim) .................................... ........................ 170 400 10 7 .3 6 

Bin 400 ................................................... 400 ........................ ........................ 10 7 .3 6 

Bin 270 ................................................... 270 ........................ ........................ 10 4 .2 6 

Bin 230 ................................................... 230 ........................ ........................ 10 4 .2 6 

Bin 200 ................................................... 200 ........................ ........................ 10 3 .7 6 

Bin 0 ....................................................... 0 ........................ ........................ 0 0 0 

The proposed NMOG and NOX

standards for the highest bins in each 

class (Class 2b Bin 395 and Class 3 Bin 

630) are equal to the current nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOX

standards that took full effect in 2009, 

as well as to equivalent LEV standards 

in California’s LEV II program. These 

bins are intended as carryover bins. 

That is, we would expect them to be 

populated with vehicles that are 

designed to meet the current standards, 

and that are being phased out as new 

lower-emitting vehicle designs phase in 

to satisfy the proposed Tier 3 fleet 

average NMOG+NOX standard. We also 

consider the next highest bins (Class 2b 

Bin 340 and Class 3 Bin 570) to be 

carryover bins, because they likewise 

can be readily achieved by vehicles 

designed for today’s EPA and California 

LEV II emissions programs. As the 

2018–2022 phase-in progresses, it 

would become increasingly difficult to 

produce vehicles in these bins and still 

meet the fleet average standard. 

Therefore vehicles in these bins (as well 

as some others not yet designed to meet 

Tier 3 PM standards described in 

Section IV.B.2.d) would be considered 

‘‘interim Tier 3’’ vehicles, and the bins 

themselves would be considered 

‘‘interim bins.’’ 

To facilitate their use in this carryover 

function, we are proposing that the 

interim bins not include SFTP 

requirements, longer useful life 

requirements, or requirements to 

conduct exhaust emissions testing with 

the proposed new gasoline test fuel 

discussed in Section IV.D, although 

testing on this fuel would be allowed. 

For gasoline-fueled HDVs in all other 

bins, we are proposing that exhaust 

emissions testing be conducted with the 

new test fuel. (See Section IV.D.5 for 

discussion of our request for comment 

on extending this requirement to testing 

of gasoline-fueled heavy-duty engines as 

well.) In the context of these proposed 

accommodations for the interim bins, 

we propose two additional measures to 

help ensure these bins are focused on 

their function of helping manufacturers 

transition to Final Tier 3 vehicles. First, 

we propose that the interim bins be 

available only in the phase-in years of 

the program, that is, through MY 2021, 

as is appropriate to their interim status. 

Second, we are proposing that 

vehicles in the interim bins meet 

separate NMOG and NOX standards, as 

indicated in Table IV–13, rather than 

combined NMOG+NOX standards. This 

proposed provision is intended to keep 

a manufacturer from redesigning or 

recalibrating a vehicle design under 

combined NMOG+NOX Tier 3 standards 

for such purposes as reducing fuel 

consumption, through means that result 

in higher NOX or NMOG emissions than 

exhibited by today’s vehicles, contrary 

to the intended carryover function of the 

interim bins. We note that other, more 

stringent, proposed bins also carry this 

potential but to a lesser degree, and we 

feel their relatively low NMOG+NOX

standards levels sufficiently mitigate 

this concern, whereas the interim bins 

have the potential to allow a doubling 

of emissions or more. We request 

comment on this issue and the proposed 

approach to addressing it. 

b. Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards 

As in the light-duty program, a key 

element of the Tier 3 program is a fleet 

average NMOG+NOX standard that 

becomes more stringent in successive 

model years: In the case of HDVs, from 

2018 to 2022. Each HDV sold by a 

manufacturer in each model year 

contributes to this fleet average based on 

the mg/mi NMOG+NOX level of the bin 

declared for it by the manufacturer. For 

the interim bins, with separate NMOG 

and NOX standards, the NMOG+NOX

level is the simple sum of the NMOG 

and NOX standards. Manufacturers may 

also earn or use credits for fleet average 

NMOG+NOX levels below or above the 

standard in any model year, as 

described in Section IV.B.4. We are 

proposing the separate Class 2b and 

Class 3 fleet average standards shown in 

Table IV–14, though a manufacturer 

could effectively average the two fleet 

classes using credits (see Section 

IV.B.4). We believe this split-curve 

approach is superior to a single HDV 

phase-in because it recognizes the 

different Class 2b/Class 3 fleet mixes 

among manufacturers and the different 

challenges in meeting mg/mi standards 

between Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles, 

while still allowing for a corporate 

compliance strategy based on a 

combined HDV fleet through the use of 

credits. 

The proposed fleet average standards 

are consistent with those set for the 

MDV LEV III program in model years 

2018 and later. Note that the LEV III 

program also sets standards for model 

years before 2018, something EPA is not 

requiring due to lead time 

considerations. However, we are 

proposing that manufacturers may 

voluntarily meet bin and fleet average 

standards in model years 2016 and 2017 

that are consistent with the MDV LEV 

III standards, for the purpose of 

generating credits that can be used later 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

271For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, CAA 

section 202(a)(3)(C) requires EPA to provide 

manufacturers with a minimum of 4 years of lead 

time before mandatory changes to any standard 

applicable to HC, NOX, CO or PM can be 

implemented, and 3 years of stability between 

changes to any such standard. 

or traded to others. These proposed 

voluntary standards are shown in Table 

IV–14. This proposed voluntary opt-in 

program serves the important purpose of 

furthering consistency between the 

federal and California programs, such 

that manufacturers who wish to can 

produce a single vehicle fleet for sale 

nationwide, with the opportunity for 

reciprocal certification in affected 

model years. It further incentivizes 

pulling ahead of Tier 3 technologies, 

with resulting environmental benefits, 

by providing for early compliance 

credits in this nationwide fleet. 

Manufacturers choosing to opt into 

this early compliance program could 

start in either model year 2016 or 2017. 

They would have to meet the full 

complement of applicable bin standards 

and requirements, including SFTP 

standards, but not the Tier 3 PM FTP 

and SFTP standards discussed in 

Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.B.3.a, or the 

evaporative emissions standards 

discussed in Section IV.C, because these 

requirements phase in on a later 

schedule. We are also requesting 

comment on extending the voluntary 

compliance opportunity to the 2015 

model year. 

TABLE IV–14—PROPOSED HDV FLEET AVERAGE NMOG+NOX STANDARDS

[mg/mi] 

Voluntary Required program 

Model Year ................ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later. 

Class 2b .................... 333 310 278 253 228 203 178. 

Class 3 ...................... 548 508 451 400 349 298 247. 

We believe that offering this voluntary 

opt-in would benefit the environment, 

the regulated industry, and vehicle 

purchasers, because it has potential to 

accomplish early emissions reductions 

while maintaining the goal of a costeffective, nationwide vehicle program in 

every model year going forward. We 

request comment on all facets of this 

proposed approach. 

Although manufacturers would be 

allowed to meet the fleet average 

NMOG+NOX standard through whatever 

combination of bin-specific vehicles 

they choose, it is instructive to note that 

the fully phased in fleet average 

standard for model years 2022 and later 

would be the equivalent of a Class 2b 

fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 170 and 10 

percent Bin 250 vehicles, and a Class 3 

fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 230 and 10 

percent Bin 400 vehicles. Therefore, it is 

appropriate to consider Bin 170 Class 2b 

vehicles and Bin 230 Class 3 vehicles to 

be representative of Tier 3-compliant 

HDVs in the long term. 

The Tier 3 program we are proposing 

for HDVs would result in substantial 

reductions in harmful emissions from 

this large fleet of work trucks and vans, 

vehicles that are typically driven over 

high annual miles on every part of the 

nation’s highway and urban roadway 

system. The Final Tier 3 standards 

levels for NMOG+NOX and PM are on 

the order of 60 percent lower than the 

current stringent standards that took full 

effect three years ago. 

c. Alternative NMOG+NOX Phase-In 

We believe that the program described 

in Sections IV.B.2.a and b above would 

provide manufacturers with a flexible 

and effective compliance path. 

However, as in the case of the light-duty 

standards discussed above, we are 

proposing to provide an alternative 

compliance path that would be available 

to any manufacturer who prefers a 

stable standard and four full years of 

lead time, as specified in the Clean Air 

Act.271 This alternative approach would 

be equivalent to the primary approach 

that is based on NMOG+NOX declining 

fleet average standards and would apply 

during the program phase-in over the 

2016–2022 model years, with the first 

three of those model year standards 

made voluntary and set at levels to align 

with the California LEVIII program. We 

are proposing an alternative phase-in 

structured to require an annually 

increasing percent-of-sales of HDVs 

certified to the fully phased in 178 mg/ 

mi (Class 2b) and 247 mg/mi (Class 3) 

standards, as shown in Table IV–15. 

TABLE IV–15—PROPOSED PERCENT-OF-SALES ALTERNATIVE NMOG+NOX PHASE-IN

Voluntary Required program 

Model Year ................ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later. 

Class 2b .................... 29% 39% 54% 65% 77% 88% 100%. 

Class 3 ...................... 21% 32% 47% 60% 73% 87% 100%. 

Under our alternative phase-in 

proposal, the availability of emissions 

averaging makes the two alternatives 

functionally equivalent, not just in the 

annual emissions reductions they 

achieve, but also in how manufacturers 

may design their mix of products to 

meet the phase-in standards. Although 

we are proposing to make the alternative 

approach available, we believe that the 

primary approach—the declining fleet 

average standard discussed above—is 

more consistent with the approach 

taken in California’s LEV III program 

and in recent GHG reduction rules. 

To help ensure that the percent-ofsales alternative is fully equivalent to 

the primary program in terms of fleetwide emissions control and technology 

mix choices, we are proposing that it 

include some additional provisions. 

First, we are proposing that the Tier 3 

vehicles being phased in under the 

percent-of-sales alternative, in addition 

to meeting the fully phased-in 

NMOG+NOX FTP standards, must also 

meet all other FTP and (as described 

below) SFTP standards required by the 

primary compliance program. These 

include the CO and formaldehyde FTP 

standards in Table IV–13, the 150,000 

mile (15 year) useful life requirement, 

exhaust emissions testing with the new 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29877 

test fuel for gasoline- and ethanol-fueled 

vehicles discussed in Section IV.D, and 

the NMOG+NOX and CO SFTP 

standards in Table IV–16. The specific 

proposed standards are those for the 

bins in these tables closest to the fully 

phased-in NMOG+NOX standards: Bin 

170 for Class 2b and Bin 230 for Class 

3. (The PM and evaporative emissions 

standards phase in on separate 

schedules under both alternatives, as 

discussed in Sections IV.B.2.d and 

IV.C.) 

Second, we are proposing to make an 

ABT program available for the percentof-sales alternative, structured like the 

one proposed for the primary option. 

This would involve certifying the 

vehicles in a manufacturer’s HDV fleet 

to the bin standards in Table IV–13, and 

demonstrating compliance with the fleet 

average standards for the primary 

program in each model year, including 

through the use of ABT credits as in the 

primary program. We are proposing to 

use the fleet average calculation method 

for purposes of ABT because, as 

explained above, we have determined 

that making this demonstration is 

equivalent to demonstrating compliance 

with the percent-of-sales requirement, 

and we see no value in complicating the 

program with another set of 

calculations. 

However, we are proposing one 

difference between the primary and 

alternative options with respect to ABT 

provisions. Unlike in the primary 

option, manufacturers would not have 

to certify all vehicles into bins in order 

to take advantage of the ABT provisions 

under the percent-of-sales alternative. 

Rather they could choose to certify any 

‘‘phase-out’’ vehicles (that is, those not 

counting toward the percent-of-sales 

phase-in) to the pre-Tier 3 NMHC and 

NOX standards, provided these vehicles 

do not have family emission limits 

(FELs) above those standards. These 

non-Tier 3 vehicles would not be 

subject to the Tier 3 standards or other 

vehicle-specific elements of the Tier 3 

compliance program. For the purposes 

of the fleet average ABT calculation, the 

NMOG+NOX levels for these non-Tier 3 

vehicles would be set equal to the sum 

of the NMOG and NOX standards for the 

highest bins: 395 mg/mi for Class 2b and 

630 mg/mi for Class 3, because these 

standards are numerically equal to the 

pre-Tier 3 NMHC and NOX standards. 

d. Phase-In of PM Standards 

Consistent with the light-duty Tier 3 

proposal discussed in Section IV.A, we 

are proposing to phase in the PM 

standards for HDVs as an increasing 

percentage of a manufacturer’s 

production of chassis-certified HDVs 

(combined Class 2b and 3) per year. The 

reasons discussed in Section IV.A for 

this phase-in schedule in the light-duty 

sector also apply to the heavy-duty 

sector. In addition to concerns regarding 

the availability and required upgrades of 

test facilities used for both light-duty 

and heavy-duty vehicle testing, 

manufacturers have expressed 

uncertainty about PM emissions with 

new engine and emissions control 

technologies entering the market as a 

result of new GHG standards. Therefore 

we are proposing the same phase-in 

schedule as proposed for the light-duty 

sector in model years 2018–2019–2020– 

2021: 20–40–70–100 percent, 

respectively. This would apply to HDVs 

certified under either NMOG+NOX

phase-in alternative. The California Air 

Resources Board is phasing in the LEV 

III PM standards for HDVs on the same 

schedule, except that LEVIII would also 

involve a 10 percent PM phase-in in the 

2017 model year, and we ask for 

comment on our doing so as well, in the 

context of the voluntary opt-in 

discussed in Section IV.B.2.b. The 

voluntary NMOG+ NOX and PM 

standards may be pursued separately, 

with no requirement that they be met on 

the same vehicles. 

For manufacturers choosing the 

declining fleet average NMOG+NOX

compliance path, the PM phase-in 

requirement for HDVs would be 

completely independent of the 

NMOG+NOX phase-in. As a result, 

vehicles certified to any of the bin 

standards for NMOG and NOX need not 

necessarily meet Tier 3 PM standards 

before the 2021 model year. Instead, the 

current 0.02 g/mi PM standard would 

apply for those vehicles not yet phased 

into the Tier 3 PM standards. We are 

proposing that manufacturers choosing 

the percent-of-sales phase-in alternative 

for NMOG+NOX would be required to 

meet the PM phase-in requirements 

with only those vehicles certified to the 

Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standard, except in 

the 2018 and earlier model years when 

the standards, including the PM 

standards, would be voluntary, and in 

the 2021 model year when the 100 

percent PM phase-in requirement 

exceeds the 87–88 percent NMOG+NOX

phase-in requirement. 

Consistent with the approach we are 

proposing for the light-duty sector, we 

would consider any vehicle under either 

compliance path that is not certified to 

Tier 3 standards for PM, NMOG, and 

NOX (as well as the other, concomitant 

Tier 3 standards and requirements such 

as extended useful life), an ‘‘Interim 

Tier 3’’ vehicle, a term that also applies 

to vehicles certified in one of the 

interim bins, as discussed above. 

Note that compliance with Tier 3 

evaporative emissions requirements 

would follow a separate phase-in 

schedule as described in Section IV.C, 

such that a vehicle in an exhaust 

emissions family that the manufacturer 

has phased into the new useful life and 

test fuel requirements, may be in an 

evaporative emissions family that has 

not yet phased these in for evaporative 

emissions testing. 

i. Optional PM Phase-In 

The proposed percent-of-sales phasein schedule for the PM standard, 

described above, would allow 

manufacturers with multiple vehicle 

models to determine and plan the 

phase-in of those models based on 

anticipated volumes of each vehicle 

model. However, manufacturers 

certifying only a few vehicle models 

may not be able to take advantage of this 

schedule. This is because, in order to 

satisfy the phase-in schedule 

percentages, they may have to overcomply with the required percentages 

earlier than would a manufacturer with 

many vehicle models available for the 

phase-in. 

For instance, a manufacturer with 

only two models that each equally 

accounted for 50 percent of its sales 

would be required to introduce (at least) 

one of the models in MY 2018 to meet 

the phase-in requirement of 20 percent 

in the first year. At the 50 percent level, 

this model would then also meet the 

requirements for MY 2019 (40 percent). 

To meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 

percent of sales, however, the 

manufacturer would need to introduce 

the second Tier 3 vehicle that year. 

Thus the manufacturer would have 

introduced 100 percent of its Tier 3 

models one year earlier compared to a 

manufacturer that was able to delay the 

final 30 percent of its fleet until MY 

2021 by distributing its redesigned 

models over the entire phase-in period. 

To provide for more equal application 

of this benefit among all manufacturers 

in the early years of the program, we are 

proposing an optional ‘‘indexed’’ phasein schedule that could be used by a 

manufacturer to meet its phase-in 

requirements. A manufacturer that 

exceeded the phase-in requirements in 

any given year would be allowed to, in 

effect, offset some of the phase-in 

requirements in a later model year. The 

optional phase-in schedule would be 

acceptable if it passes a mathematical 

test. The mathematical test is designed 

to provide manufacturers a benefit from 

certifying to the standards at higher 

volumes than obligated to under the 

normal phase-in schedule, while 

ensuring that significant numbers of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29878 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

272 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001). 

vehicles are meeting the new Tier 3 

requirements during each year of the 

optional phase-in schedule. In this 

approach, manufacturers would weight 

the earlier years by multiplying their 

percent phase-in by the number of years 

prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second year 

of the 100 percent phase-in 

requirement). 

The proposed mathematical equation 

for applying an optional phase-in is as 

follows: 

(4 × APP2018) + (3 × APP2019) + (2 × 

APP2020) + (1 × APP2021) ≥ 440, 

where APP is the anticipated phase-in 

percentage for the referenced model 

year. The sum of the calculation would 

need to be greater than or equal to 440, 

which is the result when the optional 

phase-in equation is applied to the 

primary percent phase-in schedule (4 × 

20% + 3 × 40% + 2 × 70% + 1 × 100% 

= 440). EPA requests comment on this 

proposed optional phase-in mechanism. 

e. NMOG+NOX and NMOG vs. NMHC 

The reasons for setting combined 

NMOG+NOX standards outlined in 

Section IV.A.1.a for the light-duty sector 

apply to HDVs certified in the noninterim Tier 3 bins as well. In fact, the 

combined standard is especially 

appropriate in the heavy-duty sector 

with comparable sales of diesel and 

gasoline-fueled vehicles, because it 

avoids the need to set ‘‘lowest common 

denominator’’ standards for NMOG 

(likely based on feasible gasoline 

vehicle technologies) and NOX (likely 

based on feasible diesel vehicle 

technologies). These considerations also 

apply to the form of the SFTP standards, 

discussed below. 

The current HDV standards that 

control emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), adopted in a 2001 

final rule,272 are in the form of NMHC. 

This is consistent with HD engine 

standards adopted in the same final 

rule, but contrasts with Tier 2 LDV/LDT 

standards to control VOCs that are in 

the form of NMOG. We believe it is 

appropriate to transition HDVs to 

NMOG-based standards, and further to 

combined NMOG+NOX standards, 

consistent with the light-duty Tier 3 

proposal and light- and medium-duty 

LEV III program. Further, the 

introduction of oxygenated test fuels 

requires an NMOG calculation to 

properly control VOC emissions not 

properly accounted for in an NMHC 

calculation. This would improve 

consistency with the LEV III program 

and help to facilitate a single 

nationwide vehicle fleet. We do not 

believe that this change would add 

significant cost to the program as 

manufacturers are already capable of 

and experienced in making NMOG 

determinations at their test facilities. 

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 

real-world driving, could create a 

substantial inadequacy in the Tier 3 

program, which aims to achieve very 

low overall emissions in use. The SFTP 

provisions would also help make the 

HDV program more consistent with the 

HD engine program, which for several 

years has included ‘‘not-to-exceed’’ 

provisions to control off-cycle 

emissions. Therefore, in addition to the 

SFTP provisions, we are further limiting 

enrichment on spark ignition engines in 

all areas of operation unless absolutely 

necessary. 

a. SFTP NMOG+NOX, PM and CO 

Standards 

The proposed SFTP standards levels 

are provided in Table IV–16. These are 

consistent with those in the LEV III 

program. 

TABLE IV–16—PROPOSED SFTP STANDARDS FOR HDVS

Vehicles in FTP bins NMOG+NOX

(mg/mi) 

PM 

(mg/mi) 

CO 

(g/mi) 

Class 2b with horsepower (hp)/GVWR ≤ 0.024 hp/lb a

FTP Bins 200, 250, 340 .................................................................................................. 550 7 22.0 

FTP Bins 150, 170 ........................................................................................................... 350 7 12.0 

Class 2b 

FTP Bins 200, 250, 340 .................................................................................................. 800 10 22.0 

FTP Bins 150, 170 ........................................................................................................... 450 10 12.0 

Class 3 

FTP Bins 270, 400, 570 .................................................................................................. 550 7 6.0 

FTP Bins 200, 230 ........................................................................................................... 350 7 4.0 

aThese standards apply for vehicles optionally tested using emissions from only the highway portion of the US06 cycle. 

We are proposing that Tier 3 SFTP 

implementation for HDVs be linked 

directly to the Tier 3 FTP phase-in and 

bins for these vehicles. That is, an HDV 

certified to any of the Tier 3 FTP bin 

standards must meet the SFTP 

standards for that bin as well. However, 

because the FTP PM standard would 

phase in on a separate schedule, we 

propose to require that SFTP PM 

compliance be linked to the same 

schedule. That is, an HDV certified to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29879 

273Letter from Robert H. Cross, California Air 

Resources Board, to Dawn Friest, EMA, dated 

March 2, 2011. 

the Tier 3 FTP PM standard must meet 

the applicable SFTP PM standard as 

well. This approach recognizes the 

complementary nature of FTP and SFTP 

provisions and helps to ensure that Tier 

3 emissions controls are robust in real 

world driving. There are no proposed 

SFTP requirements for the interim Tier 

3 bins in each class (Class 2b Bins 340 

and 395 and Class 3 Bins 570 and 630), 

because these are essentially carry-over 

bins from the previous standards to aid 

the transition to Tier 3, and therefore are 

not intended to prompt vehicle 

redesigns to new standards. These 

implementation provisions are 

consistent with the approach taken in 

the LEV III program, except that 

California would allow FTP and SFTP 

phase-in requirements to be met on 

different vehicles, and would apply 

more of the Tier 3 requirements for 

SFTP and extended useful life to 

vehicles in the interim bins. We request 

comment on the proposed standards, 

and on whether or not EPA should 

adopt any LEV III provisions that differ 

from what we are proposing, such as the 

application of PM SFTP standards to 

vehicles that are in the interim bins and 

that also are certified to the Tier 3 p.m. 

FTP standards. 

To help ensure a robust SFTP 

program that achieves good control over 

a wide range of real world conditions, 

the current Tier 2 light-duty program 

adopted a weighted-composite cycle, 

and we are proposing to retain this 

approach for light-duty Tier 3 testing, as 

discussed in Section IV.A.1.c. Under 

this composite cycle, NMOG+NOX

emissions are calculated from results of 

testing over three cycles: the US06, the 

FTP, and the SC03, weighting these 

results by 0.28, 0.35, and 0.37, 

respectively. We considered applying 

the same composite cycle for all HDV 

SFTP testing. However, based on data 

provided by industry stakeholders, we 

decided that the full US06 cycle, 

combined with the ALVW loaded test 

condition, would not be sufficiently 

representative of real-world driving for 

two groups of HDVs: those with low 

power-to-weight ratios and Class 3 

vehicles. 

As part of their investigation of 

potential LEV III SFTP standards for 

MDVs, California Air Resources Board 

staff determined that it is not 

uncommon for vehicles above 8,500 lbs 

GVWR with low power-to-weight ratio, 

which are largely in Class 2b, to have to 

work extremely hard to keep up with 

the accelerations required in the initial 

and final portions of the full US06 

cycle, even proving physically unable to 

do so in some cases, and raising the 

concern that these vehicles would not 

be able to run a valid emissions test.273

Although our SFTP provisions allow a 

test to continue when a vehicle is 

incapable of attaining the vehicle speed 

demanded by the drive trace, we believe 

routine occurrence of such an event for 

a group of vehicles would not be 

consistent with a well-designed test 

regime. We would expect results from 

such tests to exhibit significant test-totest variability, making it difficult to 

draw reliable conclusions from them. 

Furthermore, in real-world driving, we 

would expect that most drivers who 

regularly demand and do not receive 

adequate response would modify either 

their driving behavior or their vehicle 

purchase decisions. 

Based on manufacturer-supplied data, 

the California Air Resources Board staff 

established a power-to-weight (GVWR) 

ratio of 0.024 horsepower (hp)/lb as an 

approximate threshold in their efforts to 

characterize this issue. The vast 

majority of Class 2b vehicles are above 

this threshold today. Those below it 

tend to be used in applications where 

towing is not done extensively and the 

need for cargo space is more important 

than payload weight. Furthermore, it is 

possible that this group of vehicles will 

grow as purchasers adjust to sustained 

high fuel prices and when EPA’s GHG 

standards and NHTSA’s new fuel 

consumption standards take effect. 

In consideration of this matter, we are 

proposing that, in SFTP testing of Class 

2b vehicles at or below 0.024 hp/lb, 

manufacturers may at their option 

replace the full US06 component of the 

composite SFTP emissions with the test 

results from only the second of the three 

emissions sampling bags in the US06 

test, generally referred to as the 

‘‘highway’’ portion of the US06, subject 

to correspondingly lower SFTP 

standards levels discussed above. 

(These vehicles would still be driven 

during the test in the same way as the 

higher power-to-weight Class 2b 

vehicles (over the full US06 cycle) just 

using best effort (maximum power) if 

the vehicle cannot maintain the driving 

schedule.) The large majority of Class 2b 

vehicles, with power-to-weight above 

0.024 hp/lb, would be required to 

measure and use emissions over the full 

US06 cycle in the composite SFTP. We 

believe that this approach would 

provide a robust but repeatable and 

reliable test for the full range of Class 2b 

vehicles, as the highway portion of the 

US06 retains broad coverage of vehicle 

speed/acceleration combinations 

measured in real-world driving. 

For Class 3 vehicles, which can weigh 

as much as 14,000 lbs GVWR, we are 

also concerned that the full US06 cycle 

would not provide a representative 

drive cycle for SFTP testing. These 

vehicles are much larger than the 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 the way typified by this 

aggressive cycle. We believe that the 

LA–92 (or ‘‘Unified’’) driving cycle 

developed by CARB is more 

representative of Class 3 truck driving 

patterns and would produce more 

robust results for use in SFTP 

evaluations. Therefore we are proposing 

that the LA–92 cycle be used in place 

of the US06 component of the 

composite SFTP for Class 3 HDVs. The 

set of composite SFTP cycles we are 

proposing is fully consistent with the 

MDV LEV III program. 

Although we consider the highway 

portion of the US06 cycle appropriate 

for low power-to-weight vehicles, we 

also believe that the corresponding 

NMOG+NOX standards should be set at 

lower levels than for vehicles with 

emissions measured over the full US06 

test. Our goal is to provide roughly 

equivalent stringency and avoid creating 

an ease-of-compliance incentive to 

produce vehicles in one group or the 

other. We have reviewed the MDV SFTP 

standards set by the California Air 

Resources Board staff and consider them 

appropriate in achieving this goal. 

These proposed standards are included 

in Table IV–16. 

HDVs do not have SC03 emissions 

requirements under the current HDV 

standards. Manufacturers of HDVs have 

indicated that they expect the SC03 

emissions to be consistently lower than 

either the US06 or the FTP emissions 

levels, and therefore the added SC03 

testing burden may be unnecessary. We 

are therefore proposing that HDV 

manufacturers have the option to 

substitute the FTP emissions levels for 

the SC03 emissions results for purposes 

of compliance. However, we would 

retain the ability to determine the 

composite emissions using SC03 test 

results in confirmatory or in-use testing. 

b. Enrichment Limitation for SparkIgnition Engines 

To prevent emissions from excessive 

enrichment in areas not fully 

encountered in the SFTP cycles, we are 

proposing limitations in the frequency 

and magnitude of enrichment episodes 

for spark-ignition HDVs. These 

limitations would be identical to those 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29880 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

for light-duty vehicles discussed in 

detail in Section IV.A.4.c. 

4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, 

and Trading 

This section describes our proposed 

approach for emissions credits related to 

exhaust emissions. See Section V.C for 

similar provisions that apply for 

evaporative emissions. We are 

proposing to continue the current 

practice of allowing manufacturers to 

satisfy standards through the averaging 

of emissions, as well as through the 

banking of emissions credits for later 

use and the trading of credits with 

others. There are a number of facets of 

this proposed Tier 3 ABT program for 

HDVs that would be different from the 

current program. First, instead of 

separate NMHC and NOX credits, 

manufacturers would earn combined 

NMOG+NOX credits, consistent with the 

form of the standards. Second, we are 

proposing to allow manufacturers to 

accrue a deficit in their credit balance. 

Deficits incurred in a model year may be 

carried forward for up to 3 model years, 

but must be made up with surplus 

credits after that to avoid 

noncompliance and possible penalties. 

Manufacturers would have to use any 

new credits to offset any shortfall before 

those credits can be traded or banked for 

additional model years. We are 

proposing that credits must be used 

within 5 years after they are earned, or 

otherwise be forfeited. The proposed 5/ 

3-year credit/deficit life provisions are 

consistent with our proposed light-duty 

Tier 3 approach, the California LEV III 

program for MDVs, and EPA programs 

for controlling GHG emissions from 

light- and heavy-duty vehicles. 

Third, as part of our proposal to 

require chassis certification of complete 

diesel HDVs, we are proposing to allow 

diesel HDVs to participate in this ABT 

program without restriction. Currently, 

they are not allowed to earn or use ABT 

credits. We are not proposing to restrict 

or adjust credit exchange between diesel 

and gasoline-fueled HDVs, consistent 

with our shift to combined NMOG+NOX

standards that helps to ensure 

comparable stringency for these two 

engine types, and consistent also with 

the LEV III MDV program. 

We are proposing that credits earned 

by a Tier 3 HDV may be used to 

demonstrate compliance with 

NMOG+NOX standards for any other 

Tier 3 HDV, regardless of size and 

without adjustment. This effectively 

allows manufacturers to plan a 

comprehensive HDV compliance 

strategy for their entire Class 2b and 

Class 3 product offering, by balancing 

credits so as to demonstrate compliance 

with the standards for both classes. HDV 

manufacturers are currently certifying 

their vehicles to existing standards 

without the use of NOX or NMHC 

credits, and the levels we are proposing 

for Tier 3 standards are not based on 

any assumption of credit transfers into 

Tier 3. As a result, we are not proposing 

provisions for converting pre-Tier 3 

credits, should any exist at the time, 

into Tier 3 credits, including for use in 

the interim bins. 

In the past we have set caps, called 

family emission limit (FEL) caps, on 

how high emissions can be for vehicles 

that use credits, regardless of how many 

credits might be available. Under our 

proposed bin structure, we believe that 

exhaust emission FEL caps are no longer 

relevant for Tier 3 HDVs, as every 

vehicle must meet whatever standards 

apply in the bin chosen for the vehicle 

by the manufacturer. (The bin standard 

becomes the effective FEL.) Indeed, 

because credits and deficits are 

calculated based on the difference 

between a manufacturer’s fleet average 

emissions and the fleet average 

standards for a given model year, credits 

are not calculated for individual vehicle 

families at all. Under this proposed 

approach, the standards for NMOG and 

NOX in the highest available bin serve 

the purpose of the FEL caps in previous 

programs. 

We are proposing no averaging 

program for the HDV SFTP program, 

because we believe that the bin 

structure and FTP-centered 

NMOG+NOX ABT program provide 

adequate flexibility for smooth program 

implementation, especially in light of 

our aim to have the FTP standards be 

the primary technology forcers. A 

separate ABT program for SFTP 

compliance would add substantial 

complexity with little benefit, and, by 

making it possible to demonstrate robust 

SFTP control on a vehicle that lacks 

commensurate FTP control, could prove 

at odds with the primary goal of the 

supplemental test for HDVs. However, 

we note that California’s LEV III 

program does provide some flexibility 

in this matter, on a vehicle-for-vehicle 

basis rather than through use of 

emissions credits, and for this reason we 

request comment on the need for and 

considerations surrounding our granting 

similar flexibility for HDVs in Tier 3. 

5. Feasibility of HDV Standards 

The feasibility assessment, discussed 

in more detail in Chapter 1 of the draft 

RIA, recognizes that the proposed Tier 

3 program is composed of several new 

requirements for Class 2b and 3 heavyduty vehicles, which include primarily 

large gasoline and diesel pick-up trucks 

and vans with diverse applicationspecific designs. These proposed new 

exhaust emissions requirements include 

stringent NMOG+NOX and PM 

standards for the FTP and the newly 

proposed SFTP, that would as a whole 

require new emissions control strategies 

and hardware in order to achieve the 

proposed standards. The type of new 

hardware that would be required will 

vary depending on the specific 

application and emissions challenges. 

Additionally, gasoline and diesel 

vehicles would require different 

emissions control strategies and 

hardware. The level of stringency for the 

proposed SFTP NMOG+NOX standards 

would generally only require additional 

precise control of the engine parameters 

not necessitated in the past because of 

the lack of SFTP requirements. 

Similarly, the new PM standards on 

both the FTP and SFTP cycles would 

require more precise control of engine 

operation on gasoline vehicles while 

diesels already equipped with diesel 

particulate filters would require 

minimal changes. The new PM 

standards may also require that 

manufacturers consider the durability of 

their engines to the 150,000 miles useful 

life requirement with respect to engine 

wear resulting in increased oil 

consumption and potentially higher PM 

emissions. 

In order to assess the technical 

feasibility of NMOG+NOX national fleet 

average FTP standards of 178 mg/mi for 

Class 2b vehicles and 247 mg/mi for 

Class 3 vehicles, we conducted an 

analysis of certification data for the 

HDVs certified in the 2010 and 2011 

MYs. This analysis provided a baseline 

for the current HDV fleet emissions 

performance, as well as the emissions 

performance specific to the Class 2b and 

3 vehicles. The emissions performance 

of each heavy-duty vehicle class specific 

to gasoline and diesel is shown in Table 

IV–17 below. It is important to note that 

the emissions results are only the 4,000 

mile test point results and do not 

incorporate any deterioration which 

manufacturers must account for when 

certifying to a full useful life standard. 

Designs limiting the deterioration of 

emission control hardware are critical to 

meeting the emission standards at the 

proposed useful life of the Tier 3 

program. Deterioration factors to adjust 

the values to the proposed Tier 3 useful 

life standard of 150,000 miles were not 

available however deterioration factors 

to adjust to 120,000 miles useful life are 

discussed in the RIA Chapter 1. 

The analysis also reflects the 

importance of the NMOG+NOX standard 

approach where diesels and gasoline 

MDVs can balance their combined 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29881 

274 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011). 

NMOG and NOX levels. Diesel vehicles 

in the analysis produce very low NMHC 

emissions (NMOG is not reported for 

diesels) but higher NOX emissions, 

while gasoline vehicles have opposite 

performance. The combined standard 

allows manufacturers to determine the 

proper balance of the unique emissions 

challenges of a diesel or gasoline 

vehicle. 

TABLE IV–17—2010/11 CERTIFICATION TEST RESULTS AT 4,000 MILES

NMHC NMOG NOX CO NMOG+NOX

Gasoline ................ Class 2b ................ ........................ 0.050 0.052 0.041 1.648 0.092 

Class 3 .................. ........................ 0.080 0.083 0.073 2.373 0.156 

NMHC+NOX

Diesel .................... Class 2b ................ ........................ 0.037 ........................ 0.138 0.195 0.174 

Class 3 .................. ........................ 0.019 ........................ 0.249 0.158 0.268 

Combined Class 2b ............................................................. 0.043 0.026 0.089 0.922 0.133 

Combined Class 3 ............................................................... 0.050 0.041 0.161 1.265 0.212 

Manufacturers typically certify their 

vehicles at emissions levels well below 

the numerical standards. This difference 

is referred to as ‘‘compliance margin’’ 

and is a result of manufacturers’ efforts 

to address all the sources of variability 

that could occur during the certification 

or in-use testing processes and during 

in-use operation. These sources of 

variability include: Test-to-test 

variability, test location, build variation 

and manufacturing tolerances, vehicle 

operation (for example: Driving habits, 

ambient temperature, etc.), and the 

deleterious effects of sulfur and other oil 

and fuel contaminants. To meet the 

proposed NMOG+NOX standard of 178 

mg/mi for Class 2b and 247 mg/mi for 

Class 3 vehicles and establish a 

compliance margin for these sources of 

variability, manufacturers will need to 

reduce their emission levels 

considerably from the levels indicated 

in this data set, particularly diesel 

vehicles. 

However, as discussed above, these 

emission results do not include the 

expected emissions deterioration which 

would be determined by manufacturers 

during development and certification 

testing. Therefore, manufacturers would 

need to further reduce emissions levels 

in anticipation of the unavoidable 

emissions deterioration that will occur 

during the useful life of the vehicle. 

Further, deterioration is a function of 

several factors, but it is predominantly 

due to emissions control hardware 

thermal exposure (high temperatures), 

which is typically a significant issue on 

vehicles used for performing work like 

Class 2b and 3 vehicles. 

We also expect that the 2011 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.274 Some of 

these new technologies may result in 

emissions challenges that are specific to 

certain operating conditions. For 

example, downsized gasoline engines 

will likely have improved FTP exhaust 

emissions but have increased challenge 

with the high-load SFTP requirements. 

Diesel-fueled vehicles may need to 

carefully balance engine controls which 

reduce GHG emissions but can increase 

criteria emissions (NOX). 

With regard to the ability of the 

heavy-duty fleet to meet the proposed 

PM standards for the FTP and the SFTP, 

we based our conclusions on some 

testing of current HDGVs and the PM 

performance of the existing light-duty 

fleet with similar engines. Testing of 

two HDGVs with the highest sales 

volume (Ford F250 and Chevrolet 

Silverado 2500), albeit not aged to full 

useful life, confirmed that they have 

similar PM emissions levels as the lightduty counterparts and therefore also 

meet the proposed standards for both 

the Class 2b and Class 3 configurations. 

Data from light-duty gasoline vehicles 

with similar or common engines with 

their heavy-duty ‘‘sister’’ vehicle models 

demonstrates that these vehicles are 

currently meeting the proposed Tier 3 

FTP PM standards at the Tier 2 useful 

life mileage of 120,000 miles. Heavyduty diesel vehicles all are equipped 

with DPFs and have no challenges 

meeting the FTP or SFTP PM standards 

being proposed for Tier 3. 

The SFTP test data from the same two 

heavy-duty vehicles described above 

indicates that gasoline vehicles can 

achieve the proposed standards for 

SFTP NMOG+NOX and PM. Since 

heavy-duty vehicles are not currently 

required to comply with any of the 

SFTP requirements, manufacturers have 

not focused on improving the emissions 

performance specifically over the SFTP 

cycles (US06 and SC03). Therefore, 

although the limited testing results had 

a high degree of variability, several tests 

met the proposed PM standards for the 

high power-to-weight Class 2b vehicles. 

Consistent with light-duty, vehicles that 

are demonstrating high PM on the US06 

would need to control enrichment and 

oil consumption from engine wear. 

Manufacturers have confirmed that they 

have been implementing product 

changes to reduce oil consumption to 

address both customer satisfaction 

issues and to reduce cost of vehicle 

ownership. 

Given the technologies likely to be 

applied to meet the proposed HDV 

exhaust emissions standards, discussed 

below, we consider the lead time 

available before the standards take effect 

under all of the proposed alternatives to 

be sufficient. HDV manufacturers are 

already adopting some of the complying 

technologies, especially for their lightduty vehicles, and these can readily be 

adapted for heavy-duty applications. In 

addition, manufacturers have already 

begun developing these technologies for 

HDVs, including diesels, in response to 

California’s recently adopted LEV III 

MDV standards which begin to take 

effect in the 2015 model year. Finally, 

as described above in Sections IV.B.2, 

IV.B.3, and IV.B.4, our proposed 

program incorporates a number of 

phase-in and alternative compliance 

provisions that would ease the 

transition to final standards without 

disrupting HD pickup and van product 

redesign cycles. Among these is an 

alternative phase-in that starts 

mandatory standards in model year 

2019. We invite comment on our 

conclusions relating to the feasibility of 

the proposed program in the lead time 

we are proposing. 

We are not proposing relaxed 

standards for in-use testing of Tier 3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29882 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

275 ‘‘Preliminary Discussion Paper—Amendments 

to California’s Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations 

for Criteria Pollutants—LEV III’’, California Air 

Resources Board, February 8, 2010. 

HDVs because we do not believe 

additional flexibility provisions are 

needed to successfully implement the 

new emission control technologies in 

the proposed timeframe. However, we 

note that the LEV III program provides 

such standards for PM, and also for 

NMOG+NOX in the lower-emissions 

MDV bins (those at or below Bin 250 

and Bin 400, for Class 2b and Class 3 

vehicles, respectively), and we are 

taking comment on the need to do so in 

Tier 3 as well. 

We also note that the need for 

NMOG+NOX in-use testing standards is 

further mitigated by our proposed 

structuring of the NMOG+NOX

standards as a declining fleet average 

with deficit and credit banking 

provisions. These provisions provide 

substantial flexibility to manufacturers 

in introducing any new NMOG or NOX

control technologies for which longterm durability is not yet proven. 

Manufacturers can place any vehicles 

for which they have in-use performance 

concerns in a higher bin, and this is 

facilitated by the fact that, unlike LEV 

III, our Tier 3 proposal does not target 

sales volumes for any individual bins. 

Comments supporting relaxed in-use 

NMOG+NOX standards should therefore 

address why, in the absence of these 

standards, the proposed declining fleet 

average standard is not feasible in one 

or more model years. 

Commenters on this issue are asked to 

also address the applicable model years 

for any such in-use testing standards. 

The LEV III MDV program has four 

different applicability periods based on 

a combination of specific model years 

listed in the regulations (up to 2020) 

and a set number of model years (two 

or five) after a test group is first 

certified. Comments are requested on 

whether it might be preferable to adopt 

a simpler approach in Tier 3, such as 

making in-use testing standards 

available in the model years in which 

standards are phasing in, that is, 

through model year 2021. 

i. Technologies Likely To Be Applied 

The technologies expected to be 

applied to vehicles to meet the lower 

proposed standards levels would 

address the emissions control system’s 

ability to control emissions during cold 

start. Current vehicle emissions control 

systems depend on the time it takes for 

the catalyst to light-off, which is 

typically defined as the catalyst 

reaching a temperature of 250 °C. While 

the specific emissions challenge is 

somewhat different for gasoline engines 

than for diesel engines, achieving the 

necessary temperatures in the catalysts 

is a common challenge. In order to 

improve catalyst light-off, the 

manufacturers would likely add 

technologies that provide heat from 

combustion more readily to the catalyst 

or improve the catalyst efficiency at 

lower temperatures. These technologies 

could include calibration changes, 

thermal management, close-coupled 

catalysts, catalyst PGM loading, and 

possibly secondary air injection. In 

some cases, where the catalyst light-off 

response and efficiency are not enough 

to address the cold start emissions, 

hydrocarbon adsorbers may be applied 

to trap hydrocarbons until such time 

that the catalyst is lit-off. Note that with 

the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers 

each of these technologies addresses 

both NMOG and NOX performance. Key 

potential technologies are described in 

greater detail below. 

• Engine Control Calibration 

Changes—These include changes to 

retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel 

mixtures such that more combustion 

heat is created during the cold start on 

gasoline engines. Diesel engines may 

use unique injection timing strategies or 

other available engine control 

parameters. Engine calibration changes 

can affect NMOG, NOX and PM 

emissions. 

• Thermal Management—This 

technology includes all design attributes 

meant to conduct the combustion heat 

into the catalyst with minimal cooling 

on both gasoline and diesel engines. 

This includes insulating the exhaust 

piping between the engine and the 

catalyst, reducing the wetted area of the 

exhaust path and/or reducing the 

thermal mass of the exhaust system. 

Close-coupling of catalysts (packaging 

the catalysts as close to the head of the 

engine as possible to mitigate the 

cooling effects of longer exhaust piping) 

can also be effective, but is more 

difficult to employ than in light-duty 

applications because of durability 

concerns with highly loaded operation 

and the potential increase in fuel 

consumption to protect the catalyst from 

high temperatures. 

• Catalyst PGM Loading—Additional 

Platinum Group Metal (PGM) loading in 

the catalyst provides a greater number of 

sites to catalyze emissions and 

addresses NMOG, NOX and PM 

emissions. 

• Selective Catalytic Reduction 

Optimization—Diesel applications 

would need to continue to refine this 

NOX emissions control strategy through 

improved hardware design and 

implementation in vehicle applications. 

Additional engineering enhancements 

in the control of the SCR system and 

related processes would also help 

reduce emissions levels. 

6. Other HDV Provisions 

a. HDV Useful Life 

Currently the HDV regulatory useful 

life, the period of use or time during 

which emissions standards apply, is 

120,000 miles or 11 years, whichever 

occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805–4). For Tier 

3 vehicle criteria emissions we are 

proposing to extend the useful life to 

150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever 

occurs first. This change would better 

reflect the improvements in vehicle 

durability and longevity that have 

occurred in the several years since the 

120,000 mile useful life was established, 

and would maintain consistency with 

the LEV III MDV program and with our 

Tier 3 program for large LDTs, for which 

the same useful life period has been 

proposed. California’s LEV III staff 

paper included a discussion of the 

feasibility of this longer useful life based 

on experience with it in the PZEV 

element of the ZEV mandate.275

We are proposing that the new useful 

life requirement apply to Tier 3 HDVs 

in all bins except those designated as 

interim bins, consistent with the 

purpose of the interim bins to provide 

for limited carry-over of pre-Tier 3 

vehicle designs during the phase-in 

period. Although the percentage 

application in each year will therefore 

depend on each manufacturer’s fleet 

binning strategy, the declining NMOG+ 

NOX fleet average standard would 

ensure a robust phase-in of the new 

useful life requirement over the 2018– 

2022 model years, such that it is 

expected to be about 50 percent in 2018, 

and necessarily reaches 100 percent by 

2022 when the interim bins are no 

longer available. For those 

manufacturers choosing to certify to the 

voluntary standards, the new useful life 

will apply even earlier, in 2016 or 2017. 

For manufacturers choosing the 

alternative percent-of-sales NMOG+ 

NOX alternative, we are proposing that 

the new useful life requirement apply to 

all HDVs counted toward the phase-in 

requirement, resulting in a generally 

equivalent useful life phase-in rate to 

that of the primary approach. See 

Section IV.D.4.b for further discussion 

of useful life with regard to GHG 

standards. We are also proposing that 

manufacturers may optionally retain the 

120,000 mile/11 year useful life for PM 

on interim Tier 3 vehicles that are not 

phased in to the Tier 3 p.m. standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29883 

276 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011). 

b. Heavy-Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicles 

As in the proposed light-duty 

program, we are proposing that 

manufacturers demonstrate heavy-duty 

flex fuel vehicle (FFV) and dual-fuel 

vehicle compliance with both the FTP 

and the SFTP emissions standards when 

operating on both the conventional 

petroleum-derived fuel and the 

alternative fuel. Dedicated alternative 

fuel vehicles would demonstrate 

compliance with both the FTP and 

SFTP emission standards while 

operating on the alternative fuel. For all 

of these vehicles, this includes the 

requirement to meet FTP emissions 

standards when conducting fuel 

consumption and GHG emissions 

testing, and also to meet the FTP and 

highway test requirements at high 

altitudes (see Sections IV.B.6.e and f). 

Because FFVs can operate on various 

combinations of their conventional and 

alternative fuel, the emissions 

requirements apply to operation at any 

mix of the fuels achievable in the fuel 

tank with commercially available fuels, 

including for compliance at high 

altitudes, even though the required 

demonstration of compliance is limited 

to the conventional and alternative fuels 

designated for certification testing. 

c. Optional Certification for Vehicles 

Above 14,000 lbs GVWR 

The HD greenhouse gas (GHG) 

standards include a provision for 

optional certification of complete 

gasoline-fueled HDVs above 14,000 lbs 

GVWR to g/mi GHG standards on the 

chassis test.276 Because that rule does 

not change the requirements for 

certification to criteria pollutant 

standards, manufacturers choosing this 

option would have to certify the vehicle 

for GHGs, but use installed engines 

certified to g/hp-hr standards for all 

other emissions. We believe it may 

provide benefits for both the 

environment and the manufacturers to 

allow consistent certification of these 

vehicles on a chassis test for all 

emissions, treating any vehicles so 

certified in the same way as Class 3 

vehicles, including applicable 

standards, inclusion into fleet average 

calculations, test fuel, useful life, and 

the application of Tier 3 evaporative 

emissions requirements. 

We request comment on the value of, 

and any issues concerning, our 

providing such an option to 

manufacturers of both gasoline and 

diesel-fueled HDVs above 14,000 lbs 

GVWR, including the applicability of 

the existing chassis test cycles for these 

larger trucks. Comment is also requested 

on whether manufacturers of such 

vehicles that are certified to a Final Tier 

3 bin should be allowed to exclude 

them from the fleet average 

NMOG+NOX calculation, as a means of 

encouraging the production of such lowemissions vehicles by not penalizing 

them for having emissions somewhat 

above the Class 3 fleet average. Finally, 

we also request comment on whether 

any such option for diesel-fueled HDVs 

should extend to GHG emissions as 

well. 

d. Existing Provision To Waive HDV PM 

Testing 

EPA’s existing program includes a 

provision for manufacturers to waive 

measurement of PM emissions in nondiesel heavy-duty vehicle emissions 

testing. We are proposing to eliminate 

this provision. We believe that the PM 

standards we are proposing for these 

vehicles are of sufficient stringency that 

routine waiver of testing would not be 

appropriate. The California Air 

Resources Board LEV III program 

reflects this view. We do not expect this 

change to be onerous for manufacturers, 

as the number of heavy-duty vehicle 

families is not large. Even so, we request 

comment on alternative approaches, 

such as that being proposed for lightduty vehicles, involving measuring PM 

on a subset of families each year. We 

request comment on any other potential 

situations in which waiver of PM 

measurement may be appropriate. Note 

that we are proposing to waive the PM 

emissions measurement requirement for 

small manufacturers, for reasons 

explained in Section IV.E. 

e. Meeting HDV Standards in Fuel 

Consumption and GHG Emissions 

Testing 

As with the proposed light-duty Tier 

3 program, we are proposing that HDVs 

must meet the FTP bin standards when 

tested over both the city and highway 

test cycles. We do not believe this adds 

a very significant test burden as vehicle 

emissions are already required to be 

measured when these tests are run for 

GHG and fuel consumption 

determinations. Nor do we believe that 

this proposed requirement is design 

forcing. Rather, we are proposing this 

requirement to ensure that test vehicle 

calibrations are not set by manufacturers 

to minimize fuel consumption and GHG 

emissions, at the expense of high 

criteria pollutant emissions. 

Considering the additional work 

involved in measuring PM emissions 

and the reduced likelihood of high PM 

emissions on the highway test, we are 

not proposing that PM emissions testing 

be included in this requirement, but we 

ask for comment on whether we should 

instead include them, but waive the 

requirement to measure them in 

manufacturers’ certification testing, to 

ensure that any unforeseen PM control 

technology challenges in highway 

driving conditions are addressed in the 

future. 

f. HDV Altitude Requirements 

As in the past, we intend that HDV 

Tier 3 standards result in emissions 

controls that are effective over a full 

range of operating altitudes. We do not 

anticipate that the proposed FTP bin 

standards would require the use of 

special hardware to achieve compliance 

at altitude. We also do not believe that 

adjustment to the FTP standards is 

appropriate for HDV testing at altitude, 

as we expect that manufacturers would 

be able to meet these standards with 

adequate compliance margin to cover 

this test condition. As in the proposed 

light-duty program, and for the same 

reasons, we are not proposing to require 

that HDVs comply with SFTP standards 

at altitude. 

C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and 

Onboard Diagnostic System 

Requirements 

Gasoline vapor emissions from 

vehicle fuel systems, which are a 

mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, 

occur when a vehicle is in operation, 

when it is parked, and when it is being 

refueled. These evaporative emissions 

from gasoline-powered vehicles which 

occur on a daily basis are primarily 

functions of temperature, fuel vapor 

pressure, and activity. EPA first 

instituted evaporative emissions 

standards in the early 1970s to address 

hydrocarbon emissions when vehicles 

are parked after being driven. These are 

commonly referred to as hot soak and 

diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent 

years the test procedures have been 

modified and improved, the standards 

have been revised to be more stringent, 

and we have addressed emissions which 

arose from new fuel system designs by 

establishing new requirements such as 

running loss emission standards and 

test procedure provisions to address 

resting losses (e.g., permeation). 

Onboard refueling vapor recovery 

(ORVR) requirements for control of 

refueling emissions first began to 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29884 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

277For flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) certification 

fuel for evaporative and refueling emissions testing 

would remain a 9 RVP gasoline splash blended with 

ethanol to yield a blend containing 15 percent 

ethanol. 

278We 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). 

279See Section IV.D.1 for a discussion of the 

proposed certification fuel changes, including 

discussion of options for and implications of the 

certification test fuel having 10 percent ethanol. 

280 ‘‘PZEV evap’’ as discussed here refers only to 

the evaporative emission and useful life 

requirements of the PZEV program, not the exhaust 

emission requirements. 

most of these vehicles for many years, 

evaporative emissions still contribute 

30–40 percent of the on-road mobile 

source hydrocarbon inventory. These 

fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM 

precursors, and also contain air toxics 

such as benzene. Even though there are 

mature evaporative emission control 

programs in place, further hydrocarbon 

emission reductions are needed and can 

be achieved from highway motor 

vehicles. Vehicles demonstrating near 

zero fuel vapor emissions have been 

certified by CARB and a limited number 

are in-use in California and other states. 

Furthermore, test programs conducted 

by the Coordinating Research Council 

and EPA show that attention is needed 

to insure better in-use performance of 

current evaporative control systems. 

Cost effective hydrocarbon emission 

reductions can be achieved through new 

vehicle standards and improved focus 

on in-use performance. 

This section discusses the proposed 

vehicle-related evaporative emission 

standards and related provisions for 

LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. As 

discussed below, we are proposing more 

stringent standards that would apply for 

the 2- and 3-day evaporative emissions 

tests, a new canister bleed test and 

emission standard, a new certification 

test fuel specification,277 and a new 

fuel/evaporative system leak test 

procedure and emission standard. We 

are also proposing refueling emission 

controls for a portion of HDGVs over 

10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR). This section also describes 

proposed phase-in flexibilities, credit 

and allowance programs, and seeks 

comment on several other issues related 

to evaporative emissions control. 

The proposed evaporative emissions 

program has six basic elements: (1) The 

Tier 3 evaporative emission phase-in 

program (MY 2018–2022+), (2) the early 

allowance/credit program (MY 2015– 

2016), (3) the transitional program (MY 

2017), (4) requirements for HDGVs 

including ORVR, (5) a leak emission 

standard and test procedures, and (6) 

other miscellaneous proposed changes 

and areas for comment. 

In this proposed rule, the vehicle 

classifications, LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, 

and HDGVs, would remain unchanged 

from Tier 2. For purposes of this 

discussion of the proposed Tier 3 

evaporative emissions program, the 

vehicle standards can be further placed 

in four categories: (1) ‘‘Zero evaporative 

emission’’ PZEV vehicles certified by 

CARB as part of the ZEV program, (2) 

vehicles certified by CARB to meet LEV 

III evaporative emission program 

requirements on CARB certification fuel 

(7 RVP E10), (3) vehicles meeting the 

proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions 

program requirements using the 

proposed certification test fuel (9 RVP 

E15), and (4) transitional vehicles 

meeting current EPA evaporative 

requirements on Tier 2 certification fuel 

(9 RVP E0).278 279 For ease of reference 

these four categories may be referred to 

as PZEV evap, LEV III evap, Tier 3 evap, 

and Tier 2 evap in this section.280

1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission 

Standards 

a. Proposed Standards 

This proposal for evaporative 

emissions builds on previous EPA 

requirements as well as CARB’s recent 

LEV III rule which starts phasing in 

with the 2018 MY. This proposal 

facilitates a national program for vehicle 

evaporative emissions control. We 

believe the proposed program is 

appropriate since it would require new 

evaporative emissions control 

technology in new vehicles while also 

achieving improved in-use system 

performance. 

This section describes proposed 

requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, 

and HDGVs. The proposal includes 

more stringent emission standards for 

hot soak plus diurnal emissions (2- and 

3-day tests), plus a new canister bleed 

standard and testing requirement for 

measuring emissions from the fuel tank 

and the evaporative canister. The 

proposal also introduces a limited 

corporate averaging program for 

demonstrating compliance with the hot 

soak plus diurnal standards. We are 

proposing a phase-in of the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards that 

would begin with the 2017 MY, with 

incentives for manufacturers to 

introduce Tier 3 compliant vehicles 

earlier or in greater numbers than 

required. The proposal includes revised 

provisions for demonstrating 

compliance with the evaporative 

emission standards at high altitude. See 

Section IV.C.3 for additional provisions 

for the HDGV category. 

i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standards 

Previous hot soak and diurnal 

emission controls have dramatically 

reduced vehicle evaporative emissions 

over the past thirty plus years. However, 

some emissions remain and control 

technology is available to capture these 

emissions in a cost effective manner. 

Toward that end, EPA is proposing 

more stringent hot soak plus diurnal 

evaporative emission standards for the 

Tier 3 program. The standards apply to 

both the 2-day and 3-day evaporative 

emission test requirements. 

The standards are designed to bring 

into the broader motor vehicle fleet the 

‘‘zero evap’’ technology used by the 

manufacturers in their partial zero 

emission vehicles (PZEVs). 

Manufacturers developed this ‘‘zero 

evap’’ technology as part of their 

response to meeting the requirements of 

the CARB Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) 

program. This program, which is in 

effect in 11 other states, allows 

manufacturers to meet their ZEV 

mandate percentages (totally or in-part) 

by the use of vehicles which among 

other characteristics have very low fuel 

vapor emissions. 

The standard levels presented in 

Table IV–18 are designed primarily to 

accommodate what is often referred to 

as new vehicle background hydrocarbon 

emissions. These emissions arise from 

the off-gassing of volatile hydrocarbons 

from plastics, rubbers, and other 

polymers found in new vehicles (e.g., 

new tires, interiors, seats, fuel system 

components, paints, and adhesives). In 

the field these emissions decrease over 

time as the vehicle ages, but this cannot 

necessarily be replicated in the time that 

manufacturers normally allocate for 

vehicle certification. In the past 

manufacturers have employed 

techniques such as vehicle baking 

(discussed below) to accelerate the rate 

of this off-gassing, and until recently it 

has not been a major consideration for 

certification. 

In the past EPA has set relatively 

uniform (but not identical) evaporative 

emission standards for LDVs and LDTs 

and somewhat higher values for HDGVs. 

The proposed hot soak plus diurnal 

emission standards presented in Table 

IV–18 are somewhat higher as vehicles 

get larger in weight and physical size. 

This is because in general the vehicles 

have higher levels of non-fuel 

background emissions as they get larger. 

As mentioned above, the standards, 

which are approximately a 50 percent 

reduction from the existing hot soak 

plus diurnal standards, are intended 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29885 

primarily to accommodate non-fuel 

background emissions. Thus, the 

technology focus for the proposed Tier 

3 evaporative emission standards is for 

vehicles to have essentially zero fuel 

vapor emissions. 

As described in more detail in Section 

IV.C.2 below, EPA is proposing a 

program that would allow 

manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance with the proposed hot soak 

plus diurnal evaporative emission 

standards using averaging concepts. 

Under the proposal, manufacturers may 

comply by averaging within each of the 

four vehicle categories but for the 

reasons discussed below, may not rely 

on averaging across categories. The 

technical approaches to meeting the 

proposed standards are discussed in 

Section IV.C.2. EPA is not proposing 

any changes to the existing light-duty 

running loss or refueling emission 

standards with the Tier 3 proposal, with 

the exception of the certification test 

fuel requirement. 

TABLE IV–18—PROPOSED EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS (G/ 

TEST) abc

Vehicle category 

Highest hot soak + 

diurnal level 

(over both 2-day 

and 3-day diurnal tests) 

LDV, LDT1 ............ 0.300 

LDT2 ..................... 0.400 

LDT3, LDT4, 

MDPV ................ 0.500 

TABLE IV–18—PROPOSED EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS (G/ 

TEST) abc—Continued 

Vehicle category 

Highest hot soak + 

diurnal level 

(over both 2-day 

and 3-day diurnal tests) 

HDGVs .................. 0.600 

aThe standards are in grams of hydrocarbons as measured by flame ionization detector during the diurnal and hot soak emission tests in the enclosure known as the 

sealed housing for evaporative determination 

(SHED). b Note that the proposed standards are the 

same for both tests; current standards are 

slightly different for the 2- and 3-day tests. cVehicle categories are the same as in 

EPA’s Tier 2 final rule; see 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000. 

ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard 

In addition to more stringent hot soak 

plus diurnal standards, EPA is 

proposing a new canister bleed emission 

test and standard as part of the Tier 3 

program. The proposed bleed test 

procedure is described in Section 

IV.C.4.a., below. The purpose of the new 

test and standard is to ensure that nearzero fuel vapor emissions are being 

emitted by vehicles from the fuel tank 

through the evaporative emission 

canister. Under this proposal, 

manufacturers would be required to 

measure diurnal emissions over the 

2-day diurnal test procedure from just 

the fuel tank and the evaporative 

emission canister and comply with a 

0.020 g/test standard for all LDVs, LDTs, 

and MDPVs and 0.030 g/test for HDGVs. 

The feasibility of this standard is 

discussed in Section IV.C.2.g.ii below. 

EPA is proposing not to apply the 

averaging program to this new bleed test 

standard as compliance is relatively 

straightforward and low in cost. 

Therefore, each evaporative/refueling 

emission family certified by 

manufacturers would need to 

demonstrate compliance with their 

respective standard. As discussed 

below, the canister bleed standard 

would not apply at high altitude. The 

canister bleed test and standard drives 

canister design elements such as total 

gasoline working capacity, internal 

architecture, and the type of carbon 

used. Since the performance of the 

canister is also evaluated in the hot soak 

plus diurnal evaporative emissions 

sealed housing for evaporative 

determination (SHED) test we are 

proposing that the canister bleed 

emission standard not be included in 

the In-Use Verification Program but it 

must be met in use. We would not 

expect to have canister bleed specific 

family criteria for certification but the 

test would have to be completed and the 

standard met for each evaporative/ 

refueling family including potentially 

twice if there were two canisters used. 

A deterioration factor would not be 

required, but as mentioned above, the 

standard would have to be met in-use 

and could be evaluated in EPA 

confirmatory testing. 

iii. Early and Transitional Hot Soak Plus 

Diurnal Standard 

As part of its LEV III program, CARB 

has included an alternative set of 

evaporative emission standards, referred 

to as Option 1 standards. These are 

shown in Table IV–19. 

TABLE IV–19—CARB OPTION 1 EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

Vehicle category 

Highest hot soak + diurnal level 

(over both 2- and 3-day diurnal tests) 

(g/test) Running Loss 

(g/mile) 

Vehicle SHED Rig SHED 

Passenger Car ................................................................................................................. 0.350 0.0 0.05 

LDT ≤ 6,000 lbs GVWR ................................................................................................... 0.500 0.0 0.05

All other vehicles > 6,000 lbs GVWR .............................................................................. 0.750 0.0 0.05

The Option 1 standards include 

evaporative emission standards (hot 

soak plus diurnal) that are slightly 

higher numerically than our proposed 

standards. Vehicles certified under this 

option may not use averaging in the 

CARB LEV III program because they 

basically represent the same evaporative 

emission standards as exist for PZEVs 

under CARBs ZEV program wherein 

averaging is not permitted. Option 1 

also includes an additional test of the 

vehicle fuel system (rig test) that from 

an engineering perspective is practically 

more difficult to conduct than the bleed 

test discussed above and is intended to 

force manufacturers to demonstrate at 

certification that their stand alone (not 

in chassis) fuel/vapor control system 

designs have no (≤54 mg) fuel vapor 

emissions. EPA is not proposing that 

Option 1 be part of the long term Tier 

3 evaporative emission program. While 

we see the merit of the rig test as an 

engineering design and development 

tool for the manufacturers, by its very 

nature, the rig SHED standard is not 

implementable as an enforceable 

standard. We believe that the hot soak 

plus diurnal SHED test and the canister 

bleed test will accomplish the same 

objective of keeping fuel vapor 

emissions to a minimum. 

EPA believes most manufacturers will 

prefer to certify to the averaging based 

standards proposed by EPA (similar in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29886 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

281EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 

the CARB Option 1 test procedures and emission 

standards for this interim period. 

282By the 2020 MY, all Tier 3 evaporative system 

emissions certifications must use Tier 3 

certification test fuel and test procedures. This 

affects evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal), canister 

bleed, refueling, and leak emission standards 

certification. 

283The only exception here would be for vehicles 

not meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission 

requirements in the 2022 MY as a result of the use 

of previously earned allowances and small 

businesses which have until the 2022 MY to meet 

the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

requirements. 

stringency and program construct to 

CARB Option 2). However, because 

some manufacturers may have vehicle 

models meeting the CARB Option 1 

standards and emission requirements 

now or in the near future, EPA is 

proposing that compliance with the 

CARB Option 1 standards would be an 

acceptable interim alternative to 

compliance with the proposed Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards if the 

model is certified by CARB before the 

2017 MY. EPA proposes that these 

vehicles could then be certified using 

carryover provisions through the 2019 

MY.281 As noted in the following 

sections, vehicles certified under this 

provision would count toward the 

phase-in percentage requirements and 

could earn allowances as discussed 

below, but the vehicles would not be 

eligible to earn or use credits for the 

evaporative emissions averaging 

program. Carryover vehicles would have 

to meet EPA leak emission standard to 

be counted toward the sales percentage 

requirements for 2018 and later model 

years. 

b. Useful Life 

Trends indicate that vehicle lifetimes 

are increasing. It is important that 

emission control systems be designed to 

meet requirements while vehicles are in 

use. As discussed in Section IV.A and 

IV.B of this proposal, along with the 

new emission standards, we are 

proposing a longer useful life of 150,000 

miles/15 years, whichever comes first, 

for LDTs up to 6,000 lbs GVWR but over 

3,750 lbs loaded vehicle weight (LVW) 

(LDT2s), all LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR 

(LDT3/4), MDPVs, and HDGVs between 

8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. The 

proposed longer useful life would also 

apply to certifications to the Tier 3 

evaporative emission requirements. For 

an evaporative/refueling family certified 

to 150,000 miles/15 year useful life for 

evaporative emissions this useful life 

would also apply to the refueling, leak, 

and high altitude standards, where 

applicable when a family certifies to the 

Tier 3 evaporative emission 

requirements. All of these standards 

impact the fuel and vapor control 

systems and it is technologically 

consistent to require the same useful life 

for these standards because they all rely 

on the mechanical integrity, durability, 

and operational performance of the 

same components in the evaporative 

emissions control system. 

Due to limitations in the CAA, for 

LDVs and for LDTs up to 6,000 lbs 

GVWR and at or below 3,750 lbs LVW 

(LDT1s), we are keeping the current 

useful life of 120,000 miles/10 years 

unless, as described in Section IV.A, a 

manufacturer elects alternative exhaust 

emission requirements that are 

associated with 150,000 mile/15 year 

useful life for these vehicles. For 

manufacturers that select those optional 

standards, the useful life of 150,000 

miles/15 years would apply for all Tier3 

evaporative emission standards 

including the hot soak plus diurnal 

emission standards, the refueling 

emission standard, and the leak 

standard because of the design and 

operating relationships between the 

engine, the fuel system, the evaporative 

control system and their various 

components. 

During the early and transitional 

program periods and until the final year 

of the allowed phase-in period for the 

Tier 3 evaporative emission program 

(MY 2015–2022) the differences 

between the proposed exhaust and 

evaporative emission phase-in programs 

presents the possibility that in some 

cases a manufacturer could certify a 

model to the Tier 3 exhaust 

requirements but not necessarily to the 

Tier 3 evaporative emission 

requirements.282 In those situations, we 

are proposing that a family could have 

a 150,000 miles/15 years useful life for 

exhaust emissions but maintain the 

current useful life for all of the 

evaporative and refueling emission 

standards. We also propose that during 

the phase-in period, if a family is 

certified to the Tier 3 evaporative 

emission requirements but not yet 

certified for Tier 3 exhaust emission 

requirements, then the useful life could 

be 150,000 miles/15 years for 

evaporative and refueling emissions 

standards but the current useful life for 

exhaust emissions, However, by the 

2022 MY EPA proposes that the useful 

life for all of these requirements would 

be 150,000 miles/15 years for LDT2/3/ 

4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs since by that 

model year all vehicles must be certified 

using Tier 3 certification fuel and test 

procedures and meet Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards.283

OBD regulations call for the systems 

to operate effectively over the useful life 

of the vehicle. We are not proposing to 

change that requirement, but rather to 

clarify that during the early and 

transition years of the phase-in (MY 

2015–2022), all of the OBD monitoring 

requirements have the same useful life 

as that for the exhaust emission 

standard except for the evaporative 

system leak monitoring requirement 

which has the same as that required for 

the evaporative and refueling emission 

standards control systems. 

2. Evaporative Emissions Program 

Structure and Implementation 

Flexibilities 

a. Percentage Phase-In Requirements 

The proposed Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards would be phased in 

over a period of six model years (MYs), 

including a transitional year in 2017. 

For MY 2017, except as discussed 

below, the requirement would apply to 

40 percent of a manufacturer’s 

combined sales of LDVs, LDT1s, and 

LDT2s. To be consistent with the start 

date for new exhaust standards affecting 

these vehicles, the phase-in 

requirements would not include 

vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR until the 

2018 MY. For the 2018–2019 MYs, the 

requirement would apply to 60 percent 

of a manufacturer’s sales of all LDVs, 

LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. This would 

increase to 80 percent for MYs 2020 and 

2021 and by MY 2022 it would apply to 

100 percent of sales in these four 

categories. Beginning in MY 2018 any 

vehicle included in the percentage 

projection, except vehicles that had 

earned allowances would have to meet 

the leak emission standard. 

Our proposal for MY 2017 has two 

options and we are seeking comment on 

a third option. The first, which we are 

calling the ‘‘percentage’’ option, would 

require that 40 percent of a 

manufacturer’ s LDVs, LDT1s, and 

LDT2s sold outside of California and the 

states that have adopted the CARB ZEV 

or LEV III programs must meet the Tier 

3 evaporative emission requirements on 

average. The second which we are 

calling the ‘‘PZEV zero evap only’’ 

option, would require a manufacturer to 

sell all of the LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s 

certified with CARB as meeting the 

PZEV evaporative emission 

requirements (zero evap) in MY 2017 

throughout all of the U.S. and not to 

offer for sale any non-PZEV zero evap 

version of those vehicles in any state 

whose vehicles are covered by the Tier 

3 evaporative emission standards. Thus, 

this would apply to sales in any state 

except for California and states that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29887 

have adopted the CARB ZEV or LEV III 

programs under section 177 of the Clean 

Air Act. Under this second option, no 

tracking of sales or end of year 

compliance calculation would be 

required. Some manufacturers may find 

this option attractive, as they have more 

limited product offerings and find 

tracking of production and sales more 

difficult. 

The basic goal of the 2017 MY 

program is to provide evaporative 

emission reductions benefits in the 

other states which are similar to those 

expected in California and the states 

which adopted LEV III under section 

177 of the Clean Air Act. Due to model 

phase-out and phase-in issues related to 

current and future products, some 

manufacturers have indicated that 

increasing production of Tier 3 

evaporative emission compliant 

vehicles for the 2017 MY to meet the 40 

percent value discussed above could be 

difficult and costly. To address this 

issue, we are asking for comment on a 

third option: decreasing this value from 

40 percent to 20 percent but requiring 

that these same vehicles also meet the 

leak emission standard in the 2017 MY. 

This approach has the potential to 

address the transition issue and EPA 

believes that the leak standard will 

provide evaporative emission reduction 

benefits equal to or greater than the Tier 

3 evaporative emission standards. Thus, 

under this approach, the manufacturers’ 

product transition concerns could be 

addressed and the overall evaporative 

emission reductions would still be 

achieved for 2017 MY vehicles. As 

discussed below, beginning in the 2018 

MY, a Tier 3 compliant vehicle must 

also meet the leak emission standard. 

This option would be effective only in 

the 2017 MY. EPA asks for comment on 

whether this option should require the 

leak emission standard to apply to the 

same 20 percent of vehicles that are 

complying with the Tier 3 evaporative 

emission requirements, or whether this 

option should allow manufacturers the 

flexibility to meet some or all of the 20 

percent leak emission standard 

requirement with vehicles not yet 

compliant with the Tier 3 evaporative 

requirements. 

At the time of certification, 

manufacturers would identify which 

families would be included in their Tier 

3 evaporative emission percentage 

calculations (this could be families 

above or below the individual Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards for the 

given class of vehicles as well as 

vehicles meeting CARB’s Option 1 

standards) and could also include 

earned allowances as discussed below. 

They would use projected sales 

information for these families plus 

allowances as desired and available, to 

show how they expect to meet the 

phase-in percentages for the model year 

of interest. At the end of the model year 

they would be expected to show that the 

percentages were met and if not they 

would either use additional allowances 

or bring more vehicle families into the 

calculation. 

Requiring a showing at the time of 

certification based on projected sales 

requires due diligence by the 

manufacturers and EPA, but the Tier 3 

evaporative emissions program allows 

for fleet averaging, so a validation or 

‘‘truing up’’ of these sales projections is 

necessary for determining compliance 

with the requirements of the standard. 

This is discussed in Sections 

IV.C.2.c.and d. As discussed further 

below, validated sales information 

would also be used for earning early 

allowances and to show compliance 

with the alternative phase-in schedule 

approach. 

For these purposes, vehicles included 

in the phase-in percentage could be: (1) 

Families which certified to CARB LEV 

III requirements in MYs 2015 and 2016 

(CARB Option 1), (2) families certified 

to meet Tier 3 evaporative emission 

requirements, and (3) vehicles from the 

early allowance program. However, 

beginning in the 2017 MY, any new 

evaporative/refueling emission family 

certifications would have to meet the 

proposed EPA Tier 3 certification 

requirements for both test procedure 

and certification test fuel for the 

evaporative and refueling emission 

standards. The leak emission standard 

would apply in the 2018 MY. 

Furthermore, assuming other regulatory 

provisions related to carryover of 

emissions data are met, 2015–2016 MY 

CARB evaporative emissions 

certifications could be carried over until 

the end of the 2019 MY and included as 

compliant vehicles within the program 

if they met the leak emission standard. 

The phase-in percentages for MYs 

2017 through 2022 reflect a percentage 

phase-in concept applied successfully 

by EPA in previous rules involving 

evaporative and refueling emissions 

control. The proposed phase-in provides 

an appropriate balance between the 

needed emission reductions and time 

for the manufacturers to make an 

orderly transition to the new technology 

on such a broad scale. The higher initial 

percentage here is appropriate because 

the expected evaporative emission 

control technology is already being used 

to varying degrees by 16 manufacturers 

on over 50 vehicle models today and is 

projected to gain even deeper 

penetration by 2017 due to the partial 

zero emission vehicles (PZEV) option 

within the CARB ZEV program. 

As a flexibility, we are proposing to 

allow manufacturers to demonstrate 

compliance with the phase-in 

percentage requirements of the 

evaporative emissions program by using 

a manufacturer-determined alternative 

phase-in percentage scheme. Under this 

approach, before the 2018 MY, 

manufacturers would have to present a 

plan to EPA which demonstrates that 

the sum of the product of a weighting 

factor and the percentages of their U.S. 

vehicle sales for each model year from 

2018 through 2022 is greater than or 

equal to 1040. The 1040 value is equal 

to the sum of the product of the 

weighting factors and the percentage 

requirements for MYs 2018 through 

2022, calculated in the following 

manner: [(5)(2018MY %)+4(2019MY 

%)+3(2020MY %)+2(2021MY 

%)+(1)(2022MY %)]. This would allow 

manufacturers to use a phase-in more 

consistent with product plans which 

may call for a lower percentage in the 

early years or to benefit from producing 

and selling more than the minimum 

percentage of compliant vehicles early. 

This flexibility could also be helpful in 

the event that a manufacturer elects to 

put some vehicles on a different phasein schedule for meeting Tier 3 exhaust 

and evaporative emission standards. As 

explained further below, any allowances 

earned could be counted toward 

compliance with the 1040 value. Within 

this proposed flexibility EPA asks for 

comment in three areas. First, we seek 

comment on the need for and value of 

this alternative phase-in percentage 

flexibility option. Second, we did not 

include the 2017 MY in this flexibility 

because we believe that the PZEV zero 

evap nationwide option, the use of any 

earned allowances, and the ability to 

have a deficit in a given year are 

sufficient. However, we ask for 

comment on including the 2017 MY 

‘‘percentage’’ option in this flexibility 

(both the 40 and 20 percent approaches 

discussed above). If after comment the 

40 percent option from the 2017 MY is 

included in the final rule, the sum of the 

percentages would include an 

additional 240= (6)(40) for a total; of 

1280; the equation above would add a 

term of (6)(2017MY %). Similarly, we 

ask for comment on whether the 20 

percent option from the 2017 MY 

should be included in the alternative 

phase-in approach. If it is included in 

the final rule, the sum of the 

percentages would include an 

additional 120= (6)(20) for a total; of 

1160; the equation above would add a 

term of (6)(2017MY %). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29888 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

b. Early Allowance Program 

We are proposing incentives for early 

introduction of vehicles compliant with 

the Tier 3 evaporative emission 

regulations. Manufacturers could take 

advantage of these incentives prior to 

MY 2018 by selling vehicles that meet 

the Tier 3 evaporative emission 

regulations earlier than required or in 

greater numbers than required. 

As described below, manufacturers 

could earn ‘‘allowances’’ for selling any 

vehicle certified to the proposed Tier 3 

evaporative emission regulations earlier 

than required. The vehicles could be 

LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, or HDGVs. 

Specifically these include the following: 

(1) For MYs 2015 and 2016, any LDVs 

and LDTs meeting the Tier 3 

evaporative emission regulations and 

sold outside of California and the states 

that have adopted CARB’s ZEV or LEV 

III programs, (2) for MYs 2015–2017, 

any MDPV or HDGV meeting the Tier 3 

evaporative emission regulations early 

and sold in any state, (3) for MY 2017, 

any LDT3/4 meeting the Tier 3 

evaporative emission regulations and 

sold outside of California and the states 

that have adopted CARB’s LEV III or 

ZEV programs, and (4) for MYs 2015– 

2017, any HDGV between 10,001 and 

14,000 lbs GVWR meeting the refueling 

emissions regulations and sold outside 

of California and the states that have 

adopted CARB’s LEV III or ZEV 

programs. 

In order to demonstrate compliance 

with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative 

emission regulations, the vehicles could 

be certified to either the proposed Tier 

3 evaporative emission standards or 

CARB’s PZEV zero evaporative emission 

and useful life requirements. Vehicles 

generating allowances would have to 

meet the proposed evaporative emission 

standards (CARB Option 1 or EPA Tier 

3), the high altitude evaporative 

emission standard, the canister bleed 

standard as well as the refueling 

emission standards. Manufacturers 

would earn one allowance for each 

qualifying vehicle sold. Manufacturers 

can use these allowances in MY 2017 

through 2022 to help demonstrate 

compliance with the phase-in 

percentage requirements and fleet 

average evaporative emission standards 

for those years. 

Allowances would be used in the 

compliance determination in the 

following manner. Vehicles qualifying 

for allowances could be used in the fleet 

average evaporative emission standard 

calculation for any year during the 

phase-in. This would apply to the 

primary phase-in and alternative phasein programs. Allowance vehicles would 

be entered into the compliance 

calculation with an emission value 

equivalent to the evaporative emission 

standard for their vehicle category from 

Table IV–18 even if it was certified to 

CARB Option 1 standards (Table IV–19). 

For the percent phase-in requirement in 

either the primary or alternative phasein schemes, allowance vehicles would 

count for one vehicle for each allowance 

used within their vehicle category. For 

the primary scheme this would be 

counted as one vehicle, but for the 

alternative phase-in option the value 

would be multiplied by the weighting 

factor (5 for 2018, 4 for 2019, 3 for 2020, 

etc). Within the alternative phase-in 

scheme the manufacturer would be 

limited to using these early allowances 

for no more than 10 percentage points 

of the phase-in requirements in any 

given model year (e.g., MYs 2018–2022). 

EPA believes this limitation is 

appropriate. Early introduction of ‘‘zero 

evap’’ technology should be encouraged, 

but not necessarily at the expense of its 

widespread use across the various 

vehicle categories as the phase-in 

progresses. The proposed allowances 

are designed primarily to facilitate 

manufacturer transition during the 

program phase-in. As such, we propose 

that they could not be traded between 

manufacturers and unused allowances 

would expire after the 2022 MY. 

An example here may be helpful in 

demonstrating how the proposed 

concept would work. Take a 

hypothetical manufacturer who earned 

10,000 allowances in 2015 and 2016 and 

sells 100,000 units per year. In 2018, the 

manufacturer would have a phase-in 

requirement of 60 percent or 60,000 

vehicles. For the primary phase-in 

option the manufacturer could use part 

or all of its allowances in 2018. For the 

alternative phase-in scheme the 

proposed regulations would limit the 

use of allowances to 10 percentage 

points at the 60 percent. Without a 

multiplier this would require the use of 

all 10,000 allowances in 2018, but with 

the proposed multiplier only 2,000 

allowances would be needed to reach 

the 10 percentage point maximum. 

Using a similar calculus, the 

manufacturer could use another 10 

percentage points in 2019, but it would 

require 2,500 allowances since the 

multiplier is 4. The number of 

allowances to reach 10 percentage 

points would increase each year as the 

multiplier decreased. 

For the MY 2017, manufacturers 

choosing EPA’s proposed ‘‘percentage’’ 

option (see Section IV.C.2.a) could earn 

allowances for sales of LDT3s, LDT4s, 

MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the 

proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards and other related 

requirements assuming their LDV, 

LDT1/2 sales meet the 40 percent 

requirement. Similarly, manufacturers 

choosing EPA’s proposed ‘‘PZEV zero 

evap only’’ option could earn 

allowances in MY 2017 for LDT3/4s, 

MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the 

CARB Option 1 evaporative emission 

standards and related requirements. For 

both the ‘‘percentage’’ and ‘‘PZEV zero 

evap only’’ options for the 2017 model 

year, to avoid double counting, the 

allowances would be earned only for 

those vehicles sold outside of California 

and the states that have adopted CARB’s 

LEV III/ZEV program requirements. 

Vehicles earning allowances could 

either be vehicles certified to the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards or 

vehicles certified using carryover data 

from the CARB PZEV zero evaporative 

emission requirements from the 2015 or 

2016 MYs. Since credits and allowances 

serve primarily the same purpose and 

allowing for splits of allowances/credits 

greatly complicates program 

implementation, we are proposing that 

manufacturers could only earn 

allowances in MYs 2015–2017 for any 

qualifying LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and 

HDGVs since these vehicles are not 

covered by the proposed Tier 3 

standards until the 2018 MY. EPA asks 

for comment on whether this 

opportunity to earn allowances coupled 

with the aforementioned restriction on 

their use is the appropriate balance. 

c. Evaporative Emissions ABT 

Throughout EPA’s programs for 

mobile source emission controls, we 

have often included emission averaging 

programs for exhaust emissions. An 

emission averaging program is an 

important factor we take into 

consideration in setting emission 

standards under the Clean Air Act. An 

emission averaging program can reduce 

the cost and improve the technological 

feasibility of achieving standards, 

helping to ensure the standards achieve 

the greatest achievable reductions, 

considering cost and other relevant 

factors, in a time frame that is earlier 

than might otherwise be possible. 

Manufacturers gain flexibility in 

product planning and the opportunity 

for a more cost-effective introduction of 

product lines meeting a new standard. 

Emission averaging programs also create 

an incentive for the early introduction 

of new technology, which allows certain 

emission families to act as leaders for 

new technology. This can help provide 

valuable information to manufacturers 

on the technology before they apply the 

technology throughout their product 

line. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29889 

284 If EPA ultimately decided to continue the 

disaggregated approach to fleet compliance 

calculations, we could potentially base compliance 

with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

requirements on U.S. sales (i.e., non-California and 

non-section 177 states). 

These programs generally involve 

averaging and banking, and sometimes 

trading (ABT). Averaging allows a 

manufacturer to certify one or more 

families at emission levels above the 

applicable emission standards as long as 

the increased emissions are offset by 

one or more families certified below the 

applicable standards. These are referred 

to as family emission limits (FELs). The 

over-complying families generate credits 

that are used by the under-complying 

families. Compliance is determined on a 

total mass emissions basis to account for 

differences in production volume, and 

on other factors as necessary. The 

average of all emissions for a particular 

manufacturer’s production within 

category must be at or below the level 

of the applicable emission standards. 

Banking allows a manufacturer to 

generate emission credits and bank 

them for future use in its own averaging 

program in later years. Trading allows a 

manufacturer to sell credits or obtain 

credits from another manufacturer. 

EPA is proposing an emissions ABT 

program for the Tier 3 hot soak plus 

diurnal evaporative emissions 

standards. This would be the EPA’s first 

averaging program for evaporative 

emissions from light-duty or heavy-duty 

vehicles. It would not apply to the high 

altitude standard, the canister bleed 

standard or the leak emission standard 

because it is the low altitude ‘‘zero 

evap’’ hot soak plus diurnal standard 

which will drive the fundamental 

technology used to comply with all of 

these requirements. EPA is proposing to 

include trading of emission credits 

between manufacturers, but in past 

similar programs there have been very 

few trades. Incorporating trading within 

the program adds a significant degree of 

complexity, so we are seeking comment 

on the need for and value of including 

trading. 

The evaporative emissions ABT 

program would start with the 2017 MY 

for the percentage option. The programs 

would continue for the 2018 MY and 

beyond and would not sunset, as does 

the allowance program. Vehicles 

generating averaging/banking credits in 

the 2017 MY or later would not be 

permitted to also generate allowances as 

this would be double counting. 

A key element of an averaging 

program is the identification of the 

averaging sets. This sets the criteria for 

which emission families can be 

averaged for purposes of compliance as 

well as credit and deficit 

determinations. We are proposing four 

averaging sets and the applicable 

emission standard for each of the 

averaging sets as shown in Table IV–18. 

Except as noted in section d below, 

credit exchanges between averaging sets 

would not be permitted. Participation in 

averaging is voluntary since a 

manufacturer could elect to certify each 

family within the averaging set to its 

individual limit as if there was no 

averaging program. 

An evaporative emission ABT 

includes two very distinct steps. The 

first is the determination of the credit/ 

deficit status of each family relative to 

its applicable standard from Table IV– 

18. The second is the role of ABT in the 

overall compliance demonstration 

which will be discussed in Section 

IV.C.2.d which follows. 

A manufacturer choosing to 

participate in the evaporative emissions 

ABT program would certify each 

emission family to an FEL. The FEL 

selected by the manufacturer becomes 

the emission standard for that emission 

family. As noted below, emission 

credits (or deficits) are based on the 

difference between the emission 

standard that applies (by vehicle 

category) and the FEL. The vehicles 

would have to meet the FEL for all 

emission testing. 

We are proposing that the FELs 

selected by the manufacturer would 

have to be selected at 0.025 g/test 

increments above or below the 

applicable Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards for each vehicle category. 

FELs could not be set any higher than 

0.500 g/test for LDVs, 0.650 g/test for 

LDT1s and LDT2s, 0.900 g/test for 

LDT3s and LDT4s, 1.000 g/test for 

MDPVs, 1.4 g/test for HDGVs at or 

below 14,000 lbs GVWR, and 1.9 g/test 

for those above 14,000 lbs GVWR, 

respectively. These FEL caps are the 3- 

day hot soak plus diurnal emission 

standards currently applicable under 

EPA’s regulations. The vehicle 

groupings for defining these FEL caps 

differ somewhat from the groupings that 

apply for the standards; we request 

comment on the need to reconcile these 

different groupings. 

Evaporative emission credits under 

the proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus 

diurnal standards would be calculated 

differently in the 2017 model year and 

the 2018 and later model years. For 

2017 calculations would be based on 

sales in the U.S. excluding California 

and the section 177 states which have 

adopted the LEV III/ZEV programs. For 

2018 and later model years it would be 

based on all 50 states. Calculations 

would use the following equation: 

Credits = (fleet average standard ¥ fleet 

average FEL) × ‘‘U.S. sales’’. The ‘‘fleet 

average standard’’ term here is the 

applicable Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal 

standard for the vehicle category from 

Table IV–18. The sales number used in 

the 2018 and later MY calculation 

would be the number of vehicles of the 

evaporative emission families in that 

category sold in the U.S. which are 

subject to the Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards.284 Emission credits 

banked under the proposed evaporative 

emission ABT program would have a 

five year credit life and would not be 

discounted. This means the credits 

would maintain their full value through 

the fifth model year after the model year 

in which they are generated. At the 

beginning of the sixth model year after 

they are generated, the credits would 

expire and could not be used by the 

manufacturer. We are proposing to limit 

credit life so there is a reasonable 

overlap between credit generating and 

credit using vehicles. As mentioned 

above, for purposes of the compliance 

calculation, allowance vehicles would 

have an FEL equivalent to the EPA 

emission standard (Table IV–18) for 

their respective vehicle category. 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the ABT program. In particular, we 

request comment on the structure of the 

proposed evaporative emission ABT 

program and how the various provisions 

may affect manufacturers’ ability to 

utilize ABT to achieve the desired 

evaporative emission-reductions in the 

most efficient and economical way. We 

also ask for comment on basing ABT 

calculations on nationwide sales in 

2018 and later model years, even if there 

is a separate calculation for California 

and the section 177 states. 

d. Compliance Demonstration 

Demonstration of compliance with the 

evaporative emissions standards would 

be done after the end of each model 

year. There are two steps. In the first 

step, manufacturers would have to show 

compliance with the phase-in 

percentages whether they used the 

primary phase-in scheme or an 

alternative phase-in scheme. It is sales 

from these families together with their 

respective FELs which would be used to 

make the demonstration of compliance 

with the emission standard on average 

within each vehicle averaging set. 

Compliant vehicles types for these 

purposes would be the same as 

described in Section IV.C.2.a above for 

projected sales. If the required sales 

percentages are not met by direct sales 

or allowances, non-Tier 3 vehicles 

would have to be identified to make up 

the shortfall. In the second step, using 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29890 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

285The only exception here would be for vehicles 

not meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission 

requirements in the 2022 MY as a result of the use 

of previously earned allowances. 

the family emission limits, 

manufacturers would calculate the 

sales-weighted average emission levels 

within each of the four vehicle 

categories using U.S. sales.285

Manufacturers would be allowed to use 

credits only within a defined averaging 

set. The averaging sets are: (1) LDVs and 

LDT1s, (2) LDT2s, (3) LDT3s, LDT4s, 

and MDPVs, and (4) HDGVs. These 

sales-weighted calculated values would 

have to be at or below the emission 

standard for that vehicle category as 

proposed in Table IV–18, unless credits 

from ABT are used. If the difference 

between the standard and the salesweighted average FEL is a positive value 

this could be a banked credit available 

for future use. If the difference between 

the standard and the sales-weighted 

average FEL is a negative value this 

would be a credit deficit. Credit deficits 

would be allowed to be carried forward. 

However, manufacturers would be 

required to make up the deficit within 

the next three model years with credits 

from vehicles in the same averaging set 

except as described below. As discussed 

above, manufacturers would be required 

to identify and include in the 

calculations vehicle families from each 

and any covered category (see Table IV– 

18) whose total annual nationwide sales 

in the given model year equals or 

exceeds the prescribed percentages. If 

the inclusion of non-Tier 3 vehicles 

results in an exceedance of the hot soak 

plus diurnal emission standard for that 

category of vehicles, the credit deficit 

would have to be made up in a 

subsequent model year. 

Allowances could also be used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

percentage phase-in requirements and 

the vehicle category average emission 

standard. For purposes of the percentage 

phase-in requirements vehicles which 

have earned allowances are counted as 

compliant in the percentage calculation. 

For purposes of the calculations for 

compliance with the emission standard, 

allowance vehicles enters into the 

evaporative emissions ABT calculation 

as having an emission rate equivalent to 

the standard for that category of vehicle. 

Thus, allowance vehicles would help in 

demonstrating compliance with the 

percentage phase-in requirement (up to 

ten percentage points per model year) 

and would help in reducing deficits 

since their calculation value would be 

equivalent to the level of the standard. 

EPA asks for comment on whether 

allowances should be permitted to be 

used across vehicle categories during 

the transition years. 

As was discussed above, during the 

2017–2019 model years EPA is allowing 

manufacturers to meet the percentage 

phase-in requirements using carryover 

certification data from vehicles certified 

to CARBs Option 1 standards in the 

2015 or 2016 model years. These 

vehicles may have CARB Option 1 

certification values slightly higher than 

those proposed for EPA’s Tier 3 program 

for the given vehicle and vehicle 

category. Since the emission standard 

values in Tables IV–18 and IV–19 are 

very similar for any given vehicle 

category, for purposes of simplification 

during the phase in, EPA proposes that 

any CARB Option 1 vehicles used in the 

2017–2019 MY emission standard 

compliance determination be entered 

into the calculation with the emission 

level equivalent to the Tier 3 vehicle 

category in which the vehicle model 

would otherwise fit. Furthermore, we 

are proposing not allowing 

manufacturers to generate emission 

credits for families certified with EPA 

based on carryover CARB PZEV 

evaporative emissions data using CARB 

Option 1 as in Table IV–19. We are 

proposing not to include these vehicles 

in the ABT program since the programs 

are not directly comparable, and the 

structure of the current CARB ZEV 

program, which is the genesis of most 

PZEV offerings, allows for a different 

number of PZEV sales as a function of 

manufacturer size. 

As mentioned above, we are 

proposing to limit use of credits only 

within a defined averaging set. Cost 

effective technology is available to meet 

the proposed hot soak plus diurnal 

emission standards on average within 

each of the vehicle categories in the 

averaging sets, especially since the 

proposed standards are designed to 

accommodate nonfuel hydrocarbon 

background emissions. Thus, further 

flexibility is not needed. Moreover, we 

are proposing to constrain averaging to 

within these sets because of equity 

issues for the manufacturers. We are 

concerned that the four or five 

manufacturers with a wide variety of 

product offerings in most or all of these 

categories would have a competitive 

advantage over the majority of 

manufacturers which have more limited 

product lines. This effect could be even 

more pronounced if the number of 

evaporative families was considered, 

since larger more diverse manufacturers 

have more models and thus more 

evaporative families. EPA asks for 

comment on issues related to averaging 

sets. 

Manufacturer use of credits from 

different averaging sets to demonstrate 

compliance would be permitted in 

limited cases. As noted above, if a 

manufacturer has a credit deficit at the 

end of a model year in a given averaging 

set, they would have to use credits from 

the same averaging set during the next 

three years to make up the deficit. 

However, if a deficit still exists at the 

end of the third year, we propose that 

the manufacturer could use credits from 

a different averaging set to cover the 

remaining deficit with the following 

limitations. Manufacturers would be 

able to use credits from the LDV and 

LDT1 averaging set to address remaining 

deficits in the LDT2 averaging set, and 

vice versa. We also are proposing that 

manufacturers be permitted to use 

credits from the LDT3, LDT4, and 

MDPV averaging set to address 

remaining deficits in the HDGV 

averaging set, and vice versa. No other 

use of credit exchanges across different 

averaging sets would be allowed. These 

restrictions are being proposed because 

of equity concerns caused by the 

different nature and size of various 

manufacturer product lines. 

During the program phase in there 

will be a declining percentage of 

vehicles not yet covered by the 

proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

requirements and thus covered by the 

current EPA requirements in 40 CFR 

86.1811–09 and 86.008–10. These 

vehicles would need to be certified to 

current EPA requirements or seek EPA 

certificates based on LEV II or LEVIII 

emission data, subject to the 

certification fuel requirements 

discussed below. 

For both the percentage phase-in and 

sales-weighted average calculation steps 

above, we are proposing to base the 

calculation on nationwide sales 

(excluding California and the section 

177 states in the 2017 MY) and annual 

nationwide sales beginning in the 2018 

MY. We believe this approach is 

consistent with the manufacturers’ 

plans for 50-state vehicles. A program 

design which would enable a 

nationwide program has been an 

important premise of this proposal. 

Furthermore, this is simpler for the 

manufacturers and for EPA since it 

relieves the need to project future model 

year sales or track past model year sales 

at a disaggregated level. We recognize 

that decisions by manufacturers on a 

national fleet versus a bifurcated 

approach such as exists today 

(California and section 177-states 

separate from the rest of U.S. sales) have 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29891 

286 If the decision is ultimately made to continue 

the disaggregated approach to fleet compliance 

calculations, the compliance with the proposed Tier 

3 requirements would be based on U.S. sales (nonCalifornia, non-section 177 states). 

287 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007). 288High-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). 

not yet been made.286 The CARB LEV III 

and EPA phase-in requirements are 

identical beginning in 2018, so EPA sees 

little need for concern that a 

nationwide-based accounting approach 

could lead to disproportionate state by 

state impacts or the encouragement of 

practices which would lead to any 

particular state or area not receiving the 

anticipated emission reductions with 

this nationwide approach to the 

calculation. However, for evaporative 

emissions for the 2017 MY we are 

proposing that percentage phase-in and 

sales be done on a disaggregated level 

(i.e., California and section 177 states 

and the remainder of the country) since 

at the present time the anti-backsliding 

provisions of the LEV III evaporative 

emissions program stays in place 

through the 2017 MY. This is being 

done differently for the calculations for 

the early allowance program because 

these ‘‘zero evap’’ vehicles are already 

counted in the pre-existing ARB 

program. 

As was discussed above, 

manufacturers not meeting the 

percentage phase-in requirements 

would need to include non-Tier 3 

vehicles in the count and include their 

emissions in the overall calculation of 

compliance with the hot soak plus 

diurnal standard and resolve shortfalls 

in compliance with the emission 

standard with future reductions, earned 

allowances, or credits. Resolving this 

sales percentage shortfall problem 

becomes a bit more complicated for the 

2017 MY 20 percent option upon which 

EPA is seeking comment, because it 

would require that 20 percent of 

vehicles meet the proposed Tier 3 

evaporative emission requirements and 

that 20 percent meet the proposed leak 

emission standard. These may or may 

not be the same vehicles, (e.g., non-Tier 

3 vehicles could end up in the end of 

year calculation and we are seeking 

comment on whether to allow the two 

20 percent requirements to be allowed 

to be met on different vehicles). As a 

means to resolve this potential problem, 

EPA asks comment on a provision 

which would require that any shortfall 

of either of the 20 percent values (Tier 

3 evaporative or leak emission standard) 

for the 2017 MY be covered by future 

sales of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 

evaporative emission requirements in 

excess of the evaporative emission 

percentage sales requirement for that 

MY or some combination of MYs. For 

example, if a manufacturer were 5 

percentage points short in the 2017 MY, 

then it would have to accelerate sales of 

vehicles meeting Tier 3 evaporative 

emission requirements in the 2018–2021 

MYs to cover the 5 percentage points 

(e.g., 65 percent in 2018 instead of 60 

percent or 63 percent in 2018 MY and 

62 percent in the 2019 MY, etc.). 

e. Small Volume Manufacturers 

As another flexibility, we are 

proposing that small volume 

manufacturers, those with average 

annual nationwide sales of 5,000 units 

or less, be permitted to delay meeting 

the proposed Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards, including the 

requirement to use EPA certification test 

fuel, until the 2022 MY (see Section 

IV.E.5 below for a discussion of our 

proposed 5,000 vehicle threshold). This 

would include the hot soak plus diurnal 

standards, the canister bleed emission 

standard, and the leak emission 

standard. In the interim, these vehicles 

would have to meet the current 

evaporative and refueling emission 

standards. The initial determination of 

whether a manufacturer is under the 

5,000 unit threshold would be based on 

the three year average of actual 

nationwide sales for MYs 2012–2014. 

This allowance would not be affected if 

a qualifying manufacturer’s nationwide 

sales later exceeded that value before 

2022. Similarly, new market entrants 

(not in the market in the 2012 MY) with 

projected sales of less than 5,000 units 

could be covered by the small volume 

manufacturer provisions. However, in 

this case if actual running average 

nationwide sales exceeded 5,000 units 

per year in any three consecutive model 

years they would have to meet the Tier 

3 evaporative requirements in the third 

model year thereafter. For example, if a 

new market entrant in 2015 projected 

nationwide production of 4,000 units 

per year and the average of actual values 

in 2015–2017 exceeded 5,000 units per 

year they would have to meet Tier 3 

evaporative requirements by the 2020 

MY. 

f. High-Altitude Requirements 

We adopted the most recent vehicle 

evaporative emission standards in 

2007.287 These newest standards apply 

only to testing under low-altitude 

conditions.288 In that rule, we decided 

to continue to apply the previous ‘‘Tier 

2’’ standards for testing under highaltitude conditions. This was necessary 

to achieve an equivalent level of overall 

stringency for high-altitude testing. This 

was intended to account for the various 

effects of altitude and lower 

atmospheric pressure on vapor 

generation rates, canister loading and 

purging dynamics, and other aspects of 

controlling evaporative emissions due 

primarily to lower air and vapor 

concentrations in air. While it is 

important for vehicles to have effective 

emission controls at high altitudes, we 

do not want the high-altitude standards 

and test procedures to dictate the 

fundamental design of the Tier 3 

evaporative emission control systems 

since the high altitude vehicle 

population is only about five percent of 

the national total. Therefore, we believe 

it is appropriate to address this goal by 

applying the current EPA 2-day low 

altitude evaporative emission standards 

and requirements for high-altitude 

testing. The vehicle categories for the 

high altitude standards in this proposed 

rule are the same as for the low altitude 

standards. The proposed standards are 

presented below in Table IV–20. This 

would both reduce emissions at high 

altitude and again create a requirement 

to confirm that emission controls 

function effectively at high altitude 

without forcing manufacturers to apply 

altitude-specific technologies. 

Furthermore, the leak emission standard 

proposed in Section IV.C.5.b below 

would apply equally at low and high 

altitude testing. 

TABLE IV–20 PROPOSED HIGH-ALTITUDE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION

STANDARDS

[g/test] 

Vehicle category 

Highest hot soak + 

diurnal level 

(over both 2-day and 

3-day tests) (g/test) 

LDV, LDT1 ............ 0.65 

LDT2 ..................... 0.85 

LDT3, LDT4 .......... 1.15 

MDPV ................... 1.25 

HDGVs ≤ 14,000 

lbs GVWR ......... 1.75 

HDGVs > 14,000 

lbs GVWR ......... 2.3 

A few additional points should be 

noted about our proposed Tier 3 high 

altitude evaporative emissions control 

program. First, by proposing to apply 

the current low altitude evaporative 

emission standards and requirements by 

category for high-altitude, we are 

proposing not to include the canister 

bleed test and emission standard. These 

vehicles would have to meet the 

canister bleed emission standard at low 

altitude and any adjustment to meet the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29892 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

standard at high altitude to account for 

canister adsorption and desorption 

effects of higher altitudes would result 

in fundamentally the same technology 

and increase the testing burden, but not 

necessarily lead to more emissions 

control. Therefore, we believe the lowaltitude canister bleed test is sufficient 

for achieving the proposed level of 

emission control for operation in both 

low-altitude and high-altitude 

conditions. Second, for vehicles 

certified with FELs above or below the 

applicable standard for testing at low 

altitude, we propose that the same 

differential apply to the FELs for highaltitude. For example, if an LDV was 

certified with an FEL of 0.400 g instead 

of the 0.300 g standard, the high-altitude 

FEL would be 0.75 g (0.65g + 0.10g). 

This high-altitude FEL would not be 

used for any emission-credit 

calculations, but it would be used as the 

emission standard for compliance 

purposes. Third, gasoline RVP for 

certification test fuel would be set at 7.8 

RVP with 15 percent ethanol, as 

specified in Section IV.D. Finally, we 

are proposing a minor adjustment to the 

high altitude test procedures. Today, the 

2- and 3-day test procedures apply 

equally at low and high altitude. We are 

proposing to keep that requirement but 

to allow for an adjustment of 5 °F in the 

temperatures related to the running loss 

test within the 3-day test cycle. Thus, 

the applicable fuel and ambient 

temperatures at § 86.134–96 (f) and (g) 

would 90 ± 5 °F instead of 95 ± 5 °F for 

high altitude testing. EPA believes this 

is appropriate given the differences in 

atmospheric conditions at low versus 

high altitude and will still result in 

equivalent control of running loss 

emissions at higher altitudes. We 

request comment on the alternative 

approach of keeping test temperatures 

the same, but omitting the 3-day test 

cycle for testing at high altitude. This 

would effectively establish the 2-day 

test cycle as a sufficient means of 

demonstrating that emission control 

systems continue to operate properly at 

high altitude. 

As mentioned above, emission data 

from vehicles meeting the current CARB 

zero evap and useful life requirements 

could be used to qualify that vehicle to 

meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission 

regulations for the 2017–2019 MYs. To 

qualify for a federal certificate, the 

vehicle would also have to meet the Tier 

3 high altitude evaporative emission 

requirements. While CARB requires 

vehicles to meet EPA high altitude 

requirements, we ask for comment on 

the need for and value of an interim 

option which would permit 

manufacturers to gain such certification 

by an engineering demonstration that 

the vehicle would comply at any 

altitude rather than by performing 

additional testing. 

g. Technological Feasibility 

The basic technology for controlling 

evaporative emissions was first 

introduced in the 1970s. Manufacturers 

routed fuel tank and carburetor vapors 

to a canister filled with activated 

carbon, where vapors were stored until 

engine operation allowed for purge air 

to be drawn through the canister to 

extract the vapors for delivery to the 

engine intake. Over the past 30 years, 

evaporative emission standards have 

changed several times, most notably in 

the mid-1990s when enhanced 

evaporative controls were required to 

address 2- and 3-day diurnal emissions 

and running losses. Refueling emission 

controls were added with phase-in 

beginning in the 1998 MY. Almost 

universally manufacturers elected to 

integrate evaporative and refueling 

emission control systems. In the mid2000s more stringent evaporative 

emission standards with E10 durability 

gasoline led to the development and 

adoption of technology to identify and 

eliminate permeation of fuel through 

fuel tanks, fuel lines, and other fuelsystem components. 

i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal 

The current baseline technology for 

LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs is a properly 

designed and assembled fuel/ 

evaporative system for controlling 

emissions over the 2- and 3-day test 

sequences to meet the current standard 

of 0.650 grams/test. This involves 

activated carbon canisters which 

capture gasoline vapors, with engine 

calibrations designed to maximize 

canister purge over the test sequence. 

Fuel systems generally include 

widespread use of various grades of 

permeation-resistant materials. 

The anticipated control technologies 

to comply with the proposed hot soak 

plus diurnal evaporative emission 

standards include an improved carbon 

canister designs to even better capture 

vapor emissions from the canister, air 

intake designs to prevent the escape of 

unburned fuel from the engine’s 

crankcase, various upgrades to further 

limit potential micro-sized leaks, and 

further steps to reduce permeation rates. 

Applying these new or improved 

technologies will allow manufacturers 

to meet the proposed 300 mg standard 

for LDVs/LDT1s. The proposed 

evaporative emission standards are 

slightly higher for larger vehicles to 

account for potentially higher 

background emissions and in some 

cases larger surface area components, 

but the baseline and anticipated control 

technologies follow a very similar path. 

These baseline and control technologies 

are described further in the rest of this 

section. 

Current evaporative canisters use high 

working-capacity activated carbon, 

usually with multiple compartments, to 

optimize vapor loading and purging 

behavior. These canisters sometimes 

employ carbons of different working 

capacities within each chamber. Testing 

indicates that the total canister 

adsorption capacity in grams of gasoline 

vapor is generally dictated by the 

requirements of the refueling emission 

test and standard rather than the 

evaporative emission test (either the 2- 

or 3-day sequence). 

Manufacturers have identified the 

engine’s intake system as another source 

of evaporative emissions. These result 

from crankcase vapors and from 

unburned fuel from injectors, or 

sometimes from an injection event that 

occurred shortly before engine 

shutdown. We estimate a typical 

emission rate of about 40 mg associated 

with each engine shutdown event; 

however, since the actual emission rates 

depend on timing of individual 

injection events and cylinder position at 

shutdown, baseline emission rates can 

vary significantly. These vapors must 

follow a contorted path before reaching 

the ambient air, which would generally 

cause these emissions to show up 

during the first day of the diurnal test 

rather than the hot soak test. One way 

to prevent these emissions is to add 

activated carbon to the air intake 

downstream of the air filter, typically in 

the form of reticulated foam coated with 

activated carbon. This device would 

have only a few grams of working 

capacity and would be designed to 

purge easily to ensure that the vapor 

storage is available at engine shutdown. 

This carbon insert would almost 

completely eliminate any vapor 

emissions from the air intake system. 

Manufacturers wanting to avoid 

adding any specialized emission control 

component to control evaporative 

emissions from the air intake could 

pursue alternative approaches. First, it 

is possible to allow the engine to 

continue rotating for 2–3 revolutions 

after engine shutdown to sweep any 

hydrocarbon vapors from the intake 

system into or through the cylinder. 

These vapors could be burned in the 

cylinder, oxidized at the catalyst, or 

stored until the engine starts again. This 

may still allow for a small amount of 

residual vapor release, but this should 

be a very small quantity. Vehicle owners 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29893 

would be unlikely to notice this amount 

of engine operation after shutdown. 

Second, to the extent that manufacturers 

use direct injection, there should be no 

fuel vapor coming from the intake 

system. Any unburned fuel coming from 

the injectors would be preserved in the 

cylinder or released to the exhaust 

system and the catalyst. A small amount 

of crankcase vapor might remain, but 

this would likely not be enough to 

justify adding carbon to the intake 

system. 

Fuel tanks are designed to limit 

permeation emissions. Fuel tanks are 

typically made of high-density 

polyethylene with an embedded barrier 

layer of ethyl vinyl alcohol (EvOH) 

representing about 1.8 percent of the 

average wall thickness. The EvOH layer 

is effective for reducing permeation 

emissions. Recent developments in 

production processes have led to 

improved barrier coverage around the 

ends of the tank where the molded 

plastic is pinch-welded to form a closed 

vessel. We are expecting manufacturers 

to increase the EvOH barrier thickness 

to about 3 percent of the average wall 

thickness to provide a more uniform 

barrier layer, to provide better 

protection with ethanol-based fuels, and 

to improve permeation resistance 

generally. These changes are expected to 

decrease emission rates over the diurnal 

test from about 40 mg per day to 15 mg 

per day from the fuel tank assembly or 

less. 

Fuel lines are also already designed 

for low permeation rates. The biggest 

portion of fuel and vapor lines are made 

of metal, but that may still leave several 

feet of nonmetal fuel line. There may be 

development of new materials to further 

reduce permeation rates, but it is more 

likely that manufacturers will adjust the 

mix of existing types of plastic fuel lines 

to achieve the desired performance at 

the lowest possible price. 

The bigger area of expected 

development with respect to fuel lines 

is to re-engineer fuel systems to further 

reduce the number of connections 

between fuel-system components and 

other fuel-line segments. Today these 

systems may involve more than the 

optimum number of connections and 

segments due to assembly and 

production considerations or other 

factors. Designing the fuel system more 

carefully to minimize connection points 

will limit possible paths for fuel vapors 

to escape. This would reduce emission 

rates and it should also improve system 

durability by eliminating potential 

failure points. A broader approach to 

addressing this source of emissions is to 

integrate designs and to move fuelsystem components inside the fuel tank, 

which eliminates the concern for vapor 

emissions and permeation from those 

components and connections. 

A remaining area of potential 

evaporative emissions is the connection 

between the fill neck and the fuel tank. 

Manufacturers can reduce emissions by 

perhaps 10 mg per day by making this 

connection permeation-resistant. The 

challenge is to design a low-cost 

solution that is easily assembled and 

works for the demanding performance 

needs related to stiffness/flexibility. The 

best approach is likely either to use 

mating parts made from low-permeation 

materials, or to use conventional 

materials but cover this joint with 

material that acts as a barrier layer. 

Purge rates are currently designed to 

flow relatively large volumes of outside 

air through the canister when the purge 

solenoid is activated. This involves 

using available manifold vacuum to 

create purge flow, with limits in place 

to avoid drawing too much unmetered 

fuel vapor from the canister. Tightening 

the evaporative emission standard 

would lead manufacturers to address 

remaining emission sources from microsize leak points, permeation, and 

diffusion, as noted above. Since the 

amount of additional vapor being 

captured by the carbon canister is small 

and the test procedure is not changing, 

we do not expect the change in 

standards to drive changes in purge 

strategy, rates, or canister capacity. 

Nonetheless, vehicle system and engine 

changes to improve fuel economy could 

impact future purge strategies. Thus, as 

part of this approach, manufacturers 

may incorporate designs to reduce vapor 

volume/mass directed to the canister 

and thus potentially reduce the purge 

air volume requirements. In addition, 

canister designs can be optimized to 

increase the effectiveness of a given 

volume of purge air. This could involve 

selecting different combinations of 

carbon characteristics and canister 

architecture types and by adding 

features to add heat (or preserve heat) in 

the canister during a purge event. It is 

also possible that fuel economy 

strategies which impact purge volume 

may lead some manufacturers to add 

vacuum pumps to supplement enginebased purge on some vehicle models in 

the future. 

It is worth noting that there may be 

some models where manufacturers 

incorporate hardware or another control 

technique that may not be widely used 

across by all manufacturers or across all 

models. This is especially true for this 

set of proposed emission control 

requirements since we are considering 

such a wide array of basic vehicle and 

engine designs. Also, future vehicle/ 

engine systems such as hybrids may 

have more unique challenges in areas 

such as the diurnal fuel tank vapor load 

sent to the activated carbon canister and 

subsequent purging of those vapors. In 

response to this challenge, 

manufacturers may employ techniques 

to reduce fuel tank vapor generation 

and/or to enhance purge efficiency. 

Hardware such as a vapor blocking 

valve or other techniques to enhance 

purge efficiency from the canister 

through heating may be employed to a 

limited degree. 

The technologies discussed above are 

in use to varying degrees on many of the 

CARB PZEV zero evap vehicles 

mentioned above. Taken together, we 

believe these technologies provide 

manufacturers with effective tools for 

reducing emissions sufficiently to meet 

the proposed evaporative emission 

standards. 

ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard 

More stringent evaporative emission 

standards have led to more careful 

measurements, which led manufacturers 

to discover that 80 mg or more of fuel 

vapor would diffuse from the canister 

vent as a result of the normal 

redistribution of vapors within the 

activated carbon while the vehicle is at 

rest. The emission rate depends on the 

tank volume, its fill quantity, and the 

size and architecture of the canister and 

the characteristics of the carbon itself. 

While the biggest effect of this vapor 

distribution is a uniform concentration 

within the canister, it can also cause 

vapors to escape through the canister 

vent even without continued canister 

loading that would result from fuel tank 

heating. These are referred to as canister 

bleed emissions. These emissions occur 

to some degree during the 2- and 3-day 

evaporative emissions test, but a 

separate standard is needed if the goal 

of near zero fuel vapor emissions is to 

be achieved. 

The design to address this concern is 

a supplemental ‘‘scrubber’’ canister (or 

canister compartment) with a very low 

working capacity carbon. Adding 100 or 

200 ml of this type of carbon near the 

canister vent provides a margin of 

‘‘reserve capacity’’ to capture diffusion 

losses from the canister. Since this extra 

carbon has low working capacity and it 

purges readily, it is typically cleared of 

hydrocarbon vapors and ready to 

perform its function after any amount of 

engine operation or even with natural 

back purge which occurs when the fuel 

in the tank cools. This scrubber element 

is expected to eliminate all but 5–10 mg 

of emissions from the evaporative 

canister over the measurement 

procedure. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29894 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

289MDPVs also meet the definition of HDVs, but 

they are classified separately for evaporative and 

refueling emission purposes. See 40 CFR 86.1803– 

01. 

290 Vehicles may be complete or incomplete 

vehicles. A complete HDGV is one that has the 

primary load carrying device or container (or 

equivalent equipment) attached, normally by the 

vehicle OEM. An incomplete vehicle is one that 

does not have the primary load carrying device or 

container (or equivalent equipment) attached when 

it is first sold. This may include vehicles sold to 

secondary vehicle manufacturers. 

iii. Leak Emission Standard 

Vapor leaks in the vehicle fuel/ 

evaporative system can arise from 

micro-cracks or other flaws in various 

fuel/evaporative system component 

structures or welds, problems with 

component installations, and more 

generally from connections between 

components and fuel lines and vapor 

lines. Because these emissions from 

these areas would occur in the 2–3 day 

evaporative emissions test if the 

problems were present, manufacturers 

have taken steps to address these 

potential problem areas as part of their 

overall evaporative emissions control 

strategy. Since the 2- and 3-day hot soak 

plus diurnal standards are proposed to 

become more stringent and leak 

emissions occur during the evaporative 

emissions test, we expect manufacturers 

to take the measures described above in 

Section IV.C.2.g.i. These include 

reducing connections, improving the 

quality of fuel and vapor line 

connections, use of improved 

component materials and revised 

installation practices. Manufacturers 

could also review their OBD leak 

warranty data and related information 

from OBD queries to help inform their 

strategies. One of the key reasons for 

proposing a leak emission standard is to 

promote the continuing development of 

designs, part production techniques, 

and assembly practices which will yield 

less in-use emissions deterioration and 

improved in-use emissions 

performance. EPA believes this focus on 

in-use durability is important because a 

vehicle with even a small leak, e.g., the 

size of the 0.020–0.040 inch orifice 

diameter monitored by OBD systems 

would likely emit above the proposed 

hot soak plus diurnal evaporative 

emission standard in use. 

3. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) 

Requirements 

a. Overview of the Proposal for HDGVs 

As presented above, EPA is proposing 

to include HDGVs within the Tier 3 

evaporative emissions program. The 

proposed hot soak plus diurnal and 

canister bleed test emission standards 

that would apply to these HDGVs are as 

presented in Table IV–18 and the high 

altitude standard is presented in Table 

IV–20. These vehicles would be 

included in the averaging calculation 

beginning in the 2018 MY and would be 

eligible for creating and using 

allowances and credits as discussed 

above. Furthermore, for the reasons 

discussed below, EPA is proposing that 

HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs 

GVWR be required to meet the refueling 

emission standard by the 2018 MY. 

b. Background on the HDGV Sector 

HDGVs are generally gasolinepowered vehicles with either a GVWR 

of greater than 8,500 lbs, or a vehicle 

curb weight of more than 6,000 lbs, or 

a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 

45 square feet.289 HDGVs are 

predominantly but not exclusively 

commercial vehicles, mostly trucks and 

other work type vehicles built on truck 

chassis. EPA often discusses HDGVs in 

three basic categories for regulatory 

purposes according to their GVWR 

class. These include Class 2b (8,501– 

10,000 lbs GVWR), Class 3 (10,001– 

14,000 lbs GVWR), and Class 4 and 

above (over 14,000 lbs GVWR). These 

are further sub-categorized into 

complete and incomplete vehicles.290

Class 2b HDGVs are mostly produced by 

the manufacturers as complete vehicles 

and are very similar to lower GVWR 

LDTs of the same basic model sold by 

the manufacturers. Class 3 HDGVs are 

also built from LDT chassis with fuel 

system designs that are similar to their 

Class 2b and LDT counterparts, but 

these are on some occasions sent to 

secondary manufacturers as incomplete 

vehicles to attach a load carrying device 

or container. EPA estimates that more 

than 95 percent of Class 2b/3 vehicles 

are complete when they leave the 

original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM). Class 4 and above HDGVs are 

built on a more traditional heavy-truck 

chassis and in most cases leave the OEM 

as an incomplete vehicle. For Class 

2b/3 vehicles, it is common to certify 

the vehicle for emissions purposes 

(exhaust, evaporative, etc) as a full 

chassis, while for Class 4 and above the 

vehicle is certified as a chassis for 

evaporative emissions while the engine 

is dynamometer certified for exhaust 

emissions. 

For LDVs and LDTs, the current EPA 

evaporative and refueling emission test 

procedures are the same for all vehicle 

categories and the emission standards 

are of a similar but not always identical 

stringency, within the subclasses. 

However, this is not true for HDGVs. For 

HDGVs, the level of the evaporative 

emission standards and the test 

procedures vary by category and the 

refueling emission control requirements 

are also different. There are several 

reasons for these differences, including 

variations in the size, design, and other 

properties of the basic fuel system, the 

dimensions of the vehicles, and the 

potential for actions of secondary 

manufacturers to impact the fuel 

system. There are many fuel system 

similarities between Class 2b/3 HDGVs 

and heavy LDTs, but fewer similarities 

between heavy LDTs and HDGVs in 

Class 4 and above. 

Over the past 15 to 20 years, there 

have been several notable changes in 

HDGV products and market that have 

influenced the application of 

evaporative and refueling emission 

control requirements and may impact 

potential new or revised requirements 

going forward. Most noteworthy among 

these are the increased use of diesel 

engines across all weight classes and the 

emergence of better defined market 

segments for primary OEMs and 

secondary manufacturers. 

The increased use of diesel engines 

has reduced overall HDGV sales and 

brought about a consolidation of 

manufacturer HDGV product offerings. 

For Class 2b/3 HDGVs, these are now all 

derived from LDT chassis and have the 

same basic fuel system and engine 

characteristics. This has led EPA to 

extend the light-duty evaporative and 

refueling test procedures and emission 

standards to the Class 2b/3 HDGVs, 

when applicable. In a rule promulgated 

in 2000, EPA required manufacturers to 

certify these HDGVs using light-duty 

test procedures. Also, in this same rule, 

EPA extended the vehicle refueling 

emission standards to complete Class 2b 

vehicles. These actions were technically 

appropriate because of the similarities 

between the LDT and Class 2b HDGVs 

and fuel systems and the large fraction 

of complete Class 2b HDGVs produced 

by the vehicle manufacturers. Today, 

fuel systems for Class 3 HDGVs are 

comparable those for Class 2b HDGVs, 

so it is reasonable and technically 

feasible to extend the Class 2b refueling 

emission requirements to Class 3 

HDGVs. 

Class 4 and heavier HDGVs still play 

a small but important role in the 

traditional truck and heavy-duty vehicle 

markets. These vehicles are sometimes 

distinctly different from Class 2b/3 

vehicles in terms of testing, chassis 

designs, and fuel system characteristics; 

secondary manufacturers also play a 

larger role in the overall completion of 

the vehicle. For these vehicles, the 

engines are certified for emissions on an 

engine dynamometer while the 

evaporative emissions are certified 

separately on the vehicle chassis. 

Furthermore, these vehicles are larger 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29895 

dimensionally (which often means 

longer fuel and vapor lines) and have 

larger volume fuel tanks (sometimes 

two), which may be mounted on the 

underbody or side-rail. It is common for 

a secondary manufacturer to complete 

the vehicle by adding the cargo 

container or other working equipment 

box or package (e.g., small cargo truck 

or tow truck) and in some cases to 

reconfigure components. While the 

extrapolation of refueling emission 

control technology is conceptually 

straightforward, in some cases there 

may be unique technical issues related 

to implementing refueling emission 

controls for these heavier HDGVs 

relative to Class 2b/3 HDGVs and LDTs. 

Based on these considerations, EPA is 

proposing that the refueling emission 

standards in § 86.1816–05 to apply to 

Class 3 HDGVs as well. This is 

appropriate because the fuel and 

evaporative control systems on these 

vehicles are very similar to those on 

their slightly lighter-weight Class 2b 

counterparts, and in some cases Class 3 

HDGVs are already designed to meet 

this proposed requirement. EPA is 

proposing that this requirement be met 

beginning in the 2018 MY. EPA is also 

proposing that manufacturers be 

permitted to comply as early as the 2015 

MY to earn on a one-to-one basis 

allowances which could be used to 

phase-in the Class 3 refueling emission 

control requirement or as an allowance 

under the Tier 3 evaporative emission 

program. EPA believes this is 

appropriate since the expected daily 

average reduction in vehicle refueling 

emissions for this class of vehicles is 

large relative to the reduction in 

evaporative emissions expected under 

Tier 3. Any certifications, including 

those done early, must use EPA Tier 3 

test procedures and certification test 

fuels. 

c. Other Potential Program Elements for 

HDGVs 

EPA is seeking comments on several 

other programmatic elements related to 

the Tier 3 evaporative and refueling 

emission control proposal. 

First, even if we do not revise the 

current evaporative emission standards 

for these vehicles and they are not 

required to control refueling emissions, 

we are seeking comment on requiring 

manufacturers to certify their 

evaporative emissions using Tier 3 

certification test fuel. Tier 3 certification 

test fuel would provide equivalent or 

better emissions control as compared to 

current certification test fuel in terms of 

the fuel quality impact on emission 

control system designs to meet the 

existing evaporative emission standards 

and would provide equivalent or better 

in-use performance. Requiring this new 

certification test fuel has the potential to 

add efficiency to the certification 

process since manufacturers could 

certify one system for EPA and CARB 

for each evaporative family. Since 

incomplete vehicles and those over 

14,000 lbs GVWR often do not use the 

same test vehicle/engine for evaporative 

and exhaust emission testing, we seek 

comment on whether a requirement for 

vehicle evaporative and/or refueling 

emission certification on Tier 3 test fuel 

would technically necessitate engine 

exhaust emission certification on Tier 3 

test fuel. 

Second, as mentioned in Section IV. 

B., EPA is also seeking comment on 

requiring the use of Tier 3 certification 

test fuel for HDGVs which are enginedynamometer certified, not chassiscertified, for exhaust emissions. This 

would potentially include all engine 

families certified for use in HDGVs 

above 8,500 lbs. GVWR. We are seeking 

comment on this change because we 

believe it may be the best and most 

representative technical approach for 

the future in the context of the engine/ 

emission control system/fuel system 

design and performance and fuel 

quality. Overall, we believe this change 

to the certification test fuel for HDGVs 

would provide equivalent or better 

emissions control for the regulated 

pollutants as compared to current 

certification test fuel, in terms of the 

impact of fuel quality on emission 

control system designs and in-use 

performance, and may also simplify 

manufacturers’ testing operations by 

providing for a single test fuel. We are 

also seeking comment on putting this 

requirement in place in the 2020–2022 

MY time frame. Consistent with the 

approach proposed in Section IV.D.4 for 

light- and heavy-duty vehicles, we are 

committed to the principle of ensuring 

that any change in test fuel for heavyduty engines would not affect the 

stringency of either the fuel 

consumption or GHG emissions 

standards. As part of the separate 

rulemaking discussed in Section IV.D.4, 

we would expect to establish the 

appropriate test procedure adjustment 

for HD engine fuel consumption 

standards and to determine the need for 

any test procedure adjustment for GHG 

emissions standards based on the 

change in certification test fuels. 

Third, to simplify the evaporative 

emission regulations for HDGVs and to 

bring them more in line with the current 

structure of the product offerings in this 

sector, we are proposing to permit 

evaporative emissions certification by 

engineering analysis for vehicles above 

14,000 lbs GVWR (instead of above 

26,000 lbs GVWR as is permitted in the 

current regulations). These HDGVs 

would remain subject to the emission 

standards when tested using the 

specified procedures. This is the same 

cut point allowed by CARB and would 

allow for one certification method. 

Furthermore, for HDGVs over 14,000 lbs 

GVWR, we request comment on taking 

an additional step to rely even further 

on design parameters and engineering 

analysis. Under this approach, 

manufacturers would need to 

demonstrate that the design of their 

purge strategy, canister capacity, and 

overall control system would control 

emissions to the same degree as similar 

(or comparable) Class 2b or Class 3 

vehicles that meet emission standards 

when tested over the established 

measurement procedures. The standard 

would be a performance standard in that 

the manufacturer could use any design 

that met the criteria of controlling 

emissions to the same degree that occurs 

in vehicles that meet the emissions 

standard. However, unlike the proposed 

approach, compliance with the standard 

would be based solely on an engineering 

review of the design. Compliance would 

not be determined by measuring 

performance on the emissions test. This 

would take into account the limitations 

in managing any significant degree of 

testing with these over-size vehicles. In 

particular, we request comment on the 

enforceability of taking the approach of 

a design standard. 

Fourth, we are proposing a revised 

description of evaporative emission 

families that does not reference sealing 

methods for carburetors or air cleaners 

as this technology is now obsolete for 

heavy-duty gasoline engines. 

Fifth, we also seek comment on the 

implications on these evaporative 

emission standards were we to require 

the certification test fuel to be 10 psi 

RVP E10 as discussed below in Section 

IV.D.1. 

Sixth, we are proposing to clarify how 

evaporative emission standards affect 

engine manufacturers and proposing 

more descriptive provisions related to 

certifying vehicles above 26,000 lbs 

GVWR using engineering analysis. 

These improved descriptive provisions 

would apply to vehicles above 14,000 

GVWR lbs if the proposed change in 

GVWR cut point for engineering 

analysis certification is finalized. 

Finally, EPA is asking for comment on 

several other provisions related to the 

heavier HDGVs (over 14,000 lbs GVWR). 

First, if we do not include these heavier 

HDGVs in the Tier 3 final rule 

requirements, we are asking comment 

on whether manufacturers should be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29896 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

291 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993). 

292SHED 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. 293 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994). 

able to voluntarily certify any HDGVs 

not covered by the rule to the same 

requirements as being proposed for 

Class 2b/3 HDGVs, and through this 

action earn allowances and credits for 

use within the Tier 3 program as 

discussed above for other vehicles. This 

would include both evaporative and 

refueling emissions standards. Second, 

EPA also asks comment on whether 

there should be a provision to permit 

HDGVs over 14,000 lbs GVWR to be 

grouped with those between 10,001 and 

14,000 lbs GVWR for purposes of 

complying with evaporative and 

refueling emission control standards 

and related provisions. In these cases, 

we would expect these HDGVs to meet 

all the requirements applicable to the 

group in which they are being included 

(e.g., useful life, OBD, etc.). 

4. Test Procedures and Certification Test 

Fuel 

a. Review and Update of Testing 

Requirements 

EPA adopted the current test 

requirements for controlling evaporative 

emissions in 1993.291 Those changes 

included: (1) Diurnal testing based on 

heating and cooling the ambient air in 

the SHED 292 instead of forcing fuel 

temperatures through a specified 

temperature excursion; (2) repeated 24- 

hour diurnal measurements to capture 

both permeation and diurnal emissions; 

(3) high-temperature hot soak testing; (4) 

high-temperature running-loss 

measurements with a separate standard, 

including controlled fuel temperatures 

according to a fuel-temperature profile 

developed for the vehicle; and (5) 

canister preconditioning to ensure that 

vehicles could effectively create canister 

capacity to prepare for several days of 

non-driving. 

These test procedures are generally 

referred to as ‘‘enhanced evap’’ testing. 

EPA adopted these ‘‘enhanced evap’’ 

test procedures in coordination with 

CARB. The test requirements include 

two separate test sequences to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of 

evaporative emission controls. The 

‘‘two-diurnal sequence’’ involves 

canister loading to two-gram 

breakthrough, followed by driving for 

the exhaust test (about 31 minutes), a 

hot soak test, and two days of cycled 

ambient temperatures. The ‘‘three-day 

sequence’’ involves canister loading 

with 50 percent more vapor than needed 

to reach breakthrough, followed by 

driving for the exhaust test, driving for 

the running loss test (about 97 minutes 

total), a high-temperature hot-soak test, 

and three days of cycled ambient 

temperature. 

The 2-day sequence was intended 

primarily to insure a purge strategy 

which would create enough canister 

capacity to capture two days of diurnal 

emissions after limited driving. The 

two-day measurement period was 

effective for requiring control of 

permeation and other fugitive 

emissions. The 3-day sequence was 

intended to establish a design 

benchmark for achieving adequate 

canister storage capacity to allow for 

several days of parking on hot summer 

days, in addition to requiring vehicle 

designs that prevent emissions during 

high-temperature driving and shutdown 

conditions. 

After adopting these evaporative test 

procedures, we set new standards for 

refueling emissions control which 

called for onboard refueling vapor 

recovery (ORVR).293 Manufacturers 

have typically designed their ORVR 

systems to be integrated with their 

evaporative controls, using a single 

canister and purge strategy to manage 

all fuel vapors vented from the fuel 

tank. Due to the magnitude of the 

refueling emission load and the manner 

in which the load rates affect activated 

carbon capture efficiency, it has become 

clear that ORVR testing with these 

integrated systems serves as the 

benchmark for achieving adequate 

canister storage capacity. 

In the nearly 20 years since adopting 

these test procedures, manufacturers 

have made great strides in developing 

designs and technologies to manage 

canister loading and purging and to 

reduce permeation emissions. Except as 

discussed below, we are not proposing 

to change the test procedures for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

proposed Tier 3 emission standards. 

As described above, we are proposing 

to adopt a new standard based on 

measured values over a ‘‘canister bleed 

test,’’ which is intended to measure only 

fuel vapors which diffuse from the 

evaporative canister. CARB developed 

this procedure as a means of setting a 

standard that would not be affected by 

nonfuel background emissions. This 

procedure is a variation of the 

established two-day test sequence. The 

canister is preconditioned by purging 

and loading to breakthrough, then 

attached to an appropriate test vehicle 

for driving over the duty cycle for the 

exhaust test. The canister is then 

attached to a fuel tank for measurement. 

After a stabilization period, the tank and 

canister undergo two days of 

temperature cycling. Canister emissions 

are measured using a flame ionization 

detector (FID), either using a 

conventional SHED approach or by 

collecting emissions in a bag and 

measuring the mass. Rather than 

repeating CARB’s regulations, we are 

proposing to incorporate those 

regulations by reference into the CFR. 

This will avoid the possibility of 

complications related to minor 

differences that may occur with separate 

test procedures. 

CARB also adopted a fuel system ‘‘rig 

test’’ as an optional approach to 

demonstrate control of evaporative 

emissions without the effects of the 

nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions that are 

seen in testing the whole vehicle in the 

SHED. We generally expect 

manufacturers to comply with the 

proposed EPA requirements which 

include the canister bleed test and 

emission standard instead of CARB 

Option 1 which includes the rig test and 

emission standard. However, since we 

are proposing to accept CARB Option 1 

certifications for the 2017 through 2019 

model years, we are also proposing to 

incorporate by reference CARB’s rig test 

into the CFR to accommodate those 

manufacturers that do in fact rely on 

this approach. 

Also, as discussed further below, we 

are proposing to adopt a new leak test 

procedure which would be used to 

measure leak rates for the proposed leak 

emission standard. The leak test 

standard test procedure is contained in 

the proposed regulatory text. Further 

detail can be found in the draft 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (Appendix 

to Chapter 1). 

Manufacturers have raised a pair of 

related concerns regarding the current 

test procedures. First, hybrid vehicles 

and new engine designs for meeting fuel 

economy standards and CO2 emission 

standards increase the challenge of 

maintaining an adequate purge volume 

to prepare vehicles for the diurnal test. 

For hybrid vehicles this is related to the 

amount of time the engine is running. 

For other technologies this is related to 

the trend toward decreasing available 

vacuum in the intake manifold, which 

is the principal means of drawing purge 

air through the canister. Second, 

preconditioning the canister by loading 

to breakthrough serves as a disincentive 

for some control strategies that might 

otherwise be effective at reducing 

emissions, such as designs involving 

greater canister capacity or better 

containment of fuel vapors inside the 

fuel tank. In addition, we have learned 

from studying in-use emissions and inmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29897 

294Moulis, C. (2012, January). SHED FID 

Responses for Ethanol. Memorandum to the docket. 

use driving behaviors and usage 

patterns that it is not uncommon for 

vehicles to go for an extended period 

with little or no opportunity to purge 

the canister. 

We request comment on an optional 

adjustment to the test procedure 

intended to address these three 

concerns. In this alternative, for designs 

involving pressurized tanks, 

manufacturers would determine an 

alternative vapor load to precondition 

the canister before the exhaust test. If, 

for example, a fuel system is designed 

to stay sealed up to 1 psi and to vent 

vapors to the canister if rising 

temperatures trigger a pressure-relief 

valve, the manufacturer could quantify 

the actual vapor load to the canister 

during three consecutive days of cycling 

through diurnal test temperatures. This 

three-day vapor load would be the 

amount of fuel vapor used to 

precondition the canister (loaded at the 

established rate of 15 grams per hour). 

This canister loading may also involve 

butane instead of fuel vapor, but we 

would likely require a greater mass of 

butane to account for the fact that it is 

easier to remove the butane from the 

activated carbon in the canister. This 

approach would be flexible to 

accommodate any design target for 

pressurizing fuel tanks. Canister 

preconditioning for the ORVR test (for 

integrated and nonintegrated systems) 

would remain unchanged. 

b. Test Fuel 

EPA is proposing to change the 

certification test fuel specifications as 

described in Section IV.D. Here we 

discuss some implications for 

evaporative and refueling emissions 

testing. We are proposing to revise the 

certification test fuel specification 

(including durability fuel) in 

conjunction with the proposed Tier 3 

standards, principally to include 

ethanol and reduce sulfur such that the 

test fuel better aligns with the current 

and projected in-use fuel. Any Tier 3 

evaporative emission certification 

would have to use Tier 3 certification 

test fuel and test procedures. This could 

be done as early as the 2015 MY and 

would be required for all vehicle models 

by the 2020 MY. We are further 

proposing to apply the new test fuel at 

the same time to ORVR testing. 

Therefore, beginning in the 2017 MY if 

manufacturers do any new testing to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards, they would need to submit 

test data to demonstrate compliance 

with the refueling emission standards 

using the new certification test fuel as 

well as the leak (when applicable), 

refueling, canister bleed, and high 

altitude testing requirements and 

emission standards. We are also 

proposing that any family that is not yet 

captured within the Tier 3 phase-in 

percentage may remain on current 

certification fuel or, as discussed below, 

California certification test fuel and test 

procedures through the 2019 MY. By the 

2020 MY all evaporative and refueling 

emission certifications would have to be 

on EPA test procedures and certification 

fuels. It is useful to clarify that any 

confirmatory or in-use testing for these 

families would be done on the fuel on 

which they were originally certified. 

However, by the 2020 MY all vehicles 

must be certified with Tier 3 

certification test fuel and that test fuel 

would have to be used in confirmatory 

and in-use testing. 

Finally, we are proposing that any 

vehicle certified to the refueling spit 

back standard separately (mostly 

incomplete HDGVs) may continue to do 

so using current certification fuel until 

the 2022 MY even if it’s evaporative 

and/or refueling emissions are certified 

on Tier 3 certification fuel. This is 

reasonable since the fill quality of the 

vehicle and eliminating spit back are 

not necessarily related to the ethanol or 

sulfur content of the gasoline. 

There are two main fuel properties 

that influence evaporative emissions: 

Ethanol content and vapor pressure. 

Current requirements specify an 

emission test fuel with no ethanol for 

emissions testing; however, the current 

regulation specifies that manufacturers 

must perform service accumulation 

(durability) using fuel with, at a 

minimum, the highest concentration of 

ethanol permissible under federal law 

for in-use gasoline and that is 

commercially available in at least one 

state. In this case, this provision has the 

effect of insuring that manufacturers 

would design their fuel systems to 

account for the effect of ethanol on 

permeation emissions. Even without 

ethanol in the test fuel, the extended 

operation with gasoline-ethanol blends 

for service accumulation would 

effectively force the manufacturers to 

design systems which effectively control 

emissions from the blended fuel. By 

regulation manufacturers must use a 10 

percent ethanol fuel in current 

evaporative emissions durability work. 

As a result, adding ethanol to the test 

fuel for Tier 3 evaporative and refueling 

emission testing should pose no new or 

greater challenge for manufacturers. A 

second issue related to adding ethanol 

to the certification test fuel relates to the 

emission measurement in the SHED. 

Emissions are detected by flame 

ionization detectors (FID), which are 

less responsive to ethanol than gasoline. 

This effect causes under-reporting from 

the ethanol portion of the fuel vapor. 

Fuel-related emissions from the vehicle 

may be slightly more weighted toward 

ethanol than gasoline, depending on 

how the different fuel constituents 

permeate through various fuel-system 

materials, how they evaporate from the 

bulk fuel in the tank at varying 

temperatures, and how they adsorb onto 

and desorb from the activated carbon in 

the canister. We are proposing to 

address this issue by the use of a 

prescribed scaling factor. Under this 

approach manufacturers would simply 

multiply their SHED measurement 

results by a fixed value to adjust upward 

for the difference in the FID response to 

ethanol. Data available to EPA suggest 

that a scaling value of approximately 1.1 

would be appropriate for E15.294 This 

means that the value measured in the 

SHED would be multiplied by 1.10 to 

account for a difference in the FID 

response. This was determined using 

data which indicates that from a near 

worst case perspective the term within 

the bracket { } below equals 1.1. 

MHC adj = [(PBVn/T)- 

(.000297)(ppmCfid)*{1 + ((1¥ra) 

(reth))/ 1 + ((reth)(ra))}] 

This adjustment would apply to hot 

soak plus diurnal, refueling, canister 

bleed, and spitback emission standards 

testing. For higher ethanol blends (such 

as E85), the regulation already specifies 

measurement and calculation 

procedures to adjust for this effect. We 

are not proposing any changes to these 

procedures. 

c. Vehicle Preconditioning for Nonfuel 

Hydrocarbon Emissions for the Tier 3 

Evaporative Emission Standards 

The proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus 

diurnal, leak, and canister bleed 

emission standards taken together are 

expected to bring about the widespread 

use of technology which effectively 

eliminates fuel vapor emissions. The 

canister bleed and leak emission 

standards are not influenced by non fuel 

hydrocarbon emissions from the 

vehicle. Nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions 

from the vehicle are measured as part of 

SHED emission testing, and are 

indistinguishable for fuel hydrocarbons 

when a FID is used to measure the 

concentration. The level of these 

nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions vary by 

vehicle and component design and 

material. These emissions arise from 

paint, adhesives, plastics, fuel/vapor 

lines, tires, and other rubber or polymer 

components and are generally greater 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29898 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

with larger size vehicles. These nonfuel 

hydrocarbon emissions are usually 

highest with newly manufactured 

vehicles and decrease relatively quickly 

over time. 

Currently, manufacturers often 

conduct some preconditioning to reduce 

or eliminate the effects of these nonfuel 

hydrocarbon emissions on evaporative 

emissions measurements in the SHED. 

In the past, this practice has not been 

addressed through regulatory 

provisions. However, given the stringent 

level of the proposed Tier 3 hot soak 

plus diurnal evaporative emission 

standards, and that nonfuel 

hydrocarbon emissions are expected to 

be a significant portion of the 

hydrocarbon emissions measured in the 

SHED, EPA believes that some sort of 

preconditioning before certification 

testing is appropriate and that a 

regulatory provision addressing this 

practice may be warranted. Providing 

some recognition of and allowance for 

this practice would help to create the 

proper balance between necessary and 

proper preconditioning to address high 

nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions and 

excessive preconditioning which could 

undermine the intent of the proposed 

hot soak plus diurnal emission standard 

(∼ 50 mg or less of fuel evaporative 

emissions). EPA believes the goal of 

evaporative emissions preconditioning 

should be to get nonfuel hydrocarbon 

emissions to what we call vehicle 

background levels. A working definition 

of vehicle background level might be the 

level which would occur naturally 

twelve months after production. A 

provision in the regulations which 

addresses preconditioning reduces 

ambiguity for the manufacturers and 

could reduce or eliminate any 

uncertainty in the true meaning of 

certification test results. 

Manufacturer activity with regard to 

preconditioning often involves two 

practices. First, manufacturers in some 

cases ‘‘bake’’ their test vehicles at 

temperatures of 50 °C or higher for 

periods of up to ten or more days to 

accelerate the off-gassing of these 

nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions before 

testing is conducted. While this practice 

is common, there is no standardized 

method or protocol for this 

preconditioning prior to new vehicle 

certification testing. For example, some 

manufacturers bake for a set period of 

time in a climate chamber while others 

bake in the climate chamber and 

periodically measure nonfuel 

background in a SHED until an 

acceptable or stable level of nonfuel 

hydrocarbon emissions is achieved. 

Second, manufacturers often remove, 

modify, or clean certain components 

which are the largest source of nonfuel 

hydrocarbon emissions. Preconditioning 

could also include measures to 

eliminate minor fuel drips, spills, or 

other fuel remnants which occur as a 

result of vehicle preparation for testing. 

We are not proposing to specify 

standardized preconditioning practices 

or protocols with regard to addressing 

nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions before 

evaporative emission certification 

testing. However, we are proposing 

general provisions in four areas. First, 

we would specify in the regulations that 

preconditioning for the purpose of 

addressing nonfuel hydrocarbon 

emissions is permitted. Second, we 

would specify that any preconditioning 

is voluntary. Third, we would specify 

that if preconditioning is conducted, the 

details must be specified to EPA before 

certification testing, (i.e., at the time of 

the pre-certification planning meeting). 

The goal of this preconditioning should 

be to get nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions 

to what we would term vehicle 

background levels as discussed above. 

The specifics to be discussed with EPA 

could include details on vehicle baking 

practices such the temperature and time 

duration in the climate chamber and 

practices conducted as an alternative or 

complement to vehicle baking such as 

installing used tires (drive and spare) on 

certification vehicles, and allowing the 

windshield washer tank to be filled only 

with water. In seeking to understand 

this issue, we ask for comment on 

which components are the largest 

sources of these nonfuel hydrocarbons 

and of these which are practical to 

modify or remove for the evaporative 

emissions test. 

Fourth, as part of these considerations 

we would specifically propose that no 

preconditioning be permitted for testing 

of any vehicle aged more than twelve 

months from its date of manufacture. 

The only exception we would consider 

is the use of an aged spare tire in lieu 

of the spare tire on the test vehicle. For 

these vehicles, nonfuel hydrocarbon 

emissions would presumably be 

reduced to a stable level due to natural 

off gassing which begins after the 

vehicle is manufactured. Emissions 

from any replacement parts or other 

vehicle maintenance would presumably 

be encompassed within the margin 

below the standard created by this 

natural off-gassing. EPA asks comment 

on how to address testing of vehicles 

with relatively new drive tires and 

whether used drive tires should be 

allowed in these circumstances. Data 

available to EPA indicates that the 

background emission rate stabilizes to 

about two-thirds of the level of the 

standard after about twelve months. 

These levels are adequately below the 

proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards so that nonfuel background 

would not unduly influence test pass/ 

fail outcomes and are within the range 

of values EPA expects to be 

accommodated within the proposed 

evaporative emission standard. This 

proposed restriction for vehicles older 

than 12 months would include 

certification, confirmatory and in-use 

testing for any vehicle certified to the 

proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards. We request manufacturer 

data related to the change in nonfuel 

hydrocarbon emission rates over time 

and on the best method to consider 

these emissions as part of 

preconditioning before evaporative 

emission testing. 

d. Reciprocity With CARB 

Over the past 15 years EPA’s 

‘‘enhanced evap’’ test procedures have 

been based on testing with 9 pound per 

square inch (psi) RVP gasoline with test 

temperatures representing a summer 

day with peak temperatures of about 

96 °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 

CARB agreed that certification could be 

based on testing with either EPA or 

CARB conditions and that these 

provided equivalent stringency for 

purposes of evaporative control system 

design. However, the provision allowing 

for this equivalence of test data 

preserved EPA’s ability to also test with 

either EPA or CARB temperature 

conditions. CARB always specified EPA 

test conditions for refueling as they 

were deemed worst case. CARB recently 

moved to change their certification test 

fuel to a 7 RVP gasoline with 10 percent 

ethanol and as discussed in Section 

IV.D, we are now proposing to change 

the Federal certification test fuel 

specification to a 9 RVP gasoline with 

15 percent ethanol. 

During the development of this 

proposal we carefully considered the 

practice of CARB/EPA reciprocity with 

regard to certification test fuels, hot soak 

plus diurnal test procedures, and 

emission test results when it comes to 

evaporative emissions certification. 

With this notice we are proposing a 

revised approach to the CARB/EPA 

reciprocity with regard to evaporative 

and refueling emissions. A uniform 

national certification test fuel is 

important to the design of fuel/ 

evaporative systems which will operate 

effectively across the U.S. Consistent 

with our desire to have a national 

program with vehicles designed for E15 

as discussed in Section IV.D, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29899 

295 64 FR 23906 (May 4, 1999). 

296 65 FR 59922–59924 (October 6, 2000). 

consistent with our treatment of exhaust 

emission standards, we are proposing a 

9 RVP test fuel with 15 percent ethanol 

for all evaporative (hot soak plus 

diurnal, canister bleed, and leak 

emission standards) and refueling 

emissions testing. Thus, after the 

evaporative emissions fuel phase-in 

discussed above (ending after the 2019 

MY), EPA will no longer accept test data 

on CARB test fuel and diurnal test 

temperatures. However, CARB has 

agreed to accept emission test data on 

EPA test fuel and temperature 

conditions for certification such that a 

uniform national program could still 

exist. This approach applies to all 

evaporative and refueling emission 

standards. 

Generally, any vehicle family counted 

in the Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards phase-in must be certified on 

Tier 3 certification test fuel using EPA 

test procedures. However, EPA 

recognizes that the California and 

federal evaporative emission standard 

programs would be starting from 

different bases and that the transition 

provisions are different in some ways. 

For example, the proposed EPA program 

starts in the 2017 MY but after that has 

the same basic program construct as 

CARB in 2018. However, prior to the 

2017 MY, CARB has a ZEV program 

provision which will continue to bring 

zero evap technology into the fleet 

before 2017. To capitalize on this 

technology and to facilitate transition, 

we are proposing that any CARB 

evaporative emission test data from MYs 

2015 and 2016 certifications could be 

used in federal certification for those 

evaporative/refueling families through 

the 2019 MY. Assuming these vehicle 

families meet Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards and they are sold 

nationwide they could be included in 

the percentage phase-in calculations as 

Tier 3 vehicles. A good example of these 

would be vehicles meeting CARB 

Option 1 standards discussed above. If 

the vehicles do not meet the Tier 3 

evaporative emission requirements 

manufacturers could potentially sell 

them nationwide, but they would not be 

included as compliant vehicles in the 

percentage phase-in calculation. EPA 

proposes a similar provision for a 

manufacturer which elects to use the 

CARB test procedures and test fuels to 

meet the refueling emission standard. 

That is, if a manufacturer uses 

evaporative emission test data from 

2015 or 2016 model year CARB 

certifications to meet the Federal 

requirements in 2017–2019 model years, 

it may also use CARB refueling emission 

test data from model year 2015 and 2016 

certifications for federal certification for 

the refueling requirements for those 

evaporative/refueling families through 

the 2019 MY. Any in-use testing on 

vehicle families certified on this data 

would be conducted using the CARB 

temperature conditions and test fuel and 

the CARB ethanol SHED adjustment 

value of 1.08 for 10 percent ethanol. 

However, by the 2020 MY all vehicles 

would have to be certified using EPA 

certification test fuel and test 

procedures. In the interim, the 

equivalency and acceptance by EPA of 

certification on California test fuels is 

dependent on our proposed 9 psi RVP 

level for the certification test fuel. Were 

we to require the more stringent level of 

10 psi RVP more typical of E10 as 

discussed in section IV.D.1, testing 

using California test fuels and 

conditions would no longer be 

equivalent. 

e. Evaporative and Refueling Emission 

Standards for Various Fuels 

The evaporative and refueling 

emission standards today apply in 

different ways to different fuels. In the 

case of gasoline, all the standards apply 

and testing is required for certifying all 

vehicles. Evaporative emission 

standards do not apply for diesel-fueled 

vehicles; the refueling standards apply 

to diesel-fueled vehicles, but 

manufacturers can get EPA approval to 

omit testing for certification. For other 

fuels, there is a mix of standards 

applying or not applying, and if 

standards apply, testing is either 

required or not required. The statutory 

provisions in this regard are 

straightforward: Clean Air Act section 

202(k) specifies that gasoline-fueled 

vehicles must be certified to evaporative 

emission standards, and section 

202(a)(6) specifies that all motor 

vehicles be certified to refueling 

emission standards. This raises two 

questions. First, we request comment on 

using this rulemaking as the proper 

context for applying the refueling 

standards to vehicles powered by every 

kind of fuel. Where standards do not 

apply today (natural gas, fuel cells, 

electric, etc.), we would expect to waive 

test requirements for certification, so 

this would not be any substantial 

burden. Dedicated ethanol-fueled 

vehicles would face a new requirement, 

but we are not aware that there are any 

such vehicles today. 

Second, we have the discretion to 

apply evaporative emission standards to 

vehicles powered by fuels other than 

gasoline. The standards expressly do not 

apply for diesel fuel. By omission, the 

standards do not apply for dedicated 

ethanol-fueled vehicles, fuel-cell 

vehicles, and electric vehicles. The 

standards apply for natural gas and 

liquefied petroleum gas even though 

these are sealed systems with no 

emission control systems for controlling 

evaporative emissions. We request 

comment on adjusting the regulations 

such that evaporative emission 

standards apply only to volatile liquid 

fuels, which is the approach we have 

taken for nonroad applications (see, for 

example, 40 CFR 1060.801). Under this 

approach, diesel fuel would continue to 

be excluded from standards because it is 

nonvolatile. This approach would also 

exclude natural gas and liquefied 

petroleum gas because they are not 

liquid fuels at atmospheric pressure. 

5. Improvements to In-Use Performance 

of Fuel Vapor Control Systems 

a. Background on Data Related to In-Use 

Performance 

As part of the Compliance Assistance 

Program (CAP 2000) in-use verification 

program (IUVP) 295 the manufacturers 

began testing the evaporative emissions 

performance of small samples of in-use 

vehicles owned and used by the public. 

These regulations can be found at 40 

CFR 86 1845–01, and 1845–04. In 2000, 

EPA extended this requirement to cover 

chassis-certified HDVs, which for these 

purposes are basically all HDGVs up to 

14,000 lbs GVWR.296 The in-use testing 

for evaporative emissions started in 

2004 for 2001 MY LDVs, LDTs, and 

MDPVs and in 2008 for 2007 MY 

chassis certified HDGVs. Current IUVP 

data for evaporative emissions covers 

about 1800 vehicle tests. This data 

shows that when evaluated in the 

laboratory using certification test 

procedures, the vast majority (over 95 

percent) of the vehicles pass the 

evaporative emission standards to 

which they were certified. While this 

information is indicative of good in-use 

performance, it has limitations. First, 

the test results are for small sample 

sizes. For the approximately 150 million 

LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29900 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

297 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993). 

298CRC 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. 

299 DeFries, T., Lindner, J., Kishan, S., Palacios, C. 

(2011). Investigation of Techniques for High 

Evaporative Emissions Vehicle Detection: Denver 

Summer 2008 Pilot Study at Lipan Street Station. 

300 DeFries, T; Palacios, C., Kishan, S. (2012), 

Estimated Summer Hot Soak Distributions for the 

Denver’s Ken Caryl I/M Station Fleet. 

301A selection bin structure was used based on 

indicated evaporative emissions levels recruitment 

heavier at the higher emission end. Thus, there was 

a gradation even in the lower level bins where 

many of the vehicles would be considered marginal 

and not passing the evaporative emission standard 

even if they were not considered higher than the 

1 g/15 minutes which our study found to be the 

lower range detectable by the RSD from the 2010 

Ken Caryl report cited above. 

302Compare the first 15 minutes of hot soak data 

from the field studies with implanted leaks in 

E–77–2 studies. 

an odometer reading of at least 75 

percent of useful life (90,000 miles for 

most Tier 2 vehicles). The useful life 

period for LDVs and LDT1s/LDT2s is 10 

years/120,000 miles, for LDT3s/LDT4s/ 

MDPVs and complete HDGVs it is 11 

years/120,000 miles. Thus, few firm 

conclusions can be drawn about full 

useful life emissions performance. 

Recent evaporative emission testing 

conducted by EPA and others evaluated 

in-use LDVs and LDTs certified to meet 

the enhanced evaporative emission 

standards implemented for 1996 and 

later model years 297 as well as Tier 2 

standards implemented for 2004 and 

later model year vehicles. Three 

Coordinating Research Council (CRC) 

programs (E–77–2/2b/2c), tested 

evaporative emission levels of vehicles 

with varying amounts of ethanol and 

levels of RVP in the gasoline test fuel.298

These programs were unique in that a 

subset of the vehicle SHED tests were of 

vehicles with implanted leaks at the 

nominal minimal level of detection for 

OBD systems (0.020 inch) in three 

different locations in the fuel/ 

evaporative control system. These tests 

showed hydrocarbon emission rates 2– 

10 times greater than for the same 

vehicles tested in the SHED without the 

leaks and showed an order of magnitude 

of difference depending on where the 

leak was introduced. 

Furthermore, the CRC E–77–2 

evaporative emissions test programs 

which looked at permeation in aged 

vehicles meeting EPA’s enhanced 

evaporative emission control standards, 

introduced a new Static Test Procedure 

which pressurized the vapor space and 

activated the fuel pump during different 

portions of the SHED test, while the 

vent from the vehicle canister was 

routed to a trap canister outside of the 

SHED. By pressurizing the vapor space 

it was possible to determine if there was 

a vapor leak in the system by looking for 

a slope change in the vapor 

concentration in the SHED over time 

relative to permeation alone. Similarly, 

by activating the fuel pump it was 

possible to determine if there was a 

liquid leak in the system by looking for 

a slope change in the vapor 

concentration in the SHED over time 

relative to permeation alone. Out of the 

15 randomly recruited vehicles in the 

program, seven of them displayed vapor 

and/or liquid leaks on one or more fuel 

ethanol/RVP combination (4 of these 7 

were Tier 2 vehicles). A closer look at 

the data indicates that over the course 

of the study, which covered a two to 

four year period depending on the 

vehicle, the magnitude of the leaks 

increased with time. 

These studies taken together were of 

concern to EPA with regard to the in-use 

performance of evaporative emission 

control systems because they indicated 

that leaks could be a large portion of the 

evaporative emissions inventory if they 

occurred in even a relatively small 

fraction of the in-use fleet. The key 

missing piece of information was how 

often the leaks of 0.020 inches or larger 

occur in the fleet. 

To help us better understand this 

concern, EPA partnered with the 

Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment (CDPHE) and with 

CRC as an advisor for a pilot field study 

in Denver in the summer of 2008 to 

assess the frequency of high evaporative 

emissions vehicles in the fleet. The 

project identified high evaporative 

emission emitters through an innovative 

screening tool known as a remote 

sensing device (RSD). The vehicles were 

identified at the entrance to the 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

station as high evaporative emission 

emitters. The operators of these vehicles 

were asked to participate in further 

evaluation using a Portable Sealed 

Housing for Evaporative Determination 

(PSHED) in addition to a modified 

California method test procedure to 

locate the source of the high emissions 

indicated by the PSHED level.299 The 

CDPHE continued to collect the same 

type of data in different locations in the 

Denver area for the next two summers. 

Of the 5,830 vehicles which came 

through the Ken Caryl I/M station in 

2009, 601 were identified as potentially 

high evaporative emitters using the RSD 

tool.300 Of these, 84 vehicle owners 

agreed to be included in the PSHED 

evaluation that summer. Furthermore, 

110 additional vehicles were recruited 

which were potentially low to 

marginally high evaporative emitters.301

The study was structured to recruit 

higher evaporative emitting vehicles 

more heavily than lower emitting 

vehicles. Afterwards the percentages 

were adjusted to represent the actual 

mix in the fleet of light duty vehicles. 

Thus, it was determined that 10 percent 

of the fleet had evaporative emissions 

which exceeded a cut point reflecting an 

in-use evaporative emission rate of 

about 1 gram of total HC over 15 

minutes (see Table 5–9 in the 2012 

DeFries report referenced above). This 

value is approximately the emission rate 

that would be expected from a leak of 

0.020 inches which is the detection 

standard for OBD II systems.302

An examination of the test data 

reveals two additional significant 

points. First, the data indicates a trend 

for greater frequency of leaks in older 

vehicles. This is not unexpected given 

the manner in which factors such as 

vibration, fuel quality, weather 

elements, corrosion, maintenance, and 

other operating conditions affect the 

durability of system components, 

fittings, and connections over time. 

Second, there were relatively few newer 

model year vehicles in the population 

surveyed. This is expected and almost 

unavoidable since the Colorado I/M 

program generally exempts vehicles 

which are four years old or newer. 

While it is reasonable to expect there to 

be a lower prevalence of leaks in newer 

vehicles, the lack of data for newer 

vehicles does not necessarily indicate 

that no problems exist in newer model 

year vehicles or that problems will not 

occur in the future with Tier 3 vehicles. 

Since many of the vehicles in the 

sample group met OBD requirements for 

evaporative system leak monitoring, it 

was deemed useful to examine whether 

the OBD system identified the leak. As 

mentioned above, approximately 10 

percent of the vehicles in the ‘‘adjusted 

fleet’’ had vapor leaks which were of the 

magnitude expected from a 0.020 inch 

or larger leak. Over the three years of 

study, there were a total of 180 SHED 

tests (either PSHED or laboratory SHED) 

on vehicles with OBD data collected in 

the I/M program. Of these 180 vehicles, 

171 had the evaporative OBD monitors 

ready. Of these, 171 vehicles, 20 were 

found to have emission rates of 1 g/15 

min in the PSHED (the emission rate 

linked to a 0.020’’ leak). Of these 20 

vehicles only 3 came into the I/M test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29901 

303 In the E–77–2 programs the 0.02 inch leaks 

implanted near the top of the tank and at the 

canister connection had hot soak measurements 

which averaged approximately 1 g/15 minutes 

PSHED measurement. This also happens to be the 

lower end of the detectable range of evaporative 

emissions by the RSD. Since the OBD monitor is 

expected to detect a .020’’ leak wherever it is 

located, the DTC should be set. 

304Palacios, C., Weatherby, M., DeFries, T., 

Lindner, J., Kishan, S. (2012). Evaluation of the 

Effectiveness of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) 

Systems in Identifying Fuel Vapor Losses from 

Light-Duty Vehicles. 

305Fulper, C. (2013, February). Preliminary 

Analysis of OBD Evaporative System Information 

from I/M Stations—California and Texas, 

Memorandum to the docket. 

306For further information see CARB reports 

‘‘Technical Status and Proposed Revisions to 

Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements 

for 1994 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger 

Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty 

Vehicles and Engines (OBD II)’’ October, 1994 and 

‘‘Technical Status and Revisions to Malfunction 

and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and 

Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines 

(OBD II) March 2002. 

307This is based on five percent of vehicles and 

4–5 trips (hot soaks) per day at 1 g/hot soak. Five 

percent is a reasonable value for this illustration 

since as mentioned above 0.3–2.5 percent of 

vehicles come in to I/M stations with evaporative 

system MILs or DTCs and 60–80 percent of these 

were leak-related DTCs. Thus, it is reasonable to 

project that the fleet average is higher since vehicle 

repair just before I/M is common, evaporative 

emission monitors were not ready on 3–16 percent 

of vehicles, and 18 states do not have any form of 

I/M at all and repair rates in response to a MIL may 

be lower. 

with an OBD diagnostic trouble code 

(DTC) set indicating an evaporative 

system problem.303 304 A closer look, 

including field inspection comments, of 

the 20 vehicles shows that half were not 

expected to diagnose the problem 

because it was outside of the OBD 

system design capabilities. Of the 

vehicles which potentially should have 

set an evaporative DTC, at least 50 

percent and perhaps as much as 70 

percent of codes were not set on high 

evap emissions vehicles. The lack of 

codes being set for these vehicles may 

reflect OBD performance issues or 

allowances (known as enable criteria) in 

the OBD regulations regarding when the 

OBD evaporative emission leak 

monitoring system is not required to 

operate or situations when the monitor 

is otherwise not ready for what may be 

allowable reasons such as an allowable 

deficiency. 

To better understand this issue EPA 

has examined evaporative emission 

system DTC and monitor ready 

information from I/M programs from 

Texas and California.305 Since the data 

was gathered by the states under 

different protocols and time periods, the 

content of the data sets are not identical. 

To provide some degree of uniformity in 

our analysis, we examined the data for 

five MY (2000–2004) but within each 

state we only looked at calendar years 

of data beginning after the initial state 

I/M exemption period (2–4 calendar 

years depending on the state) had 

passed. Thus the analysis focused on 

I/M OBD information for calendar years 

2004–2010. Examined together, the data 

generally indicates the following: 

• Depending on age, 0.3–2.5 percent 

of vehicles with evaporative monitors 

ready came into the I/M stations with 

evaporative related MIL or DTCs set. 

• The percent of vehicles with 

evaporative emission related MILs set 

increased by a factor of 2–4 over about 

5 years. 

• Evaporative emission monitors 

were not ready for 3–16 percent of 

vehicles when arriving at the I/M 

station. 

• The percent of vehicles with 

monitors ready at the I/M station 

generally decreased by 3 to 7 percentage 

points over about 5–6 years; decrease 

was less for model year vehicles less 

than five years old. 

• While it varies by age, 60–80 

percent of evaporative system DTCs are 

leak related. 

There is no question of the value of 

OBD leak monitoring for evaporative 

systems, especially when owners 

complete needed repairs. Undoubtedly 

these percentages and thus in-use leak 

values would be higher without OBD 

evaporative system leak monitoring. 

However, this data suggests that EPA 

OBD regulations in place for 2000–2004 

MY vehicles would not alone be 

sufficient to address concerns regarding 

the emission effects of vapor leaks from 

the fuel and evaporative control 

systems.306

In summary, information gathered 

from evaporative emissions testing 

conducted in the IUVP program 

indicates that relatively low mileage/ 

newer vehicles perform well when 

evaluated under laboratory conditions. 

However, data gathered from in-use 

testing conducted by EPA, Colorado, 

and others indicates that as vehicles age 

some vehicles have a propensity to 

develop leaks in the fuel/evaporative 

system and that these leaks increase in 

size as the vehicles age. Beyond this, a 

review of OBD evaporative system leak 

monitor data from the I/M programs of 

two states revealed four important 

trends: (1) even when the OBD system 

identifies leaks owners do not always 

respond by getting the needed repair 

completed, (2) the fraction of vehicles 

with leaks identified by OBD increases 

as vehicles age, (3) vehicles sometimes 

are operating in conditions in which the 

OBD leak monitor is not ready to 

identify a potential problem, and (4) 

evaporative system leaks are the 

dominant DTC for vehicles with 

monitors ready and evaporative system 

DTC set. 

The propensity for leaks in the 

vehicle fleet has the potential to reduce 

the benefits of the Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards substantially. If on 

any given day, as few as five percent of 

Tier 3 vehicles had a leak(s) of 0.020 

inches or greater this would cause inuse emissions equivalent to all of the 

projected emission reductions from the 

proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards on that day.307 Thus, EPA is 

proposing three measures to address 

this issue: (1) An emission standard 

focused on reducing fuel/evaporative 

system vapor leaks over the vehicle 

useful life, (2) an upgrade to OBD 

emissions monitoring requirements to 

improve their role in identifying 

problems and improving in-use 

emissions performance, and (3) 

additions to the IUVP program focused 

on testing a broader sample of fuel/ 

evaporative system leaks in IUVP than 

is done for evaporative emission 

standards alone. 

b. Proposed Leak Emission Standard 

The evaporative emission standards 

in this proposal will help to promote 

widespread use of improved technology 

and materials which will reduce 

evaporative emissions in-use. The 

proposed new requirement for a leak 

emission standard and procedure will 

help to ensure the durability of Tier 3 

evaporative emission control systems 

nationwide. 

Based on the information described 

above concerning evaporative emissions 

in-use, we believe a leak emission 

standard is necessary to meet our goal 

that vehicles meeting Tier 3 evaporative 

emission requirements not have fuel/ 

evaporative system vapor leaks. Toward 

that end, we are proposing a leak 

emission standard that would have to be 

met both at new vehicle certification 

and in use. The leak emission standard 

would apply beginning in the 2018 MY 

to any vehicle certified to the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards or a 

CARB carryover vehicle counted toward 

the sales percentage phase-in 

requirements, including LDVs, LDTs, 

MDPVs, and complete HDGVs up to 

14,000 lbs GVWR. The emission 

standard would be applicable for the 

same useful life period as for the 

evaporative emission standards that 

apply to the vehicle. The standard 

would apply to vehicles using volatile 

fuel (e.g., gasoline, FFV, and methanol 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29902 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

308Current OBD regulations specify that if the 

fuel tank volume exceeds 25 gallons then the 

manufacturer may seek a larger leak detection 

orifice value. If a manufacturer seeks and is granted 

a larger value for OBD leak detection purposes, then 

that same numerical value becomes the leak 

emission standard value. We would not expect this 

value to exceed 0.040 inches. 

fuel vehicles, but not diesel or CNG 

vehicles). 

To be compatible with CARB OBD 

requirements being met by most 

manufacturers and the OBD 

requirements included in this notice, we 

are proposing that the leak emission 

standard be expressed in the form of a 

cumulative equivalent orifice diameter. 

We are proposing a value of 0.02 

inches.308 The standard basically 

requires that the cumulative equivalent 

diameter of any orifices or ‘‘leaks’’ in 

the system not exceed 0.02 inches. This 

is consistent with California OBD 

requirements (and those being proposed 

in this rule as well) that the OBD system 

be capable of identifying leaks in the 

fuel/evaporative system of a cumulative 

equivalent diameter of 0.020 inches EPA 

believes an emission standard at this 

level is feasible since earlier testing 

programs identified vehicles with 

essentially no leaks and it is essentially 

equivalent to that required for CARB 

OBD evaporative system leak 

monitoring. As discussed in the 

technological feasibility section above, 

the actions manufacturers will have to 

take to meet the proposed Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards are 

expected to do more to address potential 

leak points and thus in a broader sense 

to improve in-use durability for 

evaporative control systems compared 

to vehicles meeting earlier or current 

evaporative emission standards. 

The proposed leak emission standard 

would provide added assurance that as 

the manufacturers design for ‘‘zero 

evap’’ standards they also design the 

systems to avoid leaks over the full 

useful life. We are proposing a leak 

emission standard of 0.02 inches which 

with rounding is a bit less stringent than 

the 0.020 inch OBD fuel/evaporative 

system leak monitoring requirement. 

EPA believes this level of precision is 

sufficient to accomplish the air quality 

objective and yet provides some 

compliance margin between the 

emission standard and the monitor 

requirement which is reflected through 

multipliers for the exhaust emission 

standards monitored through OBD. EPA 

asks for comment and rationale on 

setting the standard at 0.02 inches 

equivalent diameter or the more 

stringent 0.020 inch equivalent diameter 

specified for OBD evaporative system 

leak monitoring. If finalized as 

proposed, the emission standard would 

be specified to one significant digit (e.g., 

0.02 inches) but would have to be 

measured and reported to at least two 

significant digits. 

The proposed leak emission standard 

would apply at the time of certification 

as well as during confirmatory and inuse verification program testing. We do 

not expect that new vehicles being 

certified would have a leak problem, 

and since a vehicle with a leak would 

likely fail the evaporative emissions 

SHED test, there is little value in 

mandating a leak test at certification. 

Thus, EPA proposes to allow 

manufacturers to attest to compliance 

with the leak emission standard at 

certification. 

To implement the proposed leak 

emission standard within the current 

regulatory structure a few minor 

changes are needed. First, current EPA 

regulations such as those at § 86.098–24, 

specify criteria for evaporative/refueling 

emission families. EPA believes this 

basic structure is appropriate for the 

leak emission standard, with the 

additional criteria that vehicles in the 

same evaporative/refueling family must 

use the same basic approach to OBD 

leak detection. Significantly different 

volume fuel tanks would likely also be 

a family determinant, but we believe 

this is already covered by the 

evaporative/refueling family criteria. 

Second, since the leak emission 

standard is a pass/fail requirement and 

not an emission rate, there is no 

requirement for the application of a 

deterioration factor. Third, EPA 

proposes to require that the 

manufacturers recommend one or more 

leak entry test points for each family. 

This point should be outside of the gas 

cap/fillpipe area, since our experience 

indicates that testing could always be 

done through that point of entry to the 

fuel/evaporative system. 

EPA asks for comment on the timing, 

form and level of the proposed emission 

standard. EPA believes that linking the 

timing of the proposed leak emission 

standard to the implementation of 

proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards in 2018 provides adequate 

lead time and is consistent with the 

technical rationale supporting the 

feasibility of the Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standard. 

c. Proposed Leak Emission Standard 

Test Procedure 

In order to implement a new leak 

emission standard, a leak test procedure 

is required. The fundamental concepts 

underlying fuel/evaporative system leak 

test are not new to the manufacturers. 

There is already a simple leak check in 

40 CFR 86.608–98(a)(xii)(A) and in the 

past at least three states included a fuel/ 

evaporative system pressure leak test in 

I/M programs. More importantly, all 

LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs and HDGVs 

manufactured today have the onboard 

capability to run a pressure or vacuum 

leak based check on the vehicle’s 

evaporative emission system as part of 

OBD evaporative system leak 

monitoring. These systems employ 

either positive or negative pressure leak 

detection pumps or operate based on 

natural vacuum for negative pressure 

leak detection. EPA is proposing a test 

based on a similar concept of placing 

the system under a slight positive 

pressure (but from an external source), 

measuring the flow needed to maintain 

that pressure in the fuel/evaporative 

control system, and converting that flow 

rate to an equivalent orifice diameter. 

With regards to the test procedure we 

will first discuss where the leak test 

could occur in the FTP test sequence. 

We will then discuss how the test is 

proposed to be conducted. 

First with regard to when the test 

would be conducted within the current 

FTP sequence we are proposing that it 

be inserted immediately following the 

first two preconditioning steps within 

the FTP sequence (see Figure B96–10 in 

40 CFR 86.130–96). Thus, the vehicle 

preconditioning steps for the leak test 

would be: (1) fill the vehicle fuel tank 

to 40 percent of capacity using the 

appropriate certification test fuel and 

then (2) let the vehicle soak for a 

minimum of a six hour period at a 

temperature in the range of 68–86 °F. 

EPA proposes that the test be conducted 

with 9 RVP E15 test fuel for both 

certification and IUVP. This is the same 

preconditioning that is called for today 

in 40 CFR part 86 subpart B for exhaust, 

evaporative, and refueling emissions 

testing. After preconditioning is 

complete, the leak test would be 

conducted and the test sequence could 

then proceed as prescribed in subpart B 

or testing terminated if the purpose was 

only to conduct leak testing. EPA 

believes this modest level of 

preconditioning is sufficient to create 

standard conditions which enable 

repeatable and reliable measurement 

results. Preconditioning could not 

include any prescreening for leaks nor 

would any tightening of fittings or 

connections be permitted. 

After preconditioning is complete, 

manufacturers would then run the leak 

test. Each complete test would involve 

running the test procedure at one entry 

point in the system. Presumably this 

would be either near the back of the fuel 

system (perhaps near the gas cap) or 

near the front of the fuel system on the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29903 

309For related information see ‘‘IM240 & Evap 

Technical Guidance’’, EPA 420–R–00–007, April, 

2000. 

310Such 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. 

311For example, MAHLE Powertrain has piece of 

equipment known as a Mahle Leak Tester which is 

now used in assembly plants and may be adaptable 

to this requirement. 312EPA’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). 

pressure side of the locations near 

where the system is sealed (perhaps at 

the canister vent). If the fuel/evaporative 

system has an imbedded evaporative 

system test port then that point could be 

used. Alternatively, manufacturers 

could also develop a test rig such as a 

‘‘fill pipe extension’’ which would 

screw into the fill pipe opening using 

cap threads at one end and on the other 

end have threads to screw the fill pipe 

vehicle cap in place. Within this 

extension there would be an access port 

for the leak test equipment to be 

attached. Thus, the full system could be 

tested without any direct intrusion or 

the need for a separate gas cap 

assessment. The manufacturer would 

have to specify the test point at the time 

of the pre-certification meeting. If the 

manufacturer selected an entry point 

which required the fuel cap to be 

removed, then the cap would have to 

undergo a separate test as is now done 

in many I/M stations.309 In this case, 

tests from both points combined must 

pass the proposed emission standard. 

The procedure would be conducted as 

follows: 

• Calibrate the testing apparatus and 

otherwise verify testing apparatus is 

ready and able to complete the 

procedure 

• Seal fuel system so as to pressure 

test entire system (purge valve, cap, etc.) 

• Attach test apparatus to vehicle’s 

fuel system at selected test point 

• Pressurize fuel system with 

nitrogen or another inert gas to at least 

2.4 kilopascals (kPa) 

• Allow flow and pressure to stabilize 

in accordance with specification 

provided in the proposed regulatory text 

• Calculate effective leak orifice 

diameter from measured output flow 

rate and temperature and pressure data 

or use apparatus with built in computer 

providing an equivalent digital readout. 

Calculate to the nearest 0.01 inch. 

• Calculated effective orifice diameter 

must be less than or equal to the 

standard 

• If leak test is conducted at the fuel 

cap then manufacturer must also show 

evidence that the vehicle’s fuel cap is 

performing properly.310

• EPA is seeking comment on 

requiring two separate test points one 

near the evaporative canister and the 

other near the fuel cap. Furthermore, we 

are specifically proposing that in some 

cases two separate test points in the 

locations mentioned above would be 

required. This would especially be 

important if the fuel cap/fill neck area 

is isolated from the rest of the fuel/ 

evaporative system as a result of the 40 

percent fill or if dual tanks are not 

otherwise connected through vapor 

lines. Of course, dual tank, dual canister 

systems would have to be evaluated as 

separate systems. Tests could be void if 

the test apparatus fails, becomes 

disconnected, fails to maintain a stable 

flow rate or pressure, or the test was 

stopped before completion due to safety 

considerations or some other relevant 

vehicle issue. 

The test procedure presented above is 

based on current fuel system designs. In 

the future, it is reasonable to expect 

changes in designs of the fuel systems 

such that the procedure above may need 

adjustment. EPA would, of course, 

monitor these fuel system changes and 

modify the test procedure provisions as 

needed. Furthermore, current EPA 

regulations (see § 1065.10(c)) contain 

provisions which provide the 

opportunity for manufacturers to seek 

approval for special or alternate test 

procedures if from a practical 

perspective their systems cannot be 

evaluated under EPA requirements or 

they have an approach deemed 

equivalent or better. EPA would make 

such provisions for the leak emission 

standard testing requirement. Any such 

special or alternative procedures would 

have to be reported under § 86.004– 

21(b)(9).311

d. Proposed Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) 

System Regulation Changes 

EPA has its own OBD regulations 

which are similar but not identical to 

CARB’s. EPA first adopted OBD 

requirements for 1994 and later model 

year LDVs and LDTs. While EPA has 

extended its requirements from LDVs 

and LDTs to larger and heavier 

vehicles,312 EPA’s last broad upgrade to 

its basic OBD regulation was in the 2005 

timeframe. Since that time, CARB has 

adopted and the manufacturers have 

implemented a number of provisions to 

enhance the effectiveness of their OBD 

programs. These provisions include new 

requirements for OBD evaporative 

system leak detection as well as 

provisions to help insure that systems 

are built and operate as designed over 

their full useful life, give reliable results 

(find and signal only true deficiencies), 

and operate frequently during in use 

operation. It is permitted in current EPA 

regulations and common practice for the 

industry to certify their OBD systems 

with CARB and for EPA to accept CARB 

OBD certifications as satisfying EPA 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

continue that practice but to upgrade 

our regulations to be consistent with the 

latest CARB regulations. 

EPA has reviewed the current CARB 

regulatory requirements related to OBD 

(see California Code of Regulations 

(CCR) § 1968.2 dated May 18, 2010) and, 

as discussed below we are proposing to 

adopt most of these provisions with the 

Tier 3 program. We are proposing this 

for two basic reasons. First, this is 

consistent with the goal of a national 

program and one vehicle technology for 

all 50 states. Second, implementation of 

these requirements is now demonstrated 

technology and compliance with these 

requirements is common within the 

industry today. Thus, the added burden 

is minimal. Furthermore, OBD has the 

advantage of running frequently on inuse vehicles to identify potential 

exhaust and evaporative system 

performance problems, so adopting 

these provisions would create the 

opportunity for OBD to serve a more 

prominent role in ensuring the proposed 

Tier 3 emission standards are met inuse. 

There is an important link between 

OBD provisions related to evaporative 

emission control system leak monitoring 

and the proposed leak test emission 

standard. They each provide an 

important incentive to design fuel/ 

evaporative systems with fewer 

propensities to develop leaks in use but 

each addresses the issue from a different 

perspective. The distinction is that the 

proposed leak emission standards 

prohibits leaks of greater than 0.02 

inches cumulative equivalent diameter, 

while the proposed OBD evaporative 

system leak monitoring provision would 

require that the OBD system find leaks 

larger than 0.020 inches cumulative 

equivalent orifice diameter and notify 

the owner, but with no inherent 

obligation to repair the problem. Thus 

adopting a 0.020 inch cumulative 

equivalent orifice diameter would align 

these two programs and, as will be 

discussed below, creates the potential 

for an optional leak detection test 

procedure for in-use testing. 

To be more specific, we are proposing 

to update our OBD regulations to be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29904 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

313We are not proposing to change the 

requirement for incompletes and vehicles with a 

GVWR above 14,000 lbs. 

314MDVs in the CARB regulations basically 

incorporate MDPVs and complete HDGV less than 

14,000 lbs GVWR as defined by EPA. 

consistent with current California OBD 

requirements add two new requirements 

and retain three minor exceptions. 

These changes would be fully effective 

in the 2017MY, but EPA asks comment 

on whether the requirement should be 

linked to be effective with certification 

to any of the Tier 3 emission standards 

(either exhaust or evaporative) or 

phased in for the 2017 model year for 

LDVs and LLDTs and the 2018 MY for 

the HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs up to 

14,000 lbs GVWR.313 EPA would 

continue to accept certifications with 

CARB OBD requirements as satisfying 

EPA OBD requirements. We are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

section 1968.2 of the California Code of 

Regulations as discussed below. This 

would include paragraphs (c) through (j) 

in their entirety. These paragraphs are 

entitled: (c) Definitions, (d) General 

requirements, (e) Monitoring 

requirements for gasoline/spark ignited 

engines, (f) Monitoring requirements for 

diesel/compression ignition engines, (g) 

Standardization requirements, (h) 

Monitoring system demonstration 

requirements for certification, (i) 

Certification documentation, (j) 

Production vehicle evaluation testing. 

The substance of many of these 

provisions is already contained in 

current EPA OBD requirements for 

LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete 

HDGVs less than 14,000 lbs GVWR.314

The most noteworthy changes we are 

proposing are summarized below. The 

CCR below is the California Code of 

Regulations cite for each pertinent 

provision. 

• EPA proposes to add a 0.020 inches 

leak detection monitoring threshold 

upstream of the purge valve for all 4 

vehicle categories LDV, LDT, MDPV, 

and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs 

GVWR except for those with fuel tanks 

larger than 25 gallons capacity (see CCR 

1968.2(e)). OBD leak monitoring 

systems would have to identify, store, 

and if required signal any leak(s) equal 

to or greater than 0.020 inches 

cumulative equivalent diameter. This 

would thus include diagnostic trouble 

codes (DTC) P0440, P0442, P0446, 

P0455, P0456, and P0457. 

• EPA proposes to incorporate by 

reference the full array of rate based 

monitoring requirements (see 

CCR1968.2 (d)). Meeting the rate based 

monitoring requirements will help to 

insure that, even with enable criteria, 

the exhaust and evaporative system 

monitors run frequently enough that on 

average a problem would be identified 

and signaled to the owner in operation 

within two weeks. This will help to 

improve the fraction of time monitors 

are ready to find a potential problem. 

• EPA proposes to incorporate by 

reference provisions regarding 

monitoring system demonstration 

requirements for certification. We are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

CARB provisions in this area and to 

accept submissions to CARB for 

purposes of compliance demonstration 

(see CCR 1968.2(h)). Adopting current 

CARB monitoring system demonstration 

requirements assures that monitoring 

systems operate as designed when 

installed on certification vehicles. 

We also propose that this certification 

include a requirement for manufacturers 

to demonstrate the ability of the OBD 

leak monitoring system to detect a 0.020 

inch leak. Current CARB protocols do 

not require that manufacturers 

demonstrate that the certification 

vehicle can find a vapor leak in the fuel/ 

evaporative system. We are proposing to 

add a requirement that manufacturers 

must demonstrate for certification that 

the OBD system can find and report the 

implanted leak would help to ensure the 

OBD system’s capability to function as 

designed and for the OBD-based leak 

based evaporative system leak to be 

used as an optional test procedure for 

in-use testing for the proposed leak 

emission standard. We are proposing 

that this be added for the same vehicles 

now required for monitoring system 

demonstration requirements for 

certification under CARB OBD 

regulations. Since the CARB regulation 

requires only a relative few vehicle 

models each year per manufacturer, we 

propose that manufacturers be given the 

option to either test the remainder for an 

implanted leak in the fuel/evaporative 

system or certify by attestation that each 

of their remaining families meets the 

requirement based on development and 

other information. 

• EPA proposes to incorporate by 

reference the CARB production vehicle 

evaluation data program. This program 

requires manufacturers to demonstrate 

that the OBD system functions as 

designed and certified when installed 

on production vehicles. (see CCR 

1968.2(j)) 

• For the OBD evaporative system 

leak monitoring requirement, EPA 

proposes a scan readable function (a 

new PID in Service $01 of SAE J1979) 

which could be used to indicate or 

ascertain the distance traveled since the 

OBD leak monitoring diagnostic was last 

completed successfully and if the 

system passed or failed (identified any 

leak above 0.020 inches) during that 

monitoring event (unless it is otherwise 

already required in other OBD system 

modes). Updating this PID this would be 

based on SAE J1979 mode 6 ($06) test 

results: ‘‘Request On-board Monitoring 

Test Results for Specific Monitored 

Systems.’’ With this proposed 

requirement, the PID distance would be 

initialized to maximum range of NV 

RAM initialization (such as battery 

disconnect or controller reprogramming) 

and code clear. As a result, in the event 

that a vehicle had a memory clear event 

in the past, but has not had sufficient 

operation for the evaporative system to 

be evaluated, the scan readable mileage 

function would indicate that the system 

had not completed a full leak detection 

of the evaporative control system within 

the last 750 miles (1200km). OBD 

systems already maintain information 

for active, pending, historic and 

permanent codes. This would be a 

modest upgrade to this requirement 

which would enable the use of the OBDbased evaporative system leak monitor 

with the IUVP program as discussed 

below. See CCR 1968.2 (g) for 

information related to code storage. EPA 

seeks comment on alternative 

equivalent approaches (e.g., a scan 

readable mileage stamp or flag traceable 

to mileage indicating when the full OBD 

leak monitoring protocol was last 

completed successfully and the result 

(p/f)) which accomplish the same 

objective and whether this capability 

should be optional for the 2017 MY 

since this requirement is designed to 

enable the use of OBD in leak emission 

standard testing and that standard is 

proposed to begin in the 2018 MY. 

• The minor exceptions which are 

contained in EPA’s current OBD 

regulations are proposed to be 

continued. Compliance with 13 CCR 

1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering 

protection is not required. Also, the 

deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 

1968.2(k) would not be adopted. In 

addition, demonstration of compliance 

with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the 

extent it applies to the verification of 

proper alignment between the camshaft 

and crankshaft, would apply only to 

vehicles equipped with variable valve 

timing. For all model years, the 

deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of 

the current regulations apply only to 

alternative fuel vehicle/engine 

manufacturers selecting this paragraph 

for demonstrating compliance. 

If adopted, these proposed changes, 

taken together would improve the 

performance, reliability, general utility, 

and effectiveness of OBD systems for 

Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission 

controls. Furthermore, if adopted, these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29905 

315CARB has recently proposed some minor OBD 

program modifications in their recent LEVIII ISOR, 

and EPA asks for comment on including those 

provisions within the proposed EPA OBD program. 

See pages 61–72 of the CARB Staff Report at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/ 

levisor.pdf and pages A11–A125 of the regulatory 

text at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/ 

leviiighg2012/levappa.pdf. 

changes create the opportunity for OBD 

evaporative system leak monitoring 

systems to serve a more prominent role 

in ensuring compliance with the leak 

emission standard. EPA believes that 

they could be implemented for minimal 

cost since most manufacturers are 

meeting them today and will have to for 

LEV III vehicles. However, EPA requests 

comment on applying the proposed new 

OBD requirements to small business 

vehicle manufacturers and independent 

commercial importers. 

As discussed below, the proposed 

OBD requirements would apply to small 

entities and independent commercial 

importers (ICI) in the 2022 MY. Small 

alternative fuel converters would still be 

able to meet the OBD requirements 

using the provisions of 40 CFR part 85 

subpart F. Finally, it should be noted 

that as CARB updates its OBD 

regulations in the future EPA would 

consider these changes and propose to 

adopt them or incorporate them by 

reference, if appropriate. In fact, CARB 

is currently proposing some changes to 

its OBD program in response to the LEV 

III program exhaust emission 

standards.315 We request comment on 

incorporating these changes into this 

rule or other rules in the future. We also 

would generally expect to continue the 

current practice allowed by EPA 

regulations which is for EPA to accept 

CARB OBD certifications as satisfying 

EPA requirements provided that they 

include at least all of the requirements 

covered by the EPA regulations. 

e. In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) 

Requirements for the Leak Emission 

Standard 

i. Introduction 

We believe it is important to identify 

leaks since vehicles with leaks would be 

expected to have daily emission rates 

above the proposed Tier 3 evaporative 

emissions standards and the Colorado 

data suggests a propensity for the 

diameter of vehicle leak orifice to get 

larger over time and thus to have even 

higher emissions. This is also important 

because evaporative leak emissions 

occur virtually every day whether the 

vehicle is driven or not. Thus 

identifying potential leak problems will 

be important to capturing the emission 

benefits of the proposed evaporative 

emission requirements. 

Toward that end, EPA is proposing to 

include assessment of compliance with 

the leak emission standard within the 

IUVP program. We considered 

expanding the evaporative emission 

testing portion of the IUVP program as 

a means to assess leaks, but we decided 

to focus on the leak emission standard 

because it is less burdensome and is 

cost effective for accomplishing the 

objective. EPA believes adding a leak 

test requirement does not create an 

unreasonable burden. The draft test 

procedure described above is simple to 

run, inexpensive to conduct in terms of 

equipment and labor, and can be 

completed relatively quickly compared 

to an evaporative emissions test. 

However, we are retaining the 

evaporative emissions testing 

requirements currently in IUVP to 

monitor broader evaporative control 

system effectiveness (e.g., purge, 

canister control efficiency, permeation). 

ii. IUVP Test Requirements 

We are proposing that the leak 

emission test be conducted for each and 

every vehicle assessed in IUVP for 

exhaust emissions under 40 CFR 

86.1845.04. This would begin for 2018 

MY certifications for vehicle families 

meeting the proposed new leak 

emission standard. This would include 

the low and high mileage tests for any 

exhaust vehicle evaluated for exhaust 

emissions plus a requirement that there 

be at least one representative of each 

evaporative/refueling/leak family 

evaluated at each year point. We are 

proposing this approach to 

implementing IUVP for the leak 

emission standard in lieu of creating a 

new set of requirements which would 

require yet another set of vehicles to be 

procured for testing. We are not 

proposing to include the leak test with 

any evaporative emissions test in IUVP, 

since a leak would be evident in the 

results of the evaporative emissions test. 

The current IUVP regulations at 

§ 86.1845–04, Table S04–07, call for test 

sample sizes on a sliding scale based on 

annual vehicle sales by test group. This 

can vary from zero for very small sales 

test groups to six vehicles for test groups 

with sales exceeding 250,000. There are 

more exhaust emission test groups than 

there are evaporative/refueling/leak test 

families and exhaust emission test 

groups may cover one or more of the 

same evaporative/refueling/leak 

families, so we would expect to receive 

multiple leak emission test results for 

most evaporative/refueling/leak 

families. This will expand the amount 

of IUVP data we receive in this 

important area and improve our ability 

to assess the overall leak performance 

for a given evaporative/refueling/leak 

family and the fleet as a whole. 

As discussed above, EPA believes that 

the fuel and evaporative control system 

leaks are heavily influenced by age as 

well as design and other factors. EPA 

would consider extending the age point 

for leak emission testing for IUVP 

beyond the four year point to better 

assess this effect. However, in the past, 

manufacturers have expressed concern 

about the implications of testing older 

vehicles and about finding vehicles still 

within their warranty and recall liability 

periods. EPA asks comment on the 

viability of extending leak emission 

IUVP testing beyond the nominal four 

year point (e.g., six to eight years). We 

recognize that there are cost and vehicle 

procurement issues, but the Colorado 

data strongly suggests a relationship 

between vehicle age and the propensity 

for the development of leaks. 

iii. Assessment of IUVP Leak Emission 

Standard Test Results 

The current regulations contain 

provisions addressing follow-on testing 

requirements for exhaust emissions for 

vehicles which fail to meet various 

performance thresholds within IUVP 

(see 40 CFR 86.1846–01). As mentioned 

above, we expect that it will be common 

to get more than one leak emission test 

result over the course of each model 

year’s mileage testing point for each 

evaporative/refueling/leak family as a 

result of the requirement to assess leaks 

with each exhaust IUVP test. However, 

the proposed leak emission standard is 

basically pass/fail at 0.02 inches and it 

is difficult to establish a threshold 

criteria for a pass/fail standard such as 

has been done for exhaust emissions 

where there is a multiplier applied to 

the level of the individual exhaust 

emission standard. 

Given the importance of the leak 

emission standard in assuring in-use 

evaporative emissions control, we are 

proposing a set of criteria for assessing 

leak emission standard results from 

IUVP. These criteria can be summarized 

as follows for each low and high 

mileage test point for each model year 

tested: 

• lf 50 percent or more of all vehicles 

evaluated in an evaporative/refueling/ 

leak emission family for any given 

model year pass the leak emission 

standard, testing is complete. This 

applies to cumulative testing for that 

family throughout the model year for 

that mileage group. This is consistent 

with the exhaust emission requirements 

for IUVP and EPA believes it is 

reasonable since vehicles are tested in 

the ‘‘as received’’ condition from 

consumers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29906 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

• If only one representative of the 

evaporative/refueling/leak family is 

tested in a mileage group for that model 

year’s vehicles and it passes the leak 

emission standard testing is complete. If 

that vehicle does not pass the leak 

emission standard a manufacturer may 

test an additional vehicle to achieve the 

50 percent rate. 

• If an evaporative/refueling/leak 

emission family fails to achieve the 50 

percent rate, it is presumed that the 

family will enter into In-Use 

Confirmatory Testing Program (IUCP). 

Before IUCP begins, the manufacturer 

may ask for engineering analysis 

discussions with EPA to evaluate and 

understand the technical reasons for the 

testing outcomes and the implications 

for the broader fleet. Technical 

information for these discussions could 

include but would not be limited to 

detailed system design, calibration, and 

operating information, technical 

explanations as to why the individual 

vehicles tested failed the leak emission 

standard, and comparisons to other 

similar families from the same 

manufacturer. Relevant information 

from the manufacturer such as data or 

other information on owner complaints, 

technical service bulletins, service 

campaigns, special policy warranty 

programs, warranty repair data, state 

I/M data, and data available from other 

manufacturer specific programs or 

initiatives could help inform 

understanding of implications for the 

broader fleet. As part of this process a 

manufacturer could elect to provide 

evaporative emissions SHED test data 

on the individual vehicle(s) that did not 

pass the leak emission standard during 

IUVP. With an adequate technical basis, 

the outcome of this engineering analysis 

discussion could result in an EPA 

decision not to require IUCP testing. 

We would propose to operate within 

the basic structure of the IUCP program 

in the current regulations. Prior to 

commencing IUCP testing the 

manufacturer, after consultation with 

EPA submits a written plan describing 

the details of the vehicle procurement, 

maintenance, and testing procedures. 

This plan could include inclusion of a 

hot soak plus diurnal SHED test to 

supplement leak emission test results. 

We propose that EPA must approve this 

plan before testing begins. As prescribed 

now in the IUCP regulations for exhaust, 

if five vehicles were tested and all 

passed the leak emission standard then 

testing would be complete. If all five 

vehicles did not pass, then five more 

would be tested. More vehicles could be 

tested at the manufacturer’s discretion 

but all testing would have to be 

completed within the time period 

specified in the regulations today. EPA 

and the manufacturer would then enter 

into discussions regarding 

interpretation, technical understanding, 

and compliance/enforcement 

implications of the test results, if any. 

iv. Proposed Optional Test Procedure 

Approach for IUVP/IUCP 

Assuming implementation of the OBD 

regulation changes proposed in Section 

IV.C.5.d, above, EPA is proposing an 

optional approach to a portion of the 

leak emission test procedure discussed 

in Section IV.C.5.c. This optional testing 

approach would be included in the 

proposed IUVP/IUCP testing program 

for the leak emission standard, but 

would not be used for certification 

testing for the leak emission standard. It 

would be considered an approach 

which could be used by the 

manufacturers to assess compliance 

with the leak emission standard. EPA 

could also use this procedure for 

conducting assessments and asks for 

comment on using this procedure for 

compliance purposes with a 0.02 inch 

cumulative equivalent diameter orifice 

standard. 

Under this optional approach 

manufacturers would be able to rely 

upon the operation of their OBD 

evaporative system leak detection 

hardware and operating protocols in 

lieu of running the stand alone in-use 

leak test to check for the presence of a 

0.02 inch leak in the fuel/evaporative 

system. This approach relies on the leak 

emission standard equivalent orifice 

diameter being established at the same 

level as proposed for OBD (0.020 

inches). Thus, the IUVP/IUCP protocol 

would be modified and simplified to 

expedite completion of testing and 

reduce costs. 

Quite simply, if a vehicle is brought 

in for IUVP or IUCP testing and a scan 

tool query of the onboard computer 

indicates that the vehicle had 

successfully completed a full OBDbased evaporative system leak 

monitoring check within the last 750 

miles and no evaporative system leak 

problems for any diameter above 0.020 

inches was indicated (diagnostic trouble 

codes P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, 

P0456, and P0457), the vehicle would 

be been deemed to have met and passed 

the leak emission standard test 

requirement. However, if the system had 

not successfully completed a full OBDbased evaporative system leak check 

within 750 miles with no problem 

indicated then the manufacturer would 

have the option to run its OBD-based 

evaporative system leak check in the 

laboratory after prescribed 

preconditioning. This OBD-based 

approach is sometimes used in auto 

manufacturer dealerships and repair 

facilities to diagnose and fix evaporative 

system leaks found by the OBD system. 

If the vehicle completes the full OBDbased leak test in the laboratory then the 

vehicle’s pass/fail results for the 0.02 

inch cumulative equivalent diameter 

orifice would be based on the OBD test 

result. This optional protocol could 

apply to every leak emission standard 

test after certification unless not 

approved by EPA for IUCP under 40 

CFR 1846.01(i). Replicate tests would 

not be required or allowed but void tests 

could be repeated. 

Furthermore, EPA proposes to allow 

the manufacturer to run the stand alone 

EPA leak test in several situations. First, 

manufacturers could conduct the stand 

alone test to confirm that a problem 

identified by the OBD-based evaporative 

system monitoring leak check was a leak 

and not a problem with the OBD leak 

monitor itself. Second, a manufacturer 

could run the stand alone EPA leak test 

to confirm that the leak value identified 

by the OBD system was truly above the 

level of the proposed leak emission 

standard. Third, it could be used for 

vehicles which had not successfully 

completed a full OBD-based evaporative 

system leak monitoring check within 

the last 750 miles. Fourth, it could be 

used to confirm that a DTC set within 

the last 750 miles actually indicated the 

presence of a leak(s) greater than the 

proposed standard. However, if a 

manufacturer elected to use only OBDbased evaporative system leak based 

monitoring in its IUVP testing; these 

results would be the basis for decisions 

regarding IUCP. As is required in the 

current IUVP regulations, all test data 

whether OBD based or based on EPA’s 

stand alone test procedure would have 

to be reported to EPA. 

There could be some advantages to 

this option since it employs a pressure/ 

vacuum approach manufacturers 

understand and creates positive/ 

negative pressures manufacturers have 

accommodated within their fuel/ 

evaporative system. One potential 

downside is that under current designs 

vehicle engines would have to be 

operating to create the pressure or 

vacuum and because the engine is 

operating this would require the OBDbased leak test to be stand alone after 

the preconditioning sequence is 

complete. This would be more 

challenging for natural vacuum leak 

detection systems unless extended 

driving was involved to create the fuel 

system heat needed for a natural 

vacuum event or this was done through 

a climate chamber or SHED based 

diurnal heat build. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29907 

Allowing for this approach raises at 

least two implementation questions. 

The first is related to the value of 

conducting the OBD-based test for a 

vehicle with an active or pending leak 

DTC already set in the computer and/or 

an MIL indicated. In this case, EPA 

would permit the manufacturer to run 

the OBD-based leak test and/or the 

stand alone EPA leak test or concede 

that the vehicle would not pass the leak 

emission standard and count the result. 

Second is the question of gas caps. This 

is among the most common codes found 

in OBD records and is often related to 

operator error such as not tightening the 

gas cap properly. Codes of this nature 

have no value in this leak emission 

assessment, so a manufacturer would be 

permitted to correct the problem before 

testing and clear this OBD code before 

testing or run the stand alone EPA leak 

test. 

6. Other Initiatives 

This proposal includes consideration 

of several amendments or clarifications 

to existing requirements related to 

evaporative emissions. As part of this 

process, the following provisions 

warrant adjustment, clarification, or 

correction: 

• Even though the evaporative 

emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 

apply to the same engines and vehicles 

that must meet exhaust emission 

standards, we require a separate 

certificate for complying with 

evaporative and refueling emission 

standards. An important related point to 

note is that the evaporative and 

refueling emission standards always 

apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust 

emission standards may apply to either 

the engine or the vehicle. Since we plan 

to apply evaporative/refueling/leak 

emission standards and the recently 

adopted greenhouse gas standards to 

vehicle manufacturers, we believe it 

would be advantageous to have the 

regulations related to their certification 

requirements written together as much 

as possible to reduce burden and 

increase efficiency. We are therefore 

proposing to move the emission 

standards and certification requirements 

from 40 CFR part 86 to the new 40 CFR 

part 1037, which was originally used for 

greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty 

highway vehicles. This is not intended 

to change the requirements that apply to 

these vehicles, except as noted in this 

section. We propose to make the 

provisions in part 1037 effective with 

model year 2014. 

• As described in Section VI.C.3, we 

are proposing to allow for certifying 

vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR based 

on an engineering analysis instead of 

new testing (as is currently allowed for 

vehicles at or above 26,000 lbs GVWR). 

We are also proposing to clarify the 

provisions describing how the 

certification process plays out for these 

vehicles. 

• Section 86.1810–01 contains 

specifications addressing whether diesel 

fuel vehicles can be waived from 

demonstrating compliance with the 

refueling emission standard through 

testing. In the current regulation the 

potential for a waiver from testing 

depends on the diesel fuel having an 

RVP equal to or less than 1 psi and the 

fuel tank having a temperature which 

does not exceed 130 °F. We have 

examined this provision and are 

proposing to withdraw the fuel 

temperature limit specification. Short of 

fuel spillage in the SHED, EPA sees no 

likelihood that a diesel fueled vehicle 

with RVP less than 1 psi could fail the 

refueling emission standard even at fuel 

tank temperatures above 130 °F. This is 

due to the inherently low vapor 

pressure of diesel at these temperatures 

and the likelihood that vapor shrinkage 

conditions will occur in the fuel tank 

during refueling since the dispensed 

fuel will be cooler than the tank fuel. 

• When adopting the most recent 

evaporative emission change we did not 

carry through the changes to the 

regulatory text applying evaporative 

emission standards for methanol-fueled 

compression-ignition engines. The 

proposed regulations correct this 

oversight. 

• We are proposing provisions to 

address which standards apply when an 

auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed 

in a motor vehicle, which is currently 

not directly addressed in the highway 

regulation. The proposed approach 

would require testing complete vehicles 

with any auxiliary engines (and the 

corresponding fuel-system components). 

Incomplete vehicles would be tested 

without the auxiliary engines, but any 

such engines and the corresponding 

fuel-system components would need to 

meet the standards that apply under our 

nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR 

part 1060. 

• We are proposing to remove the 

option for secondary vehicle 

manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank 

capacity than is specified by the 

certifying manufacturer without recertifying the vehicle. Secondary 

vehicle manufacturers needing a greater 

fuel tank capacity would need to either 

work with the certifying manufacturer 

to include the larger tank, or go through 

the effort to re-certify the vehicle itself. 

Our understanding is that this provision 

has not been used and would be better 

handled as part of certification rather 

than managing a separate process. We 

are proposing corresponding changes to 

the emission control information label. 

• Since we adopted evaporative 

emission standards for gaseous-fuel 

vehicles, we have developed new 

approaches for design-based 

certification (see, for example, 40 CFR 

1060.240). We request comment on 

changing the requirements related to 

certifying gaseous-fuel vehicles to 

design-based certification. This would 

allow for a simpler assessment for 

certifying these vehicles without 

changing the standards that apply. 

• With regard to OBD, we note also 

that under § 86.1806–01(b)(4) OBD 

systems must have the ability to detect 

absence of purge air flow from a 

complete evaporative emission control 

system. This is clearly important 

because the proper operation of an 

integrated evaporative/refueling 

emission control system depends on 

purge. Similarly, evaporative/refueling 

system operation depends on the 

presence, proper adsorption/desorption 

performance, and sustained working 

capacity of the activated carbon 

canister. It is thus curious to observe 

that the current OBD provisions do not 

directly address the activated carbon 

canister in any way. The absence of the 

canister would likely be noted as a gross 

leak and/or a problem with purge. 

Nonetheless, we are seeking comment 

on a provision which would require the 

OBD system to sense for evidence of 

ongoing adsorption and desorption of 

hydrocarbon vapors. These could both 

be sensed by changes in canister carbon 

bed temperature or perhaps for the 

presence of vapor in the fuel going to 

the intake manifold after a cold start or 

refueling event. In some cases, EPA 

believes these parameters could be 

monitored by hardware and sensors 

now on most vehicles and thus this 

might be primarily an OBD software 

change. Similarly, we are seeking 

comment on whether the operation of a 

vacuum pump or similar device used to 

assist or supplement vehicle engine 

vacuum purge or any device otherwise 

used to enhance or control purge flows, 

rates, or schedules should be required to 

be monitored as part of OBD. 

• With future technology, we 

anticipate a trend toward the 

implementation of fuel tanks with 

higher operating pressures and in some 

cases fuel tanks which are sealed to the 

atmosphere during normal operation. 

Data available to EPA indicates that a 

leak in such a system will result in 

substantial emissions relative to very 

low pressure systems which employ 

running loss control strategies and an 

activated carbon canister as part of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29908 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

316Passavant, G. (February 2013). Presentation on 

Evaporative Emission System Leaks for a Fuel Tank 

Under Pressure. Memorandum to the docket. 

317EPA’s motor vehicle emissions standards 

typically require a level of performance over a 

specified test procedure, with emissions measured 

while the engine or the vehicle is operated using 

the specified test fuel and operated in a specified 

manner. The test fuel specifications typically apply 

for all emissions testing used to determine 

compliance with the standard, including emissions 

testing to obtain a certificate of conformity, as well 

as compliance testing for newly produced or in-use 

engines or vehicles. While this test fuel is 

commonly referred to as ‘‘certification fuel,’’ the 

test fuel specifications proposed today are not 

limited to certification related emissions testing, but 

also apply to compliance related emissions testing 

after the certificate of conformity has been issued. 

The certification process also typically involves a 

process to ensure that the emissions controls system 

is durable over the regulatory useful life of the 

vehicle or engine. This can involve long-term or 

accelerated aging of a vehicle or engine prior to 

emissions testing. The fuel used for such aging is 

commonly referred to as service accumulation or 

durability fuel, and in many cases is specified as 

commercial gasoline that will be generally available 

through retail outlets (§ 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 

proposing changes to the specifications for fuel 

used during durability related aging that is part of 

the certification process. The proposed changes 

only apply to the test fuel used during emissions 

testing, both for purposes of certification and for 

later compliance related testing. 

318As discussed in Section IV.C, we are also 

seeking comment on requiring the proposed Tier 3 

test fuel in conducting exhaust, evaporative, and 

refueling emissions testing of heavy-duty gasoline 

engines certified on an engine dynamometer. These 

could include engines installed in incomplete Class 

2b and Class 3 vehicles and engines used in 

vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR. 

319The LEV III program as approved by the 

California Air Resources Board, January 2012. 

methodology to control vapor 

emissions.316 Based on this concern, we 

are seeking comment on the feasibility 

and cost of requiring the OBD leak 

detection monitoring system to detect 

and signal the presence of a smaller 

diameter orifice than proposed for nonpressurized systems (∼ 0.010 inch) 

upstream of the purge valve for all 4 

vehicle categories LDV, LDT, MDPV, 

and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs 

GVWR. This would apply to any vehicle 

with a designed in-use operating 

pressure in excess of 0.36 psi (10 inches 

water). As a means to prevent a sealed 

fuel tank from venting leaks directly to 

atmosphere, we ask for comment on an 

added requirement that the fuel vapor 

vent valve be set to the open position at 

key off (and vent to the canister) if the 

OBD system detected a leak and 

triggered an MIL related to any leak 

greater than a pre-established threshold. 

The vent open at key off concept for 

pressurized fuel systems would not be 

intended to disenable the OBD system 

from conducting its normal evaporative 

system check during operation. 

Furthermore, as discussed above, we are 

proposing a 0.020′′ leak detection 

threshold for all systems. However, we 

are asking for comment on setting the 

threshold in the 0.010′′–0.015′′ range for 

pressurized systems. In the context of 

this request for comment, we ask for 

input regarding the feasibility of the 

smaller threshold, the effects of the vent 

valve open requirement on ORVR, and 

the repairability of leaks of less than 

0.020′′. 

D. Emissions Test Fuel 

1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline 

Emissions Test Fuel 

In-use gasoline has changed 

considerably since EPA’s fuel 

specifications for emissions testing of 

light- and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles 

were first set and last revised. Gasoline 

sulfur and benzene have been reduced 

and, perhaps most importantly, gasoline 

containing 10 percent ethanol by 

volume (E10) has replaced clear 

gasoline (E0) across the country. This 

has had second-order effects on other 

gasoline properties. In-use fuel is 

projected to continue to change with the 

implementation of the RFS2 program 

(e.g., the expansion of the number of 

retailers that offer E15) as well as 

today’s proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

program. As a result, we are proposing 

to update our federal emission test fuel 

specifications not only to better match 

today’s in-use fuel but also to be 

forward looking with respect to future 

ethanol and sulfur content.317 The 

revised test fuel specifications would 

apply for exhaust emissions testing, fuel 

economy/greenhouse gas testing, and 

emissions testing for non-exhaust 

emissions (evaporative, refueling, and 

leak detection testing). The proposed 

gasoline specifications, found at 

§ 1065.710, would apply to emissions 

testing of light-duty cars and trucks as 

well as heavy-duty gasoline vehicles 

certified on the chassis test, those 

subject to the proposed Tier 3 

standards.318

We are not proposing changes to 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) 

currently specified at § 86.113– 

04(a)(3)(i). Those provisions require that 

‘‘Unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator, unleaded gasoline 

representative of commercial gasoline 

that will be generally available through 

retail outlets must be used in service 

accumulation.’’ We would expect that 

manufacturers would use service 

accumulation fuels which are generally 

representative of the national average 

in-use fuels (or worst case for durability) 

during the model year which is being 

certified, including, for example, the 

ethanol content (for exhaust emissions), 

sulfur level, and fuel additive package. 

For exhaust emission bench aging 

durability programs as allowed under 

the provisions of § 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, as E15 in-use fuel 

becomes progressively more available, 

we would expect that E15 service 

accumulation fuel would be used for 

whole vehicle evaporative durability 

programs. Similarly, evaporative bench 

aging durability programs allowed 

under the provisions of § 86.1824–08(d) 

and (e), should be designed using good 

engineering judgment to account for the 

durability effects of in-use fuels on 

evaporative emissions, bleed emissions, 

and leakage emissions. 

Where possible, we are proposing 

changes consistent with the CARB’s 

planned LEV III gasoline test fuel 

specifications.319 Below is an overview 

of some of the key changes. A summary 

of the proposed test fuel specifications 

is provided in Table IV–21. For more 

information on how we arrived at the 

proposed test fuel property ranges and 

ASTM test methods, refer to Chapter 3 

of the draft RIA. 

• Ethanol—adding a 15 volume 

percent ethanol specification to be 

forward-looking with respect to the 

maximum gasoline ethanol 

concentration Tier 3 vehicles could 

expect to encounter. EPA recently 

issued a waiver under section 211(f)(4) 

of the CAA permitting E15 to be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29909 

320On Nov. 4, 2010, EPA issued a partial waiver 

for MY2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles 

(75 FR 68094). On January 26, 2011, EPA extended 

the waiver to MY 2001–2006 light-duty motor 

vehicles (76 FR 4662). 

321Premium-required defined at § 1065.710(d). 

322 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007). 

323For more information on current aromatics 

levels, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA. 

introduced into commerce for use in 

MY2001 and newer light-duty motor 

vehicles.320 While E15 is only 

commercially available at a limited 

number of fuel retailers, EPA believes it 

could become a major gasoline blend 

over the next 10–15 years given 

instability in crude oil pricing and 

growing RFS2 renewable fuel 

requirements. The use of E15 as the 

emission test fuel will help ensure that 

all future vehicles are capable of 

meeting Tier 3 emission standards while 

operating on E15. 

• Octane—lowering gasoline octane 

to around 87 (R+M)/2 to be 

representative of in-use fuel, i.e., 

regular-grade gasoline. Manufacturers 

could continue to use high-octane 

gasoline for testing of premiumrequired 321 vehicles and engines as well 

as for testing unrelated to exhaust 

emissions. Historically, the high octane 

rating of test fuel has not had any real 

emissions implications. However, as 

manufacturers begin introducing new 

advanced vehicle technologies (e.g., 

turbocharged downsized), this may no 

longer be the case. For those vehicles 

where operation on high-octane gasoline 

is required by the manufacturer, we 

would allow the manufacturer to test on 

a fuel with a minimum octane rating of 

91 (R+M)/2 (in lieu of the proposed 87 

(R+M)/2 general test fuel). According to 

the proposed regulations found at 

§ 1065.710(d), vehicles or engines are 

considered to require premium fuel if 

they are designed specifically for 

operation on high-octane fuel and the 

manufacturer requires the use of 

premium gasoline as part of their 

warranty as indicated in the owner’s 

manual. Cases where premium gasoline 

is not required but is recommended to 

improve performance would not qualify 

as a vehicle or engine that requires the 

use of premium fuel. For qualifying 

vehicles and engines, all emission tests 

must use the specified high-octane fuel. 

For vehicles and engines certified on 

high-octane gasoline, all EPA 

confirmatory and in-use testing would 

also be conducted on high-octane 

gasoline. All other test fuel 

specifications would be the same as 

those proposed in Table IV–21. We seek 

comment on the need for limiting the 

maximum octane of gasoline used in the 

certification of premium-required 

engines and vehicles. 

• Distillation Temperatures— 

adjusting gasoline distillation 

temperatures to better reflect today’s inuse gasoline/E10. This includes minor 

T10, T90 and FBP adjustments based on 

AAM in-use fuel surveys and refinery 

batch test data, with additional 

adjustments to reflect future E15 

performance (significantly lower T50 

range). We seek comment on the 

appropriateness of the proposed 

distillation temperatures including the 

proposed 170–190 °F T50 range for an 

E15 fuel. For more information on how 

we arrived at the proposed distillation 

temperatures in Table IV–21, refer to 

Chapter 3 of the draft RIA. 

• Sulfur—lowering the sulfur content 

of test fuel to 8–11 ppm to be consistent 

with our proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

standards. The proposed 10-ppm annual 

average sulfur standard is expected to 

result in two-thirds less sulfur 

nationwide so it is appropriate to lower 

the gasoline test fuel specification in 

concert. 

• Benzene—setting a benzene test 

fuel specification of 0.6–0.8 volume 

percent to represent in-use fuel under 

our new MSAT2 regulations.322 The 

MSAT2 standards, which took effect 

January 1, 2011, limit the gasoline pool 

to 0.62 volume percent benzene on 

average. Beginning July 1, 2012, no 

refinery may produce gasoline above 1.3 

volume percent benzene on average. 

• Total Aromatics—lowering the 

aromatics content of test fuel to better 

match today’s in-use gasoline/E10 and 

accommodate E15. According to AAM 

fuel surveys, the average aromatics 

content in gasoline has dropped 16 

percent over the past decade due to 

ethanol blending.323 Additional ethanol 

blending to produce E15 is expected to 

result in even greater aromatics 

reductions. Accordingly, we believe the 

proposed 19.5–24.5 volume percent test 

fuel specification is appropriate. 

• Distribution of Aromatics—in 

addition to total aromatics and benzene, 

we are proposing regulations that would 

require a distribution of aromatics (i.e., 

a certain amount of C7, C8, C9, and 

C10+ hydrocarbons) to ensure that test 

fuel is more representative of in-use 

gasoline. Heavier aromatics in gasoline 

are believed to contribute to vehicle PM 

emissions, so it is important that 

vehicles are designed to meet the 

proposed Tier 3 emission standards on 

fuel with a distribution of aromatic 

compounds representative of in-use 

gasoline. We also seek comment on the 

need for a multi-substituted alkyl 

aromatics (MSAA) specification, as has 

been proposed by CARB. For more 

information on our proposed aromatics 

specifications, refer to Chapter 3 of the 

draft RIA. 

• Olefins—adjusting the olefins 

specification to better match today’s inuse gasoline/E10 according to AAM fuel 

surveys. Not only is the proposed 4.5– 

11.5 mass percent range (approximately 

4–6 volume percent) more 

representative of in-use fuel, the 

narrower test fuel range would result in 

more consistent vehicle test results. 

• Other Specifications—adding 

distillation residue, total content of 

oxygenates other than ethanol, copper 

corrosion, solvent-washed gum, and 

oxidation stability specifications to 

better control other performance 

properties of test fuel. These proposed 

specifications are consistent with 

ASTM’s D4814 gasoline specifications 

and CARB’s LEV III test fuel 

requirements. 

• Updates to Gasoline Test 

Methods—updating some of the gasoline 

test methods currently specified in 

§ 86.113 with more appropriate, easier 

to use, or more precise test methods for 

ethanol-blended gasoline. Key changes 

include replacement of ASTM D323 

with ASTM D5191 for measuring vapor 

pressure; replacement of ASTM D1319 

with ASTM D5769 for measuring 

aromatics and benzene; and 

replacement of ASTM D1266 with three 

alternative ASTM test methods (D2622, 

D5453 or D7039) for measuring sulfur. 

We request comment on the use of three 

different test methods for the 

measurement of sulfur content. 

• Consolidation of Test Fuels— 

consolidation of all gasoline exhaust 

and evaporative emission test fuels into 

a single general test fuel. This would be 

used for all on-highway vehicle testing 

with the exception of cold CO vehicle 

testing (which would use higher 

volatility test fuel) and high-altitude 

testing (which would be permitted to 

use lower volatility fuel). As discussed 

above, commercial gasoline would 

continue to be used for service 

accumulation (durability fuel). This is 

consistent with CARB’s LEV III 

approach and should help limit the total 

number of test fuels that automakers 

need to manage. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29910 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE IV–21—PROPOSED GASOLINE EMISSIONS TEST FUEL

Property Unit 

Specification 

ASTM reference procedure 

General testing Low-temperature 

testing 

High altitude 

testing 

Antiknock Index (R+M)/2 ........................ ..................... 87.0—88.4 87.0 Minimum ... D2699–11 and D2700–11. 

Sensitivity (R–M) .................................... ..................... 7.5 Minimum 

Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent (DVPE) 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) ...........

D5191–10b. 

Distillation 

10% evaporated .............................. °C (°F) ......... 49–60 

(120–140) 

43–54 

(110–130) 

49–60 ...............

(120–140) .........

D86–10a. 

50% evaporated .............................. °C (°F) ......... 77–88 (170–190) 

90% evaporated .............................. °C (°F) ......... 154–166 (310–330) 

Evaporated final boiling point .......... °C (°F) ......... 193–216 (380–420) 

Residue .................................................. Milliliter ........ 2.0 Maximum 

Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons ................. vol. % .......... 19.5–24.5 D5769–10. 

C6 Aromatics (benzene) ................. vol. % .......... 0.6–0.8 

C7 Aromatics (toluene) ................... vol. % .......... 4.4–5.5 

C8 Aromatics ................................... vol. % .......... 5.5–6.9 

C9 Aromatics ................................... vol. % .......... 5.0–6.2 

C10+ Aromatics .............................. vol. % .......... 4.0–5.0 

Olefins .................................................... mass % ....... 4.5–11.5 D6550–10. 

Ethanol ................................................... vol. % .......... 14.6–15.0 D5599–00 (Reapproved 

2010). 

Total Content of Oxygenates Other than 

Ethanol.

vol. % .......... 0.1 Maximum 

Sulfur ...................................................... mg/kg .......... 8.0–11.0 D2622–10, D5453–09 or 

D7039–07. 

Lead ........................................................ g/liter ........... 0.0026 Maximum D3237–06. 

Phosphorus ............................................ g/liter ........... 0.0013 Maximum D3231–11. 

Copper Corrosion ................................... ..................... No. 1 Maximum D130–10. 

Solvent-Washed Gum Content .............. mg/100 ml ... 3.0 Maximum D381–09. 

Oxidation Stability ................................... Minute ......... 1,000 Minimum D525–05. 

EPA seeks comment on the 

appropriateness of the proposed 

forward-looking E15 test fuel for lightand heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. While 

we believe we have discretion under the 

statute to transition from E0 to E15 test 

fuel, we acknowledge that vehicle 

manufacturers will need to calibrate 

their vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 

3 standards on fuel containing 15 

percent ethanol by volume. Our analysis 

of the proposed Tier 3 standards 

(emission control technology, 

feasibility, cost, etc.) assumes the use of 

the proposed E15 test fuel. We 

anticipate that vehicle electronic control 

systems will be fully capable of 

adjusting to maintain emission 

performance when operating on E10 (or 

any remaining E0), but if E15 were not 

to enter the gasoline pool in significant 

quantities, it may be more appropriate 

to require that vehicles be calibrated for 

and tested on E10. 

We are seeking comment on various 

alternative approaches, e.g., starting 

with E10 as the test fuel and 

transitioning to E15 as the market 

further transitions to E15 in use. This 

could include a market review in 2014 

or 2015 followed by regulatory action to 

implement the change from E10 to E15 

test fuel, if warranted. Or, it could 

include the establishment of a ‘‘trigger 

point’’ (e.g., 30 percent of gasoline is 

E15) in the Tier 3 final rule to prompt 

an automatic move to E15 after a certain 

period of time, e.g., two or three years. 

Or, we could simply set a future date 

(e.g., 2020) with sufficient time for 

transitioning to E15 test fuel. These 

transition approaches would give 

vehicle manufacturers additional lead 

time to prepare for higher ethanol 

concentrations in test fuel. We seek 

comment on the various transition 

approaches, their timing, and the 

appropriate specifications for an E10 

test fuel to be used in the interim. 

While the volatility (i.e., RVP) of 

CARB’s E10 test fuel is 7.0 psi to be 

representative of in-use gasoline in 

California during summer months, 

conventional E10 in the rest of the 

country is currently around 10 psi. 

Thus, should we finalize E10 instead of 

E15, in the absence of any standard to 

reduce the in-use RVP of E10 to 9.0 psi 

or lower, we would also have to 

consider raising the RVP of certification 

test fuel to 10 psi to reflect the RVP 

level of the current in-use fuel. Were we 

to raise the volatility to 10 psi RVP, EPA 

believes that the proposed evaporative 

emission standards would be feasible, 

but this would increase the stringency 

of the proposed evaporative emission 

standards (see Section IV.C). Changing 

certification test fuel to 10 psi RVP 

would increase vapor generation rates 

during the refueling test by about 10 

percent and during the hot soak, 

diurnal, canister bleed, and running loss 

tests by as much as 25 percent in total. 

To the extent that the refueling test 

dictates the size of the canister, the 

increased vapor generation would 

necessitate increases in the volume of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29911 

324 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011). 

325ASTM International D5798–11, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for FlexibleFuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines’’. 

activated carbon used in the vehicle’s 

onboard canister by about 10 percent. 

Perhaps more importantly, 

manufacturer’s vehicle purge strategies 

and technologies would likely have to 

be modified to removing the larger 

vapor loads from the canister during 

vehicle operation. Some vehicles have 

adequate engine vacuum available to 

provide the increased purge, while 

others may require new or innovative 

approaches to increase purge volume or 

canister purge efficiency as discussed in 

the evaporative emissions technology 

discussion. While we have not 

performed a detailed analysis, EPA 

estimates that on average the 

evaporative standard compliance costs 

could be about $10–15 per vehicle 

higher at 10 psi RVP compared to 9 psi 

RVP for canister and purge upgrades. 

With respect to lead time, EPA’s current 

proposal calls for either 40 percent of 

light-duty vehicles to meet the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards in 2017 

MY (percentage option) or for a 

manufacturer to sell only zero evap 

PZEVs nationwide (PZEV only option). 

This basic approach for 2017 could still 

be feasible depending on the resolution 

of the test procedure issues and 

proposed flexibilities in phase-in 

schemes. 

Raising the certification test fuel to 10 

psi RVP would also impact the 

equivalency of CARB and EPA refueling 

and hot soak plus diurnal evaporative 

emission test procedures. These 

potential impacts would have to be 

addressed to maintain CARB/EPA 

evaporative emissions test reciprocity. 

Furthermore, there may be test 

procedure options for minimizing the 

burden of changing certification test fuel 

RVP while maintaining the needed inuse control. 

EPA does not believe that a 10 psi 

certification test fuel would impact the 

feasibility or cost of the proposed leak 

emission standard or the proposed 

change in the OBD evaporative system 

leak detection requirements, since these 

are based on orifice diameter. Nor, do 

we believe that it would have any 

negative impact on permeation 

emissions or exhaust emissions. 

As mentioned above, EPA issued a 

waiver allowing E15 to be introduced 

into commerce for use in MY 2001 and 

newer light-duty motor vehicles. On 

July 25, 2011, EPA finalized regulations 

to mitigate the potential for misfueling 

of vehicles, engines, and equipment not 

covered by the E15 waiver, i.e., MY 

2000 and older light-duty motor 

vehicles, all heavy-duty gasoline 

vehicles and engines, motorcycles, and 

all gasoline-powered nonroad products 

(which includes boats).324 Two of the 

required mitigation measures are a label 

for fuel pumps that dispense E15 to alert 

consumers to the appropriate and lawful 

use of the fuel and a prohibition on the 

use of E15 by consumers in vehicles not 

covered by the waiver, excluding 

flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs). If, as 

discussed in this proposed rule, any 

class of new heavy-duty gasoline 

vehicles or engines begin testing on E15 

for certification, EPA would not need to 

issue a waiver under section 211(f)(4) to 

allow introduction of E15 into 

commerce for use in these vehicles 

certified on E15 test fuel. However, EPA 

acknowledges that changes to the 

gasoline pump label and prohibitions 

finalized in the E15 Misfueling 

Mitigation Measures Rule would have to 

be made before E15 could lawfully be 

sold for use in these heavy-duty 

vehicles. This would be addressed in a 

future action. 

As discussed above in Sections 

IV.A.7.c (tailpipe emission testing) and 

IV.C.4.b (evaporative emission testing), 

we are proposing to require certification 

of all Tier 3 light-duty and chassiscertified heavy-duty gasoline vehicles 

on E15 test fuel. As described in those 

sections, we are proposing that EPA still 

accept testing for certification on 

CARB’s E10 test fuel during the phasein periods for the respective proposed 

Tier 3 vehicle tailpipe and evaporative 

emissions standards and, if certified on 

CARB’s E10 test fuel, that EPA would 

not perform or require in-use exhaust or 

evaporative testing on E15 test fuel. 

As mentioned earlier, we plan to 

continue to allow manufacturers to test 

vehicles on premium-grade gasoline 

should the vehicles require it. Since we 

cannot predict all future changes in 

gasoline vehicle technologies and in-use 

fuels, we are proposing to allow vehicle 

manufacturers to specify an alternative 

test fuel under certain situations. Under 

this proposal, if manufacturers were to 

design vehicles that required operation 

on a higher octane, higher ethanol 

content gasoline (e.g., dedicated E30 

vehicles or FFVs optimized to run on 

E30 or higher ethanol blends), under 40 

CFR 1065.701(c), they could petition the 

Administrator for approval of a higher 

octane, higher ethanol content test fuel 

if they could demonstrate that such a 

fuel would be used by the operator and 

would be readily available nationwide, 

vehicles would not operate 

appropriately on other available fuels, 

and such a fuel would result in 

equivalent emissions performance. For 

vehicles certified on high-octane, 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 

provide a market incentive to increase 

ethanol use beyond E10 and enhance 

the environmental performance of 

ethanol as a transportation fuel by using 

it to enable more fuel efficient engines. 

We seek comment on the 

appropriateness of the alternative test 

fuel provisions at § 1065.701(c) and the 

need to specify more precisely the 

makeup of such a fuel (ethanol content, 

as well as other fuel parameters) in the 

regulations at this time. We are also 

seeking comment on whether there are 

other aspects of today’s proposed 

standards that might need to be 

modified to provide an incentive for, or 

remove obstacles to, the development of 

highly efficient vehicles optimized for 

use on higher level ethanol blends. 

2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle Test 

Fuel 

While the Agency has for some time 

had testing requirements for flexible 

fuel vehicles (FFVs) on E85 fuel blends, 

EPA currently has no regulatory 

specifications for the test fuel itself. 

Historically, our laboratory practice has 

been to blend indolene (E0) with neat 

ethanol and normal butane to produce 

an FFV test fuel with 83 volume percent 

ethanol and an RVP from 6.0 to 6.5 psi. 

However, the lack of E85 test fuel 

specifications has caused confusion and 

inconsistency among FFV 

manufacturers in carrying out their 

certification requirements. 

Similar to the previous discussion 

regarding gasoline test fuels, we believe 

it is important that the fuel used to test 

FFVs reflect the composition of actual 

in-use E85. This may become 

increasingly important if E85 usage in 

FFVs increases to help satisfy the 

growing RFS2 renewable fuel 

requirements. 

The term ‘‘E85’’ has historically been 

used to describe an ethanol blend with 

a maximum ethanol content of 83 

volume percent and specified minimum 

ethanol content for use in FFVs. In the 

recently updated ASTM International 

specification, the minimum ethanol 

concentration was reduced from 68 to 

51 volume percent.325 As part of the 

updated specification, ASTM retired the 

name E85 because it has caused 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29912 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

326The proposed requirements for DFE are 

contained in Section V.C of today’s preamble. 

327The specifications for commercial grade 

butane are contained in 40 CFR 80.82. 

328 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012). 

329 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

confusion regarding the necessary 

variability in the ethanol content of the 

blend depending upon seasonal 

climactic conditions. The official name 

in the new ASTM specification is 

‘‘ethanol fuel blends for flexible-fuel 

automotive spark-ignition engines.’’ For 

the sake of brevity, we shall refer to this 

fuel as E51–83. 

Consistent with our current policy 

regarding the formulation of FFV test 

fuel, we believe that the ethanol content 

should be at or near the maximum 

ethanol level on which the vehicles 

were designed to operate to ensure that 

the testing reflects the full range of inuse formulations and emissions 

performance. To provide adequate 

flexibility for test fuel manufacturers, 

we are proposing that the ethanol 

content must be from 80 to 83 volume 

percent. Rather than specify ranges for 

the other fuel parameters as we have 

done for gasoline test fuel in Table IV– 

21, we are proposing that the FFV test 

fuel would be defined based on the 

results from blending the proposed E15 

standard gasoline test fuel with ethanol. 

We propose that denatured fuel ethanol 

(DFE) that meets the proposed 

specifications would be used to increase 

the ethanol content to 80 to 83 volume 

percent.326

It is important to ensure that the 

volatility of FFV test fuel meets 

minimum volatility specifications to 

provide adequate startability and for 

safety reasons. The ASTM minimum 

RVP specification that conforms to the 

specified temperature at which FFV 

emission testing takes place (68 to 86 °F) 

is 5.5 psi. EPA conducted discussions 

with vehicle and test fuel manufacturers 

to arrive at the current guidance that the 

RVP of the finished test fuel should be 

between 6.0 and 6.5 psi. We propose to 

formalize the current guidance in the 

regulatory requirements for FFV test 

fuel. We propose that commercial grade 

normal butane could be added to trim 

the RVP of the finished test fuel to meet 

the proposed specifications.327 A 6.0 to 

6.5 range in RVP has historically 

provided test fuel manufacturers 

adequate flexibility in formulating test 

fuels. Limiting the amount of butane 

that is added to formulate FFV test fuels 

is important because if excessive 

volumes of butane were used it could 

inappropriately reduce the stringency of 

emissions testing. 

As an alternative to the use of DFE to 

manufacture FFV test fuel, we propose 

that neat (undenatured) fuel grade 

ethanol could be used. We also propose 

that as an alternative to using a finished 

E15 standard gasoline test fuel in the 

manufacture of FFV test fuel that the 

gasoline blendstock used to produce a 

compliant E15 test fuel could be used to 

manufacture the FFV test fuel. This 

would allow ethanol to be blended only 

once to produce FFV test fuel. The test 

fuel manufacturer would be required to 

test a sample of the subject gasoline 

blendstock after the addition of ethanol 

to produce a finished standard E15 

gasoline test fuel and demonstrate that 

the blend meets all of the proposed 

requirements for standard gasoline test 

fuel described in Section IV.D.1. 

We propose that the above FFV 

emissions test fuel specifications would 

become applicable on the same 

schedule as the proposed E15 standard 

gasoline test fuel specifications become 

applicable for light- and heavy-duty 

gasoline vehicles (described below in 

Section IV.D.3). We believe that the 

proposed requirements would ensure 

that FFV test fuel reflects the 

composition of in-use ethanol fuel 

blends for flexible-fuel automotive 

spark-ignition engines while 

minimizing the burden on the industry 

with respect to test fuel formulation and 

the number of test fuel blend 

components that must be stored. 

Under the Tier 2 program, FFVs 

utilize a test fuel containing 10 percent 

ethanol with an RVP of approximately 

10 psi for evaporative emission testing. 

The proposed E15 certification fuel for 

non-FFVs is a 9 psi E15 fuel. We seek 

comment on whether the new E15 

evaporative emissions test fuel for FFVs 

should continue to have an RVP of 10 

psi to maintain the level of performance 

established under the Tier 2 program. 

3. Proposed Implementation Schedule 

As described earlier in Section IV.C, 

we are proposing Tier 3 exhaust and 

evaporative emission standards with 

today’s notice. The proposed changes in 

the specifications for test fuel would 

apply to vehicles certified to these new 

standards. We are proposing to 

transition to the new test fuel during the 

first few years that the Tier 3 standards 

are phasing in. As described in Sections 

IV.A and IV.B, testing with the new fuel 

would start with light-duty vehicles 

certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or 

below Bin 70, and heavy-duty vehicles 

certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or 

below Bin 250 (for Class 2b) and Bin 

300 (for Class 3). Starting with model 

years 2020 for light-duty and 2022 for 

heavy-duty, we would require that all 

manufacturers use the new test fuel for 

all exhaust emission testing (with the 

exception of Small Volume 

Manufacturers and small businesses, 

which could delay using the new test 

fuel until model year 2022). 

Manufacturers would also need to 

comply with cold temperature CO and 

NMHC standards using the new test fuel 

for any models that use E15 test fuel for 

meeting the light-duty Tier 3 exhaust 

emission standards. These same tests 

would also provide the basis for meeting 

GHG requirements under 40 CFR part 86 

and fuel economy requirements under 

40 CFR part 600, as described in the 

following section. 

We are proposing to require 

evaporative emission testing with the 

new test fuel for any models that are 

certified to the Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards. To the extent that 

these models are different than those 

used for exhaust emission testing with 

the new test fuel, manufacturers would 

need to do additional testing to 

demonstrate compliance with all 

applicable standards. They may 

alternatively use the new test fuel 

earlier than the regulations specify to 

avoid additional testing. We further 

propose to require that manufacturers 

submit certification data based on the 

new test fuel to demonstrate compliance 

with refueling emission standards for 

any vehicles that are certified to the Tier 

3 evaporative emission standards. 

4. Potential Implications on CAFE 

Standards, GHG Standards, and Fuel 

Economy Labels 

EPA and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

recently finalized a joint greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions and corporate average 

fuel economy (CAFE) standards for MY 

2017–2025 light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles.328 These GHG and 

CAFE standards build upon the 

National Program that was first 

announced by the President in May 

2009 and which allows manufacturers 

to build a single fleet of light vehicles 

that can satisfy all federal and state 

requirements for GHG emissions and 

fuel economy. The first round of 

standards by EPA and NHTSA under 

the National Program cover MY 2012– 

2016.329

The recently finalized MY 2017–2025 

GHG and CAFE standards affect 

essentially the same vehicle classes over 

the same timeframe as this proposal for 

non-GHG emissions standards and 

gasoline fuel quality. Accordingly, EPA 

believes it is important for the two 

rulemakings to be coordinated so that 

manufacturers can develop future 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29913 

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

331EPA estimates that, on average, E85 fuel 

contains 25–30 percent less energy per gallon than 

gasoline with zero ethanol. 

332 40 CFR 600.113–12(h)(1). 

333Butler, A. (February 2013) Analysis of the 

Effects of Changing Fuel Properties on the EPA Fuel 

Economy Equation and R-Factor. Memorandum to 

the docket. 

334Butler, A. (February 2013) Analysis of the 

Effects of Changing Fuel Properties on the EPA Fuel 

Economy Equation and R-Factor. Memorandum to 

the docket. 

335EPA Guidance Letters CD–12–03 (Analytically 

Derived CO2 and Carbon-Related Exhaust Emissions 

(CREE) for Light-Duty Vehicles) and CCD–04–06 

(Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy 

(ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY and Later), March 11, 

2004, is available through the EPA Transportation 

and Air Quality Document Index System at: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/. 

product development plans with a full 

understanding of the major regulatory 

requirements they would be facing over 

the MY 2017–2025 time frame. 

The Agency would like to highlight 

two important issues of overlap between 

these two rulemakings: Test fuel and 

useful life. As explained above, today’s 

action proposes to update EPA’s test 

fuel to better match in-use fuels, with 

the change in test fuel phased-in from 

MY 2017–2020 for light-duty exhaust 

emission compliance. The proposal 

involves several changes to the 

emissions test fuel specifications, 

including, notably, a 15 percent by 

volume ethanol content. The current 

emissions test fuel contains zero 

ethanol. Regarding useful life, we are 

proposing a longer useful life for some 

vehicles, as described in Section 

IV.A.7.b, from the current 120,000 miles 

to 150,000 miles. 

a. Test Fuel 

The proposed change in test fuel, if 

finalized, could have implications for 

both the CAFE and GHG emissions 

compliance programs, as well as the fuel 

economy labeling program. EPA is 

committed to the principle of ensuring 

that the proposed change in test fuel 

would not affect the stringency of either 

the CAFE or GHG emissions standards, 

and that the labeling calculations would 

be updated to reflect the change in test 

fuel. 

While NHTSA establishes the fuel 

economy standards for the CAFE 

program, EPA is responsible for vehicle 

testing and calculation of fuel economy 

values used by manufacturer for 

compliance with the CAFE standards. 

Under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), limitations 

are placed on the test procedures used 

to measure fuel economy for passenger 

cars. For passenger automobiles, EPA 

has to use the same procedures used for 

model year 1975 automobiles, or 

procedures that give comparable 

results.330 When EPA has made changes 

to the FTP or HFET, we have evaluated 

whether it is appropriate to provide for 

an adjustment to the measured fuel 

economy results, to comply with the 

EPCA requirement for passenger cars 

that the test procedures produce results 

comparable to the 1975 test procedures. 

These adjustments are typically referred 

to as a CAFE or fuel economy test 

procedure adjustment or adjustment 

factor. 

Because ethanol has a lower energy 

content than gasoline, i.e., fewer British 

thermal units (Btus) or joules per 

gallon,331 and fuel economy is defined 

in terms of miles per gallon of fuel, it 

is almost certain that the same vehicle 

tested on a test fuel with 15 percent 

ethanol content will yield a lower fuel 

economy value relative to the value if it 

were tested on the current test fuel with 

zero ethanol content. For CAFE 

purposes, the existing fuel economy 

equation for gasoline that has been in 

use for many years already contains an 

adjustment for the energy content of the 

test fuel to calculate fuel economy 

equivalent to what would have been 

determined using the 1975 baseline test 

fuel.332 Therefore, it is not clear that any 

further action is necessary to account for 

the proposed change in certification test 

fuel. Within this equation, however, is 

a so-called ‘‘R-factor’’ to account for the 

fact that the change in fuel economy is 

not directly proportional to the change 

in energy content of the test fuel. 

Although an R-factor of 0.6 has been 

used since 1988, manufacturers have 

suggested that a higher value may be 

more appropriate. We discuss this issue 

in a memo to the docket.333 This is a 

technical issue with the fuel economy 

equation that has been raised in the 

context of the proposed certification test 

fuel change, but technically it is distinct 

from the proposed change in test fuel. 

EPA will continue to investigate this 

issue and if necessary address it as part 

of a future action. 

EPA is also committed to retaining 

equivalent stringency for GHG 

emissions compliance associated with 

the proposed test fuel change. The 

proposed changes in test fuel properties 

in this rule do not have any appreciable 

impact on carbon dioxide grams per 

mile levels. This is supported by data 

from the EPAct study, which show that 

the change in the test fuel have both 

positive and negative impacts that offset 

each other and that there is no net 

impact on carbon dioxide grams per 

mile levels. This is discussed in a memo 

to the docket.334 We seek comment on 

the impact of this proposal on CO2

emissions. Should action to adjust the 

compliance calculation for the lightduty GHG standards become warranted, 

we would include such changes as a 

part of a future action. 

EPA expects that there may be a 

potential impact on manufacturer’s fuel 

economy and greenhouse gas testing 

burden during the Tier 3 phase-in years. 

Currently, for example, manufacturers 

carry over a considerable amount of 

previous model year data in support of 

their Fuel Economy Labeling and CAFE/ 

Greenhouse Gas programs. We are 

proposing that Tier 3 compliant vehicles 

would be required to test on E15 test 

fuel, and thus, manufacturers would 

normally not be allowed to carry over 

previous model year data from vehicles 

tested on E0 test fuel. EPA anticipates 

that such carryover requests could be 

handled during the Tier 3 phase-in 

years with modifications to EPA’s 

current policy for the use of analytically 

derived data (see EPA’s fuel economy, 

CO2, and carbon-related exhaust 

emissions testing regulations at 40 CFR 

600.006–08(e) and EPA guidance letter 

CD–12–03 (February 27, 2012) and 

CCD–04–06, (March 11, 2004 335)). EPA 

requests comments on whether there is 

a need for further reductions in fuel 

economy/greenhouse gas testing burden 

beyond that allowed by the above EPA 

guidance letters. Any comments 

supporting the need to reduce fuel 

economy/greenhouse gas testing burden 

(beyond that allowed by EPA’s policy 

for the use of analytically derived data) 

should describe one or more specific 

methods of reducing such testing 

burden. 

Finally, EPA will need to update the 

fuel economy labeling calculations in 40 

CFR Part 600 to reflect the proposed E15 

test fuel. The current methodology, 

which took effect with the 2008 model 

year, contains equations that, when 

applied to test results using current fuel 

(zero alcohol), adjust for an average 

national impact of ethanol in fuel on 

fuel economy. These equations would 

need to be revised such that the 

adjustment remains consistent with the 

actual national use of ethanol in fuel. 

b. Useful Life for GHG Standards 

As stated above, EPA is committed to 

retaining equivalent stringency for GHG 

emissions compliance beginning in MY 

2017. In contrast to the proposed Tier 3 

test fuel, for which we are uncertain as 

to the effects on GHG emissions, we 

believe that certifying a vehicle to a 

longer useful life for any emission 

constituent would have only a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29914 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

beneficial effect on emissions. To 

address potential concerns about 

changes in the stringency of the GHG 

standards resulting from a longer useful 

life, we are not proposing to require a 

longer useful life for GHG emission 

standards. As this approach may result 

in additional testing burden, we are 

proposing that manufacturers could 

optionally certify GHG emissions to a 

150,000 mile, 15 year useful life. 

5. Consideration of Nonroad, 

Motorcycle, and Heavy-Duty Engine 

Emissions Test Fuel 

As described earlier in Section 

IV.D.1., we are proposing new 

specifications for the gasoline emissions 

test fuel used for testing highway 

vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 

standards. In developing today’s 

proposal, EPA also considered 

proposing the change in test fuel 

specifications for other categories of 

engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel 

system components that use gasoline. 

This would include a wide range of 

applications, including small nonroad 

engines used in lawn and garden 

applications, recreational vehicles such 

as ATVs and snowmobiles, recreational 

marine applications, on-highway 

motorcycles, and larger heavy-duty 

gasoline engines. While engines in some 

of these categories employ advanced 

technologies similar to light-duty 

vehicles and trucks, the vast majority of 

these engines employ much simpler 

designs, with many of the engines being 

carbureted with no electronic controls. 

Because of lower level of technology, 

emissions from these engines are 

potentially much more sensitive to 

changes in fuel quality. 

EPA is not proposing to apply the 

new emissions test fuel specifications to 

these other categories of engines, 

vehicles, equipment, and fuel system 

components. In discussing the potential 

change in test fuel specifications with 

the large number of businesses 

potentially impacted by such a change, 

many companies supported such a 

change. However, a number of 

manufacturers raised concerns about the 

level of ethanol in the new fuel, the cost 

of recertifying emission families on the 

new fuel, the impact on nationwide 

product offerings, and the cost impact of 

complying with the existing standards 

on the new test fuel. EPA believes it is 

important that the emissions test fuel for 

these other categories reflect real-world 

fuel qualities but has elected to defer 

moving forward now pending additional 

analysis of the impacts of changing the 

test fuel specifications for the wide 

range of engines, vehicles, equipment 

and fuel system components that could 

be impacted. These impacts include the 

impact on the emissions standards, as 

well as the other issues raised by the 

manufacturers. EPA plans to explore 

such a change in a separate future 

action. EPA requests comment on the 

implications of changing the test fuel for 

these other categories and whether a 

different test fuel would be more 

appropriate for these other categories. 

6. Consideration of CNG and LPG 

Emissions Test Fuel 

There are currently no sulfur 

specifications for the test fuel used for 

certifying natural gas vehicles. There is 

also no sulfur specification in § 86.113 

for the test fuel used for certifying 

liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles. 

The corresponding LPG test fuel for 

heavy-duty highway engines and for 

nonroad engines in § 1065.720 includes 

an 80 ppm maximum sulfur 

specification. 

We request comment on the 

appropriateness of changing § 86.113 to 

reference 40 CFR part 1065 for both 

natural gas and LPG test fuels. We 

further request comment on amending 

these specifications to better reflect inuse fuel characteristics, and in 

particular on the appropriateness of 

aligning the sulfur specifications with 

those that apply for gasoline test fuel. 

Changing the sulfur specifications 

would depend on establishing that the 

new specification is consistent with the 

range of properties expected from in-use 

fuels. 

E. Small-Business Provisions 

As in previous vehicle rulemakings, 

our justification for including 

provisions specific to small businesses 

is that these entities generally have a 

greater degree of difficulty in complying 

with the standards compared to other 

entities. 

In developing the proposed Tier 3 

vehicle program, we evaluated the 

environmental need as well as the 

technical and financial ability of 

manufacturers and others to meet the 

standards as expeditiously as possible. 

We believe it is feasible and necessary 

for the vast majority of the program to 

be implemented in the established time 

frame to achieve the air quality benefits 

as soon as possible. Based on 

information available from small 

manufacturers and others, we believe 

that entities classified as small generally 

face unique circumstances with regard 

to compliance with environmental 

programs, compared to larger entities. 

Thus, as discussed below, we are 

proposing several flexibility provisions 

for small businesses in the vehicle 

industry to reduce the burden that this 

program could have on them. These 

proposed provisions are based on the 

recommendations of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel 

described in Section XIII.C of today’s 

proposal and include a few additional 

provisions. 

Small entities generally lack the 

resources that are available to larger 

companies to carry out necessary 

research and development and to raise 

capital for investing in a new regulatory 

program. Small entities are also likely to 

have more difficulty in competing for 

any needed engineering and 

construction resources and lower 

production volume over which to 

spread their compliance costs. Small 

entities also tend to have limited 

product lines, which limits their ability 

to take advantage of the phase-in and 

ABT flexibility provisions in the 

proposal. As such, we are proposing 

regulatory flexibility provisions that 

would provide additional lead time and 

reduced testing burden for small entities 

in meeting the proposed Tier 3 

standards. This proposed approach 

would allow the overall program to 

begin as early as possible; achieving the 

air quality benefits of the program as 

soon as possible, while helping to 

ensure that small entities have adequate 

time to make any necessary 

modifications to their product lines. We 

believe that small business regulatory 

flexibilities could provide these entities 

with additional help and/or time to take 

advantage of technological 

developments by other parties and to 

accumulate capital internally or to 

secure capital financing from lenders, 

and could spread out the availability of 

any needed engineering resources. We 

believe these provisions will also reduce 

their overall compliance burden and 

allow them to more easily transition to 

the new standards in a way that matches 

their business practices. 

The provisions described below 

would be available to all small 

businesses subject to the Tier 3 emission 

standards. The types of companies 

subject to the Tier 3 emission standards 

include vehicle manufacturers, and two 

additional categories of businesses that 

are generally referred to as independent 

commercial importers (ICIs) and 

alternative fuel vehicle converters. As 

discussed below, the proposed set of 

flexibilities would also be available to 

manufacturers in these three business 

categories that sell less than 5,000 

vehicles per year that are subject to the 

Tier 3 emission standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29915 

1. Lead Time for Exhaust and 

Evaporative Emission Standards 

As noted above, small businesses 

have limited resources available for 

developing new designs to comply with 

new emission standards. In addition, it 

is often necessary for these businesses to 

rely on vendor companies for 

technology. Moreover, percentage 

phase-in requirements and declining 

fleet average standards pose a dilemma 

for a small manufacturer that has a 

limited product line (e.g., the 

manufacturer certifies vehicles in only 

one or two test groups). Thus, similar to 

the flexibility provisions implemented 

in previous vehicle rules, the Panel 

recommended that EPA allow small 

businesses the following flexibility 

option for meeting the proposed Tier 3 

emissions standards. 

EPA is proposing that small 

businesses (and small volume 

manufacturers, as discussed below) be 

given additional lead time to comply 

with the proposed Tier 3 exhaust and 

evaporative emission standards. 

Specifically, we propose to allow small 

manufacturers to postpone compliance 

with the standards and other Tier 3 

requirements, including use of the 

proposed new certification test fuel, 

until model year 2022. For model year 

2022 and later, small manufacturers 

would be subject to the same Tier 3 

exhaust and evaporative requirements 

as other manufacturers, including 

moving to the declining FTP fleet 

average NMOG+NOX curve and 

complying with the fully phased-in 

standard of 30 mg/mi, as well as 

certifying on E15 test fuel. (This 

approach is similar to that in the Tier 2 

rule where EPA allowed small 

manufacturers to wait until the end of 

the phase-in to comply with the Tier 2 

standards.) As described earlier in this 

section, the proposed Tier 3 rule has 

several different phase-in schedules; 

with the final dates varying from model 

year 2021 for the new light-duty exhaust 

PM standards to model year 2025 for the 

new light-duty exhaust gaseous 

pollutant standards. Requiring all small 

businesses to comply with the full slate 

of Tier 3 requirements in model year 

2022 should provide sufficient lead time 

for manufacturers to plan for and 

implement the technology changes 

needed to comply with the Tier 3 

standards. 

During the SBAR Panel process, one 

small entity representative (SER) 

recommended that EPA adopt relaxed 

exhaust standards for small 

manufacturers. The SER noted that the 

exhaust emission averaging program 

being proposed by EPA would allow 

large manufacturers that have many 

engine families to certify their small, 

niche products at emission levels 

numerically higher than the standards. 

Small manufacturers that typically do 

not have more than one or two emission 

families generally cannot use averaging 

to the same extent because of their 

limited product offerings. The SER was 

concerned that the high-performance 

vehicles produced by large 

manufacturers which they compete 

against would be able to certify at 

numerically higher levels at less cost 

than the SER would incur. The SERrecommended relaxed NMOG+NOX

standards over the Federal Test 

Procedure (FTP) are 125 mg/mi in 

model year 2020 and 70 mg/mi in model 

year 2025. This is the same general 

approach that the CARB Board 

approved for small volume 

manufacturers in LEV III (a relaxed 

standard NMOG+NOX of 125 mg/mi 

followed by a fully phased-in standard 

of 70 mg/mi in model year 2025), except 

that the CARB program introduces the 

relaxed standard and the change in test 

fuel in model year 2022. 

As described above, although we are 

proposing a delay in the Tier 3 

requirements, EPA is not proposing to 

relax the fully phased-in standards for 

the small entities. We believe that these 

standards are technologically feasible 

and can be readily achieved with the 

additional lead time we are proposing as 

the technology would have already been 

demonstrated by other manufacturers, 

in some cases on the very same engines 

used by the small manufacturers. In 

addition, the compliance costs for many 

of these vehicles, even if higher on an 

absolute basis, may still be lower on a 

relative basis given the higher average 

cost of the vehicles. Furthermore, EPA 

is proposing to allow manufacturers to 

apply for hardship relief (discussed 

below) on a case-by-case basis. EPA 

requests comment on our proposed 

approach and whether there is an 

additional need for the final rule to 

allow small manufacturers to meet 

relaxed NMOG+NOX exhaust emission 

standards on the FTP over the long 

term, as suggested by the SER and as 

reflected in action by CARB. 

In light of the CARB Board-approved 

implementation schedule for small 

manufacturers described above, we also 

request comment on an option that 

would not provide a permanent relaxed 

standard for small manufacturers, but 

would provide a temporary relaxed 

standard matching the California 

standard from model year 2022 through 

2024. This option would apply to the 

Tier 3 exhaust emission standards 

starting in 2022, except that a relaxed 

NMOG+NOX standard of 125 mg/mi 

would apply in model years 2020–2024 

for FTP testing. For model years 2025 

and later, the standard would be the 

same as for all other manufacturers, or 

30 mg/mi. Under this option, small 

manufacturers would have to take some 

action to reduce emissions in 2022 and 

could postpone meeting fully phased-in 

Tier 3 standards until 2025. 

2. Assigned Deterioration Factors 

Under EPA’s regulations, 

manufacturers must demonstrate that 

their vehicles comply with the emission 

standards throughout the ‘‘useful life’’ 

period. This is generally done by testing 

vehicles at low-mileage and then 

applying a deterioration factor to these 

emission levels. The deterioration 

factors are determined by aging new 

emission control systems and then 

testing the aged systems again to 

determine how much deterioration in 

emissions has occurred. In order to 

reduce the testing burden in previous 

rulemaking, EPA has allowed small 

manufacturers to use deterioration 

factor values assigned by EPA instead of 

performing the extended testing. A 

manufacturer would apply the assigned 

deterioration factors to its low-mileage 

emission level to demonstrate whether 

it complied with the Tier 3 emission 

standards. 

With today’s proposal, EPA proposes 

that small businesses be allowed the 

option to use EPA-developed assigned 

deterioration factors in demonstrating 

compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and 

evaporative emission standards. In the 

past, EPA has relied on deterioration 

factor data from large manufacturers to 

develop the assigned deterioration 

factors for small manufacturers. EPA 

would expect to follow a similar 

procedure to determine the assigned 

deterioration factors for the Tier 3 

standards once large manufacturers start 

certifying their Tier 3 designs. Given 

that larger manufacturers would begin 

phasing in to the Tier 3 standards in 

model year 2017, EPA should have a 

significant set of emissions deterioration 

data upon which to base the assigned 

deterioration factors for small 

businesses within the first few years of 

the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that 

assigned deterioration factors need to be 

determined well in advance of model 

year 2022 in order to provide sufficient 

time for small businesses to decide 

whether or not to use the assigned 

deterioration factors for certification 

purposes. 

3. Reduced Testing Burden 

Under EPA’s regulations, 

manufacturers must perform in-use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29916 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

testing on their vehicles and 

demonstrate their in-use vehicles 

comply with the emission standards. 

The current in-use testing regulations 

provide for reduced levels of testing for 

small manufacturers, including no 

testing in some cases. EPA is proposing 

to continue the reduced levels of testing 

for small businesses under the Tier 3 

program. Under the reduced testing 

provisions, manufacturers that sell less 

than 5,000 units per year would not be 

required to do any testing under the inuse program. Manufacturers that sell 

between 5,001 and 15,000 units per year 

would be required to test two vehicles 

per test group, but only under the highmileage conditions specified in the inuse program. 

Under current regulations, 

manufacturers may waive testing for PM 

emissions for light-duty vehicles and 

trucks, except for diesel-fueled vehicles. 

Manufacturers are still subject to the 

standards and must make a statement of 

compliance with the PM standards. As 

described in Section IV.A, EPA is 

proposing new PM standards and will 

require manufacturers to test for PM 

emissions for all fuels. Because PM 

testing requires additional test 

equipment and facilities, the costs 

incurred for PM testing can be 

substantial, especially for a company 

selling small numbers of vehicles. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to continue 

the waiver for PM testing in the Tier 3 

timeframe for small businesses. Small 

businesses will not be required to 

measure PM emissions when they 

certify to the Tier 3 emission standards. 

In lieu of testing, small businesses will 

be required to make a statement of 

compliance with the Tier 3 p.m. 

standards. We would retain the ability 

to determine the PM emissions results 

in confirmatory or in-use testing. 

As described in Section IV.C, EPA is 

proposing new OBD requirements for 

vehicles certifying to the Tier 3 

standards. The proposed OBD 

requirements are the same as CARB’s 

existing OBD requirements. The 

proposed OBD provisions require 

additional amounts of testing and 

information that can add significant cost 

for manufacturers if they are not already 

meeting the CARB OBD requirements. 

Small business vehicle manufacturers 

tend to comply with the CARB OBD 

requirements because they want to sell 

in the California market. On the other 

hand, alternative-fuel converters do not 

generally certify with CARB because of 

the significant cost burden of complying 

with the CARB OBD requirements. We 

are therefore proposing that small 

business alternative-fuel converters may 

continue to comply with EPA’s existing 

OBD requirements (see 40 CFR 86.1806– 

05) when the Tier 3 standards become 

effective. However, the proposed 

upgraded OBD requirements would 

have to be met by small entities and 

ICI’s by the 2022 MY. 

Alternative-fueled vehicles, MDPVs, 

FFVs, and HDVs do not have SFTP 

emissions requirements under the 

current regulations. As described in 

Section IV.A, EPA is proposing to apply 

the Tier 3 SFTP standards to all 

vehicles, including alternative-fueled 

vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and HDVs. 

Because SFTP testing includes emission 

measurement over the SC03 test cycle, 

which requires additional test facilities 

beyond those needed to run the FTP, the 

costs incurred for SC03 testing can be 

substantial, especially for companies 

like alternative fuel converters that sell 

very low numbers of converted vehicles. 

We are proposing that for the categories 

of vehicles newly subject to the SFTP 

standards, including alternative-fueled 

vehicles, manufacturers have the option 

to substitute the FTP emissions levels 

for the SC03 emissions results for 

purposes of compliance when 

calculating the SFTP emissions. 

However, we would retain the ability to 

determine the composite emissions 

using SC03 test results in confirmatory 

or in-use testing. Because the vehicles 

being converted to an alternative fuel 

will likely have been tested for SFTP 

compliance, we expect the SFTP 

emissions should be similarly low, and 

therefore the added SC03 testing burden 

is unnecessary. 

During the SBAR process, one SER 

requested that EPA eliminate some of 

the evaporative emission testing 

requirements for small businesses based 

on its belief that some of the tests may 

be duplicative. While EPA understands 

the reasons behind the SER’s suggestion, 

we believe it may be premature to 

consider such an option in the Tier 3 

rule given the potential impact of the 

CO2 emission standards on engine and 

fuel system development. Currently, it 

is generally understood that the 2-day 

diurnal test drives the purge 

characteristics of evaporative control 

systems, while the refueling test, and to 

a lesser degree the 3-day test, drive the 

capacity requirement of evaporative 

canisters. Prospectively, due to expected 

changes in engine and fuel system 

designs in response to upcoming CO2

emission standard requirements, this 

may not be the case. Therefore, EPA 

believes it is appropriate to retain all of 

the evaporative test procedures. It can 

be noted that under current regulations, 

EPA does allow manufacturers to waive 

2-day diurnal testing for certification 

purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829– 

01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2-day 

diurnal test as part of the in-use testing 

program (see 40 CFR 86.1845– 

04(c)(5)(ii)). These provisions would 

continue in the Tier 3 program. In 

general, EPA is open to changes that 

reduce test burden while maintaining 

the environmental effectiveness of its 

programs and could consider changes 

like those suggested by the SER in the 

future as the impacts of the future 

regulations on engine and vehicle 

design become clearer. Therefore, EPA 

requests comment on streamlining the 

current test procedures for small 

businesses in ways that would still 

maintain the overall effectiveness of the 

tests. 

4. Hardship 

EPA is proposing hardship provisions 

for small businesses subject to the Tier 

3 exhaust and evaporative emission 

standards. Under the hardship 

provisions, small businesses would be 

allowed to apply for additional time to 

meet the 100 percent phase-in 

requirements for exhaust and 

evaporative emissions. All hardship 

requests would be subject to EPA review 

and approval. Appeals for such 

hardship relief would need to be made 

in writing and must be submitted well 

before the earliest date of potential 

noncompliance. The request would 

need to identify how much time is being 

requested. It must also include evidence 

that the noncompliance would occur 

despite the manufacturer’s best efforts to 

comply, and must contain evidence that 

severe economic hardship would be 

faced by the company if the relief is not 

granted. The hardship provision should 

effectively provide the opportunity for 

small businesses to obtain more time to 

comply with the new Tier 3 standards. 

The existing hardship provisions limit 

the extra time that can be requested to 

1 year, but we are proposing that such 

a limit is not needed as part of the Tier 

3 hardship provisions. 

5. Applicability of Flexibilities 

Under EPA’s Tier 2 regulations, EPA 

provides a number of flexibilities for 

small volume manufacturers (SVMs). 

The criteria for determining if a 

company is a ‘‘small volume 

manufacturer’’ is based on the annual 

production level of vehicles and is 

based on whether the company 

produces less than 15,000 vehicles per 

year. Unlike EPA’s current small 

volume manufacturer criteria, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) defines 

which manufacturers are small 

businesses based on the number of 

employees for vehicle manufacturers 

and annual revenues for ICIs and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29917 

336See 77 FR 62793–62794 and 40 CFR 86.1838– 

01(d) 

alternative fuel converters. For example, 

SBA defines a small business vehicle 

manufacturer as those who have less 

than 1,000 employees. 

With today’s notice, EPA proposes 

that all small businesses that are subject 

to the Tier 3 standards and that meet the 

SBA criteria be eligible for the 

flexibilities described above. Unless 

otherwise noted, the proposed 

flexibilities would be available to all 

small business vehicle manufacturers, 

ICIs, and alternative fuel converters 

subject to the Tier 3 standards. In 

addition, EPA is proposing that 

manufacturers subject to the Tier 3 

standards which meet a specified salesbased criterion be eligible for the 

flexibilities described above. It is 

relatively easy for a manufacturer to 

project and ultimately determine sales. 

Determining the annual revenues or 

number of employees is less 

straightforward. In the recent rule 

setting the first light-duty vehicle and 

truck CO2 emission standards, EPA 

adopted provisions for small 

manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 

5,000 vehicles per year as opposed to 

the 15,000 level noted earlier that is 

used in the Tier 2 program. EPA 

proposes that the small volume 

manufacturer definition be based on the 

5,000 vehicle per year level for the Tier 

3 program. For purposes of the Tier 3 

rule, the 5,000 limit would be based on 

a running three-year average of the 

number of light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, medium-duty passenger 

vehicles, and complete heavy-duty 

trucks below 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA 

believes the 5,000 unit cut-off for small 

volume manufacturers would include 

all of the vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, 

and alternative fuel converters that 

currently meet the applicable SBA 

definition as well as a few additional 

companies that have similar concerns to 

small businesses. 

EPA requests comment on the issue of 

extending eligibility for the Tier 3 small 

volume manufacturer provisions to very 

small manufacturers that are owned by 

large manufacturers but are able to 

establish that they are operationally 

independent. EPA has established such 

a provision in the light-duty greenhouse 

gas (GHG) program.336 EPA requests 

comment specifically on whether a 

manufacturer who meets the criteria for 

establishing operational independence 

under 86.1838–01(d) for eligibility for 

SVM provisions under the GHG 

program should be considered to be 

operationally independent and similarly 

eligible for SVM provisions under the 

Tier 3 program. 

F. Compliance Provisions 

1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures 

We are proposing technical 

amendments to 40 CFR part 1066 as part 

of the effort to migrate test requirements 

from 40 CFR part 86 for light-duty 

vehicles and measurement of criteria 

pollutants. The proposed procedures in 

part 1066 reference large portions of 

part 1065 to align test specifications that 

apply equally to engine-based and 

vehicle-based testing, such as CVS and 

analyzer specifications, calibrations, test 

fuels, calculations, and definitions of 

many terms. The proposed part 1066, as 

amended, also incorporates most of the 

detailed part 86 procedures. 

Current testing requirements related 

to chassis dynamometers rely on a 

combination of regulatory provisions, 

EPA guidance documents, and extensive 

learning from industry experience that 

has led to a good understanding of best 

practices for operating a vehicle in the 

laboratory to measure emissions. This 

proposal attempts to capture this range 

of material, integrating and organizing 

these specifications and procedures to 

include a complete set of provisions to 

ensure that emission measurements are 

accurate and repeatable. We request 

comment on the range of proposed 

requirements related to these chassis 

test procedures. 

Proposed revisions to part 1066, and 

adjustments from part 86, include the 

following: 

• Clarification of regulatory 

requirements. 

• Correction of typographical errors. 

• Migration of mass-based emission 

calculations from part 86 to part 1066. 

• Introduction of a new NMOG 

calculation. 

• Revision of 40 CFR part 1066, 

subpart B, to increase the specificity 

with which part 1065 references are 

made as they pertain to testing 

equipment, test fluids, test gases, and 

calibration standards. 

• Addition of coastdown procedures 

for light-duty vehicles. 

• Reordering of the test sequence 

with respect to vehicle preparation and 

running a test. 

• Specifying part 1065 procedures for 

PM measurement, including certain 

deviations from part 1065 for chassis 

testing. 

• Insertion of detailed test 

specifications for vehicles certified 

under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. 

We are proposing the use of part 1065 

for PM measurement with slight 

adjustments to the dilution air 

temperature, minimum dilution ratio, 

and background measurement 

requirements. By controlling the 

parameters that affect PM formation 

(dilution air temperature, dilution 

factor, sample residence time, filter face 

temperature, and filter face velocity), 

the proposed procedures include 

improvements that will reduce lab-tolab and test-to-test variability. 

We are proposing to eliminate 

separate sampling of Bag 2 of the FTP 

test cycle to allow for an increase in 

sampled PM mass. The proposed 

alternative approach is to sample Bags 

1 and 2 of the FTP on a single filter, and 

sample Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP onto a 

second filter. This will generally involve 

simultaneous sampling of Phase 2 onto 

two separate filters. As an additional 

alternative, manufacturers may run cold 

and hot UDDSs without simultaneous 

sampling of the cold UDDS Phase 2, or 

to sample Bag 1, Bag 2, and Bag 3 on 

a single filter. Manufacturers choosing 

any of these options must still run a 

separate three-bag test for evaporative 

emission testing. We request comment 

on continuing to allow sampling under 

the traditional FTP methodology of a 

bag or filter per test phase (3 phases in 

total) instead of these proposed new 

methods. We also request comment on 

the appropriate transition to using the 

new sampling and calculation methods. 

We are proposing to revise the chassis 

dynamometer specifications in part 

1066 by removing the maximum roll 

diameter and by requiring speed and 

force measurements at a minimum 

frequency of 10 hertz (Hz). Some 

manufacturers may be interested in 

testing with nonstandard dynamometer 

configurations, such as new flat-track 

dynamometers or old twin-roll 

dynamometers. We may approve the use 

of these and other nonstandard 

dynamometer configurations as 

alternative procedures under 40 CFR 

1065.10(c)(7). 

Part 1066 relies extensively on 

calculations involving physical 

parameters to calculate emission rates 

and perform various calibrations and 

verifications. As reflected in the current 

version of part 1066, manufacturers 

have used a variety of units to perform 

these calculations. We would expect 

that dynamometers and other laboratory 

equipment are all capable of operating 

in SI units even if current practice in 

some laboratories is to use other units. 

Moving toward standardized units for 

calculations would allow us to more 

carefully and appropriately specify 

precision values for various measured 

and calculated parameters. This would 

also simplify calculations, facilitate 

review of results from different 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29918 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

laboratories, and help with 

communications regarding any roundrobin testing that might occur. Note that 

we are not contemplating converting 

emission standards to SI units. We 

request comment on completing the 

migration toward SI units in part 1066. 

In particular, we request comment on 

adding vehicle speed specifications in 

meters per second in addition to the 

current specification in miles per hour 

(or kilometers per hour for motorcycles). 

Specifying vehicle speeds to the nearest 

0.01 m/s would allow for equivalent 

vehicle operation relative to current 

drive schedules. The cycle validation 

criteria would be based on a speed 

tolerance of ±1.0 m/s rather than ±2 mph 

(or rather than the proposed change to 

a ±2.0 mph tolerance). This is not a 

direct unit conversion, but is calculated 

based on the stated precision and 

rounding allowance to provide a 

comparable degree of variability in 

vehicle speeds. 

We are proposing to phase in the 

requirements to use part 1066 test 

procedures for certifying all sizes of 

chassis-tested vehicles. For this phasein approach, all aspects of part 1066 

related to PM testing must be met at the 

start of MY 2017 for vehicles certifying 

to the PM standards. All other aspects 

of part 1066 must be met starting with 

the certification of all MY 2022 vehicles. 

As described in Section IV.D, we are 

proposing new test fuel specifications 

for E15 gasoline test fuel in 40 CFR part 

1065. The test fuels specified for natural 

gas and liquefied petroleum gas, while 

not used for very many engine families, 

are currently following different 

specifications under 40 CFR part 86 and 

part 1065. We request comment on 

further revising 40 CFR part 86 to refer 

to the test fuel specifications in part 

1065 for natural gas and liquefied 

petroleum gas. 

The proposal also includes various 

technical amendments to 40 CFR part 

1065. The proposed technical 

amendments have no effect on the 

stringency of the regulations. These 

revisions include several minor changes 

to clarify regulatory requirements, align 

with chassis-testing procedures where 

appropriate, and correct typographical 

errors. 

2. Reduced Test Burden 

We are proposing to update the 

regulatory provisions that allow 

manufacturers to omit testing for 

certification, in-use testing, and 

selective enforcement audits in certain 

circumstances. Sections IV.A.3, IV.B.6, 

and IV.E.3 describe how this applies for 

demonstrating that vehicles meet the 

Tier 3 p.m. standards. We are also 

proposing to allow manufacturers to 

omit PM measurements for fuel 

economy and GHG emissions testing 

that goes beyond the testing needed for 

certifying vehicles to the Tier 3 

standards. Requiring such measurement 

would add a significant burden with 

very limited additional assurance that 

vehicles adequately control PM. We are 

also proposing to allow manufacturers 

to ask us to omit PM and formaldehyde 

measurement for selective enforcement 

audits. If there is a concern that any 

type of vehicle would not meet the Tier 

3 p.m. or formaldehyde standards, we 

would not approve a manufacturer’s 

request to omit measurement of these 

emissions during a selective 

enforcement audit. 

The regulations currently allow for 

waived formaldehyde testing for 

gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles. 

The Tier 3 NMOG+NOX emission 

standards are stringent enough that it is 

unlikely that vehicles would comply 

with the NMOG+NOX standards while 

exceeding the formaldehyde standards. 

We are therefore proposing to continue 

this waiver practice, such that 

manufacturers of Tier 3 vehicles do not 

need to submit formaldehyde data for 

certification. 

We are also requesting comment on 

rearranging the default testing 

specification for certifying vehicles to 

evaporative emission standards, as 

described in Section IV.C. This would 

involve requiring manufacturers to 

perform testing with the two-day test 

sequence, while making the three-day 

test sequence optional. 

3. Miscellaneous Provisions 

The following additional certification 

and compliance provisions are included 

in the proposed rule: 

• The certification practice for 

assigned deterioration factors which are 

available for both small volume 

manufacturers and small volume test 

groups has matured significantly since it 

was first adopted. We are proposing to 

revise § 86.1826 to more carefully reflect 

the current practice. For example, the 

regulations specify that manufacturers 

with sales volumes between 300 and 

15,000 units per year should propose 

their own deterioration factors based on 

engineering analysis of emission data 

from other families. We believe it is best 

for EPA to develop a set of assigned 

deterioration factors that can apply to 

all small volume manufacturers and 

small volume test groups. 

• The regulations in 40 CFR part 86 

rely on rounding procedures specified 

in ASTM E29. This standard is revised 

periodically. The newer versions are not 

likely to change in a way that affects the 

regulation, but the updates make it 

difficult to maintain a coordinated 

reference to the current protocol. We are 

proposing to address this by specifying 

that the rounding protocol described in 

40 CFR 1065.20(e) applies, unless 

specified otherwise. We are not 

proposing to change all the references in 

part 86; rather, we are proposing to 

define ‘‘round’’ in subparts A and S to 

have the meaning given in 40 CFR part 

1065 so that all new regulatory text 

would rely on this new description. The 

rounding specifications in 40 CFR part 

1065 are intended to be identical to 

those in the latest versions of ASTM E29 

and NIST SP811. For example, this now 

includes procedures for nonstandard 

rounding, such as rounding to the 

nearest 25 units, or the nearest 0.05, 

where that is appropriate. 

• Independent Commercial Importers 

(ICIs) are companies that import 

specialized vehicles into the U.S. and 

are subject to EPA requirements 

specified in Part 85, Subpart P. The 

standards which apply to the vehicles 

imported depend, in part, on the model 

year of the vehicle being imported. 

Therefore, vehicles imported by ICIs in 

the future could be subject to the 

proposed Tier 3 standards and the 

proposed regulations reflect the 

application of the Tier 3 standards to 

ICIs. Because all existing ICIs are smallvolume manufacturers, the Tier 3 

standards would not apply until 2022 at 

the earliest. In addition, the certification 

practices for ICIs have matured 

significantly since they were first 

adopted. EPA is proposing two changes 

to update the regulations affecting ICIs. 

First, the proposed provisions would 

require ICIs to use electric 

dynamometers when running exhaust 

emission tests. Electric dynamometers 

have been required for many years for 

vehicle manufacturers and EPA believes 

it is time to require such test equipment 

for ICIs in the future. In cases where an 

ICI can demonstrate that they will incur 

a substantial increase in compliance 

costs, the proposed regulations include 

a provision that allows EPA to approve 

requests, on a case-by-case basis, to 

allow testing on other types of 

dynamometers until the ICI is able to 

comply with the proposed electric 

dynamometer requirements. Second, we 

are proposing to incorporate into 

regulation that ICIs be allowed to use a 

specific set of reduced testing 

requirements for up to 300 units each 

year that have been modified to a U.S.- 

certified configuration. This has been 

allowed for ICIs since 1999 and was 

approved under EPA’s authority to 

establish equivalent alternate test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29919 

337See 40 CFR 86.106–96(a) and Enclosure 2 to 

EPA Guidance letter CCD–02–04, February 6, 2002. 

procedures.337 Instead of running a full 

set of emission tests, the reduced testing 

requirements would allow ICIs to run an 

FTP for exhaust emissions, a highway 

fuel economy test, and a shortened onehour evaporative emission tests for hotsoak and diurnal emissions that applied 

prior to the current enhanced 

evaporative emission test procedures. 

We do not believe the proposed changes 

should have any significant cost impacts 

on ICIs. Most of the ICIs have electric 

dynamometers or can upgrade them for 

a relatively small cost. The reduced 

testing burden provisions keep the cost 

of testing low, compared to the cost of 

running a full set of emission tests that 

otherwise could be required. 

• We are proposing to adopt CARB’s 

onboard diagnostic requirements for all 

light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

and heavy-duty vehicles, as described in 

Section IV.C.5.d. We currently allow for 

this as an option, but almost all 

manufacturers do this already to avoid 

certifying multiple systems. Now that 

we are adopting evaporative provisions 

that depend on California’s regulatory 

specifications and we are making efforts 

to adopt a single, national regulatory 

program, we believe this is an 

appropriate step. This proposal includes 

heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs 

GVWR, though these vehicles would not 

need to meet the new requirements 

related to leak testing. These changes 

would apply starting in model year 2017 

for vehicles subject to Tier 3 standards. 

The changes apply directly for heavyduty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR, 

since all those vehicles are already 

certified based on CARB’s regulations. 

In the case of alternative fuel 

conversions, we are proposing to 

continue to apply the requirements of 

40 CFR 86.1806–05. 

4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification 

Testing (IUVP) Requirements 

The fuel on which a vehicle will be 

operated in-use and tested is considered 

an integral part of the vehicle emission 

control system design. The Tier 2 

program recognized that to achieve the 

desired emission reductions, vehicles 

must operate on the same fuel that the 

emission control system was originally 

designed to encounter in-use and during 

testing. In the Tier 2 program, we 

acknowledged that during the transition 

of the in-use fuel from sulfur levels of 

300 ppm to the required 30 ppm average 

level, vehicles designed for 30 ppm 

could encounter in-use sulfur levels 

well above the level for which their 

emission control systems were 

designed. To address this issue, we 

allowed manufacturers, with agency 

approval, to perform specific 

preconditioning test procedures during 

the IUVP testing to ensure that potential 

exposure to high sulfur fuel in-use 

would not impact the emission test 

results. These procedures included 

specific drive cycles or maneuvers not 

regularly encountered during normal inuse operation that would result in 

removal of sulfur contamination from 

the emission control system. 

Consistent with the Tier 2 program, 

EPA continues to recognize the 

importance of the fuel to the emission 

control system design, particularly on 

Tier 3 vehicles designed to meet the 

most stringent emission levels of the 

program (i.e., Bin 70 and cleaner). 

Under EPA’s proposal, in-use fuel 

would transition from an average sulfur 

level of 30 ppm required by Tier 2 to a 

new average level of 10 ppm under Tier 

3. The proposed sulfur requirements 

would be average standards. Thus, even 

after the transition to the 10 p.m. 

average sulfur level, vehicles might still 

encounter sulfur levels during in-use 

operation above 10 ppm and as high as 

the 95 ppm cap, which could adversely 

impact the emission control system. 

Tier 3 vehicles tested by manufacturers 

in IUVP that have been exposed to such 

sulfur levels could experience sulfurrelated impacts, which in turn could 

cause the vehicle to temporarily exceed 

emission standards. 

To address the potential emission 

impact on Tier 3 vehicles from exposure 

to higher sulfur levels, we are proposing 

some modifications to the IUVP testing 

process based in part on what was 

allowed under the Tier 2 program. Tier 

3 vehicles tested in the IUVP would be 

tested initially without allowing any 

sulfur cleanout procedure, such as a 

US06 test run prior to the FTP or 

Highway Fuel Economy (HFET) tests. If 

a vehicle failed the NMOG+NOX

standard for the FTP or HFET cycle 

during the initial round of testing, 

manufacturers would be allowed to 

perform a sulfur cleanout procedure 

before repeating the FTP or HFET. For 

the sulfur cleanout, manufacturers 

would be allowed to perform up to two 

US06 cycles. The measured US06 cycle 

and a preconditioning US06 cycle, if 

performed as part of the initial 

measured tests would serve as the 

cleanout procedure and therefore no 

additional US06 cycles would be 

allowed. Alternative sulfur cleanout 

procedures would require approval by 

EPA. Following the sulfur cleanout 

procedure, the manufacturer would 

prep and soak the vehicles and then 

repeat the FTP and HFET tests. If a 

manufacturer chose to perform the 

sulfur cleanout procedure, it would be 

required to submit evidence that the 

vehicle encountered high sulfur levels 

in the fuel just prior to emission testing. 

This would include an analysis of a fuel 

sample from the vehicle fuel system as 

received from in-use operation just prior 

to testing. If the fuel sample indicated 

that the vehicle was operating on fuel 

containing 15 ppm or higher sulfur 

levels in the recent past, only the 

emission results of the tests following 

the cleanout procedure would be used 

for purposes of determining emission 

compliance and whether to enter the inuse compliance program (IUCP). 

The proposed rule includes the 

changes to the IUVP testing described 

above for light-duty vehicles and 

MDPVs. The changes to IUVP testing are 

not applicable to heavy-duty vehicles 

tested in the IUVP program. Also, as 

described in Section IV.D, we are 

proposing to incorporate leak testing 

into the IUVP test protocol. We are not 

proposing additional changes to the 

overall IUVP test program. 

V. Proposed Fuel Program 

Under today’s Tier 3 program, we are 

proposing reductions in gasoline sulfur 

levels nationwide. These standards 

would help prevent the significant 

impairment of the emission control 

systems expected to be used in Tier 3 

technology, significantly improve the 

efficiency of emissions control systems 

currently in use, and continue 

prevention of the substantial adverse 

effects of sulfur levels on the 

performance of vehicle emissions 

control systems. Section V.A provides 

an overview of the fuel program and 

how we arrived at the proposed gasoline 

sulfur standards. Section V.B presents 

our assessment of the impacts the 

proposed fuel program would have on 

stationary source permitting and our 

conclusion that the proposed refinery 

lead time is adequate. Section V.C 

contains our proposed standards for 

denatured fuel ethanol. In Section V.D, 

we introduce and seek comment on 

possible options for regulating gasolineethanol blends intended for flexible fuel 

vehicles. Section V.E presents the 

proposed program flexibilities including 

the averaging, banking, and trading 

(ABT) program as well as small refiner 

and small volume refinery provisions. 

Section V.F lays out the compliance 

provisions for the proposed Tier 3 

gasoline program. Finally, Section V.G 

presents our statutory authorities for 

lowering gasoline sulfur. As a result of 

these proposals, we have to amend 

certain existing provisions in the 

current Tier 2 requirements at 40 CFR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29920 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

338 67 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000). 

part 80. We are not reopening Tier 2 and 

our proposed amendments should not 

be construed as a reopener. 

A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur 

Standards 

1. Overview 

a. History of Sulfur Control 

Sulfur is naturally occurring in crude 

oil. Crude oil containing higher 

concentrations of sulfur (i.e., greater 

than 0.5 percent) is called ‘‘sour’’ and 

crude containing lower sulfur 

concentrations (e.g., West Texas 

Intermediate) is referred to as ‘‘sweet.’’ 

Regardless of the concentration, because 

sulfur is naturally occurring in crude 

oil, it is also naturally occurring in 

gasoline. As discussed in Section 

IV.A.6, sulfur impairs the performance 

of today’s vehicle emission control 

technologies (i.e., precious metal 

catalytic converters), reducing the 

emission benefits of current and 

advanced vehicles. As explained below, 

in 2000 EPA took action to reduce 

gasoline sulfur levels under what is 

known as the Tier 2 Program 338 and is 

proposing to take further action under 

the proposed Tier 3 Program. 

Tier 2 was a major, comprehensive 

program designed to reduce emissions 

from passenger cars, light trucks, and 

large passenger vehicles (including 

sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, 

and pick-up trucks) and the sulfur 

content of gasoline. Under this program, 

automakers were required to 

manufacture low-emission vehicles 

when operated on low-sulfur gasoline, 

and refiners were required to produce 

low-sulfur gasoline nationwide. 

Required reductions in gasoline sulfur 

began in 2004 with refinery and 

importer caps of 300 ppm and a 

corporate average cap of 120 ppm. For 

most refiners and importers, compliance 

with the final sulfur standards (30-ppm 

annual average and 80-ppm per gallon 

cap) was required beginning in 2006. 

Due to extensions provided for some 

refineries under the ultra-low sulfur 

diesel program, final compliance for all 

U.S. refineries was January 1, 2011. The 

Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program also had 

an ABT program that allowed 

companies to generate credits for 

implementing the required changes 

earlier than required and allowed 

ongoing flexibility to meet the 30-ppm 

average sulfur standard. 

At full implementation, the Tier 2 

program (treating vehicles and fuels as 

a system) required passenger vehicles to 

be over 77 percent cleaner and gasoline 

sulfur to be reduced by up to 90 percent 

from pre-program levels. 

b. Need for Additional Gasoline Sulfur 

Control 

We are proposing to lower today’s 

gasoline sulfur standards under Clean 

Air Act section 211(c)(1). This is 

because emission products of gasoline 

with current levels of sulfur cause or 

contribute to air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare and impair to 

a significant degree the emissions 

control device or systems on the 

vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 

standards. For more on our legal 

authority to set gasoline sulfur 

standards, refer to Section V.G. 

As explained in Section IV.A.6, robust 

data from many sources shows that 

gasoline sulfur at current levels (i.e., 

around 30 ppm on average) continues to 

degrade vehicle catalytic converter 

performance during normal operation. 

The most significant problem is for 

NOX. Today’s proposed NMOG+NOX

vehicle emission standards, an 80 

percent reduction from current Tier 2 

standards, would not be possible 

without the gasoline sulfur controls we 

are proposing today. Tier 3 vehicles 

must achieve essentially zero warmedup NOX emissions to comply and 

maintain this performance for up to 

150,000 miles. An increase in emissions 

of only a few milligrams per mile due 

to sulfur could make compliance 

impossible for some vehicles. The 

standards are projected to be especially 

challenging for larger SUVs and pick-up 

trucks. 

Reducing gasoline sulfur would also 

help reduce emissions of pollutants that 

endanger public health and welfare 

from vehicles already on the road today. 

For the Tier 2 rule, we had data that 

showed benefits of reducing gasoline 

sulfur, but little to no data existed for 

sulfur levels below 30 ppm that we 

could use to project continued emission 

reductions. Since then, we have tested 

a wide range of Tier 2 vehicles to better 

understand the impact that even lower 

gasoline sulfur could have on emissions. 

Our test data showed significant NOX

and VOC reductions when vehicles 

were tested on ultra-low sulfur gasoline. 

As explained in more detail in Section 

III.B, lowering average gasoline sulfur 

from 30 to 10 ppm would result in 

approximately 280,000 less tons of NOX

and 40,000 less tons of VOC. The 

projected in-use emission benefits 

would occur almost immediately in 

2017 when the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

standards take effect. 

c. Summary of Proposed Tier 3 Fuel 

Program 

Under today’s Tier 3 fuel program, we 

are proposing that gasoline and any 

ethanol-gasoline blend contain no more 

than 10 ppm sulfur on an annual 

average basis beginning January 1, 2017. 

Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline program, 

the proposed Tier 3 program would 

apply to gasoline in the United States 

and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico 

and the Virgin Islands, excluding 

California. The program, when 

finalized, would result in gasoline that 

contains an average of two-thirds less 

sulfur than it does today. We are 

proposing a three-year delay for small 

refiners and small volume refineries. 

Eligible small refining entities, 

described in more detail in Section 

V.E.2, would have until January 1, 2020 

to comply with the new sulfur 

standards. 

We are proposing an ABT program 

that would allow refiners to optimize 

their investment strategies to enable 

reduction in capital and compliance 

costs. Refiners and importers 

overcomplying with the 10-ppm 

standard beginning January 1, 2017 

could generate standard credits that 

could be used internally, banked, or 

traded to other companies. We are also 

proposing an early credit program that 

would allow refiners and importers to 

spread out their investments over time 

to allow for an orderly transition. 

Starting January 1, 2014, refiners and 

importers taking steps to reduce 

gasoline sulfur below the current 30- 

ppm standard could generate early 

credits that could be used to postpone 

final investments for up to three years. 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

proposed ABT program, refer to Section 

V.E.1. As a result of the early credit 

program and notwithstanding the 

proposed delay offered to small refiners 

and small volume refineries, we 

anticipate considerable reductions in 

gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with 

final refinery steps to get to 10 ppm 

occurring on or before January 1, 2020. 

We are proposing to either maintain 

the current 80-ppm refinery gate pergallon cap and 95-ppm downstream pergallon cap or lower them to 50 and 65 

ppm, respectively. We also evaluated 

and are seeking comment on the 

potential of lowering these caps to 20 

ppm and 25 ppm, respectively. There 

are advantages and disadvantages 

associated with the various sulfur cap 

options (explained in more detail in 

Section V.A.3), but under all the 

proposed options, we believe that the 

stringency of the 10-ppm annual average 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29921 

339California Air Resources Board. (2008, August 

29). The California Reformulated Gasoline 

Regulations, Title 13, California Code of 

Regulations, Sections 2250–2273.5. Retrieved from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/ 

082908CaRFG_regs.pdf. 

340Hart Energy Consulting. (2011). International 

Fuel Quality Center: 2011 Worldwide Fuel 

Specifications 

341Article from China.org.cn entitled ‘‘Beijing to 

implement stricter fuel standards’’, May 19, 2012, 

retrieved from http://www.china.org.cn/ 

environment/2012-05/19/content_25422404.htm 

342Some of them may also have an FCC 

pretreater. 

343Our in-house refinery modeling considers 111 

operational refineries producing non-California 

gasoline. 

standard would result in reduced 

gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. 

A summary of the proposed Tier 3 

gasoline sulfur standards is presented 

below in Table V–1. Domestic refiners 

and gasoline importers would be subject 

to both the 10-ppm annual average 

sulfur standard and the refinery gate 

per-gallon cap, when finalized. Gasoline 

in the distribution system (i.e., at 

terminals, retail stations, etc.) would be 

subject to the downstream per-gallon 

cap. For more information on how we 

arrived at the proposed sulfur standards, 

refer to Sections V.A.2 and V.A.3. 

TABLE V–1—PROPOSED TIER 3 GASOLINE SULFUR STANDARDS

Cap Option 1 Cap Option 2 

Limit Effective Limit Effective 

Refinery annual average standard ........................ 10 ppm ............. January 1, 2017 a ....................... 10 ppm ............. January 1, 2017.a

Refinery gate per-gallon cap ................................. 80 ppm ............. Already ....................................... 50 ppm ............. January 1, 2020. 

Downstream per-gallon cap .................................. 95 ppm ............. Already ....................................... 65 ppm ............. March 1, 2020. 

aEffective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries. 

d. Refinery Feasibility 

While evaluating the merits of a 

national gasoline sulfur program to 

reduce emissions and enable future 

vehicle technologies, we also 

considered the refining industry’s 

ability to reduce sulfur to 10 ppm on 

average by January 1, 2017 and the 

associated costs (for more on fuel costs, 

refer to Section VII.A). Based on 

information gathered from numerous 

stakeholder meetings, discussions with 

vendor companies that provide the 

gasoline desulfurization technologies, as 

well as the results from our refinery-byrefinery modeling, we believe it is 

technologically feasible at a reasonable 

cost for refiners to meet the proposed 

sulfur standards in the lead time 

provided. A summary of our feasibility 

analysis is presented below. For more 

on our fuels feasibility assessment and 

refinery modeling, refer to Chapters 4 

and 5 of the draft RIA. 

Gasoline desulfurization technologies 

are well known and readily available. 

Many technologies were demonstrated 

under Tier 2 and have been further 

demonstrated by current fuel programs 

in California, Japan, and Europe. Under 

California’s Phase 3 Reformulated 

Gasoline program (CaRFG3), gasoline 

sulfur is limited to 15 ppm on average 

with a 20-ppm per-gallon cap.339

California reduced their per-gallon cap 

in phases from 60 ppm effective 

December 31, 2003, to 30 ppm effective 

December 31, 2005, to 20 ppm effective 

December 31, 2011. Actual in-use 

gasoline sulfur levels, however, have 

been largely constrained by the 

Predictive Model that California refiners 

are using to demonstrate compliance. As 

a result, gasoline sulfur levels are lower 

than the CaRFG3 limits. Based on the 

Predictive Model, California gasoline 

contained approximately 10 ppm sulfur 

on average in 2010 (9 ppm in the 

summer and 11 ppm in the winter). 

Japan currently has a 10-ppm gasoline 

sulfur cap that took effect in January 

2008. Europe also has a 10-ppm sulfur 

cap that has been adopted by the 30 

Member States that comprise the 

European Union (EU) and the European 

Free Trade Association (EFTA) as well 

as Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina.340

Beijing, China also recently introduced 

a 10-ppm sulfur limit for gasoline.341

We note, however, that many oil 

refineries outside of the United States 

operate differently from their U.S. 

counterparts. U.S. refiners have invested 

more heavily in fluidized catalytic 

cracker (FCC) units than the rest of the 

world in order to maximize gasoline 

production. Because the FCC unit is 

responsible for nearly all the sulfur that 

ends up in gasoline, many U.S. 

refineries face a bigger challenge in 

achieving 10-ppm gasoline sulfur levels. 

Nevertheless, these international fuel 

programs (along with California) 

provide evidence that advanced 

gasoline desulfurization technologies 

have been deployed and are readily 

available to comply with the proposed 

Tier 3 fuel program. 

When considering the proposed Tier 

3 sulfur standards, refineries can be 

grouped into three general categories 

based on their current post-Tier 2 

refinery configurations: those without 

an FCC unit, those hydrotreating the 

gasoline stream coming from their FCC 

unit (i.e., postreating) 342, and those 

hydrotreating their FCC feed (i.e., 

pretreating). Most refineries without 

FCC units would not need to do 

anything to meet the proposed Tier 3 

sulfur standards. Refineries equipped 

with FCC units that invested in an FCC 

postreater under Tier 2 would likely just 

need to revamp (i.e., renovate) their 

existing unit for a modest cost. 

Refineries that only have an FCC 

pretreater would meet the Tier 3 sulfur 

standards by either revamping their 

existing pretreaters (perhaps also cutting 

the heavy portion of FCC naphtha into 

the diesel pool) or invest in a grassroots 

FCC postreater. Our refinery-by-refinery 

modeling suggests that 29 refineries 

would not need to make any capital 

changes, 66 would need to revamp their 

existing FCC postreaters, and 16 would 

need to add grassroots postreaters (we 

did not model any undercutting of 

heavy FCC naphtha into the distillate 

pool).343 Refiners that need to install a 

new postreater would have to make the 

largest desulfurization investments 

under Tier 3, typical of many of the 

refinery investments made under Tier 2. 

For more on our estimated sulfur 

control costs, refer to Section VII.B. 

We believe that the choice of 

technology for each refinery is fairly 

insensitive to capital cost assumptions. 

Revamping an existing FCC postreater 

will almost always be the preferred 

compliance path if it is available. The 

majority of refineries only have an 

existing FCC postreater, so revamping it 

will be the preferred choice, given the 

much higher capital costs associated 

with adding grassroots FCC pre or 

postreaters. The 16 refineries we project 

would add grassroots postreaters do not 

have existing postreaters that could be 

revamped. As a result, their choices are 

limited to revamping their existing 

pretreater or installing a grassroots 

postreater. We believe based on 

conversations with industry technology 

vendors and engineering firms that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29922 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

344Together, the streams from the reformer and 

isomerization units account for approximately onethird of gasoline. 

installing a grassroots postreater would 

be more likely for these refineries, 

because revamping their pretreater 

would still incur a significant capital 

cost and would reduce compliance 

flexibility. Thus, in the refinery-byrefinery analysis performed by EPA for 

this proposal, higher capital costs 

(either directly or thru a higher ROI) 

would be unlikely to alter the selection 

of pretreater versus postreater control 

technology. Higher capital costs would 

likely impact both technology options 

proportionally with no overall effect. 

We have built in a number of 

flexibilities that will reduce the 

compliance burden for refiners. In 

particular, coupling the proposed 10- 

ppm annual average sulfur standard 

with refinery gate and downstream pergallon caps should continue to allow for 

batch-to-batch variability, refinery 

upsets, and turnarounds while still 

maintaining the overall air quality 

benefits of the program. For more 

information on the applicable per-gallon 

sulfur caps, refer to Section V.A.3. 

We are also proposing an ABT 

program that would allow refiners to 

spread out their investments over time 

and achieve compliance in the most 

cost-effective manner. If some refineries 

either comply with the 10-ppm standard 

earlier than required, or reduce sulfur 

partway toward 10 ppm early, this 

would allow other refineries to delay 

compliance for a finite period through 

the use of early credits. The ABT 

program would also allow for ongoing 

company averaging. This would allow 

some refineries to stay slightly above the 

standard at the expense of other 

refineries over complying, resulting in 

the most cost-effective mechanism for 

meeting the 10-ppm annual average 

standard. For more information on the 

proposed ABT program, refer to Section 

V.E.1. Finally, our Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

program, when final, would allow three 

years of additional lead time for small 

refiners and small volume refineries 

(i.e., refineries processing less than or 

equal to 75,000 net barrels per day of 

crude oil). As a group, we believe that 

these refineries are disproportionally 

impacted when it comes to their cost of 

compliance and ability to rationalize 

investment costs in today’s gasoline 

market. Giving these refineries 

additional lead time would allow them 

more time to invest in desulfurization 

technology, take advantage of 

advancements in technology, develop 

confidence in a Tier 3 credit market as 

a means of compliance, and avoid 

competition for capital, engineering, 

and construction resources with the 

larger refineries. For more on the 

proposed provisions for small refiners 

and small volume refineries, refer to 

Section V.E.2. 

The proposed Tier 3 rulemaking 

should not adversely affect the supply 

of gasoline in the U.S. This judgment is 

based on a review of both gasoline and 

diesel fuel supply when the Tier 2 

gasoline sulfur and ultra-low sulfur 

highway and nonroad diesel rules were 

phasing in between 2003 and 2011. At 

the end of this time period, the U.S. 

gasoline and diesel fuel markets were 

increasingly being supplied by U.S. 

refiners, instead of by imports, 

compared to the beginning of this time 

period. Most striking is that the more 

stringent ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel 

standards showed the largest shift as 

U.S. refiners not only began to supply 

more of the U.S. diesel fuel market, but 

became net exporters of diesel fuel. For 

more on our fuel supply assessment, 

refer to Section 5.3 of the draft RIA. 

2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur 

Standard 

In the subsections that follow, we lay 

out our rationale for proposing a 10- 

ppm average standard, our assessment 

of how the proposed ABT program 

would help with compliance, and our 

conclusion that the proposed lead time 

is adequate. In the following section, we 

explain our rationale behind the 

proposed sulfur caps and seek comment 

on potential alternatives. 

a. Appropriateness of Proposed 10-ppm 

Sulfur Standard 

As explained in Section IV.A.6, sulfur 

in fuel oxidizes in the exhaust and coats 

the sites where chemical reactions can 

take place on the precious metal 

catalysts used in vehicles to reduce 

emissions of VOC, NOX, PM, CO, and 

toxics. Accordingly, any sulfur in 

gasoline causes vehicle emissions to 

increase. Sulfur can be burned off the 

catalyst during high-temperature, rich 

operation of the vehicle (i.e., aggressive 

driving conditions), but as long as there 

is any sulfur in the fuel, exhaust 

emissions will increase. Because any 

amount of sulfur in the fuel can have 

this effect, the lower the sulfur the 

better. 

Refiners experience the same 

phenomenon with precious metal 

catalysts used in the reformer and 

isomerization units at their refineries.344

To protect the precious metal catalysts 

in these units, refiners reduce the sulfur 

in the feed to these units to 1 ppm or 

below. Thus, it is technically possible 

for refiners to reduce their gasoline 

sulfur levels to virtually zero. While 

refiners did not have reason to reduce 

the sulfur in FCC gasoline until Tier 2 

required such reductions, some refiners 

have achieved reductions in this stream 

at some of their refineries for other 

reasons such as (1) Protecting the FCC 

catalyst from the contaminants in the 

gas oil feed, (2) reducing stack 

emissions from the regenerator of the 

FCC unit, and most importantly (3) 

increasing gasoline yields from the FCC 

unit. For most refineries, FCC gasoline 

accounts for about one-third of gasoline 

and before Tier 2 was the source of over 

95 percent of the sulfur in gasoline. 

Under Tier 2, most refiners significantly 

desulfurized FCC gasoline to around 70 

to 80 ppm, yet FCC gasoline continues 

to contribute the majority of sulfur in 

gasoline today. 

While further reducing sulfur in 

gasoline will continue to reduce vehicle 

emissions, our emissions analysis shows 

that a 10-ppm annual average is 

sufficient to enable vehicles to reach the 

proposed Tier 3 standards. Moreover, 

for the following reasons, reducing 

sulfur further below 10 ppm becomes 

increasingly difficult and costly. First, 

FCC naphtha is very rich in high-octane 

olefins. As the severity of 

desulfurization increases, more olefins 

are saturated, further sacrificing the 

octane value of this stream and further 

increasing hydrogen consumption. 

Making up for this lost octane 

represents a significant portion of the 

sulfur control costs. Second, as 

desulfurization severity increases, there 

is an increase in the amount of sulfur 

removed (in the form of hydrogen 

sulfide) which recombines with the 

olefins in the FCC naphtha, thus 

offsetting the principal desulfurization 

reactions. There are means to deal with 

the recombination reactions, but they 

result in even greater capital 

investments. Third, while FCC gasoline 

contributes the majority of sulfur to the 

finished gasoline, as the sulfur level 

drops below 10 ppm, the sulfur level of 

the various other gasoline streams 

within the refinery also become 

important. Any necessary treatment of 

these additional streams increases both 

capital and operating costs. 

U.S. refineries are currently in 

different positions, both technically and 

financially. In general, they are 

configured to handle the different crude 

oils they process and turn it into a 

widely varying product slate to match 

available markets. Those processing 

heavier, sour crudes would have a more 

challenging time reducing gasoline 

sulfur under the proposed Tier 3 

program. As explained earlier, refineries 

have different sulfur levels in their nonmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29923 

345Based on Tier 2 sulfur compliance data, of the 

26 companies that obtained sulfur credits in 2010, 

eight obtained credits only from their own 

company, and another five obtained credits both 

from their own company and from other companies. 

The remainder obtained credits only from other 

companies. 

FCC streams based on their feedstocks 

and configurations. Those with higher 

sulfur levels in other refinery streams 

would have a more difficult time 

desulfurizing gasoline. Perhaps most 

important, U.S. refineries vary greatly in 

size (atmospheric crude capacities range 

from less than 5,000 to more than 

500,000 barrels per day) and thus have 

different economies of scale for adding 

capital to their refineries. As such, it can 

be less costly per gallon for some larger 

refineries to get down to 10 ppm than 

for smaller refineries, as discussed in 

Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. As a result, 

under a 10-ppm average standard, the 

flexibility afforded by the ABT program 

helps those refineries with very high 

costs. They have the option of staying 

above 10 ppm if they can acquire credits 

from other refineries that were able to 

lower their sulfur level below 10 ppm. 

However, if the gasoline sulfur standard 

were to be 5 ppm, this would essentially 

end the ability of refiners to average 

sulfur reductions across their refineries. 

There simply would not be enough 

opportunity to generate credits below 5 

ppm. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the 

draft RIA, to estimate the costs for a 10- 

ppm annual average standard where 

some refineries stay above 10 ppm, we 

also estimated the costs for refineries to 

get down to 5 ppm. To do so, we 

estimated that sulfur control costs 

would increase by at least 50 percent 

compared to the proposed 10-ppm 

standard, which is over two times more 

costly per ppm-gallon of gasoline sulfur 

reduced. This 5-ppm cost assessment is 

reasonable for those refineries that 

would likely generate credits under a 

10-ppm average standard as these 

refineries are most likely in the best 

position for achieving such low sulfur 

levels. However, were we to actually 

assess the costs of a 5-ppm standard, at 

least some of these refineries would 

likely have additional costs for 

controlling the sulfur in other gasoline 

blendstocks, and we would likely apply 

a higher overdesign factor to account for 

industry-wide compliance at 5 ppm. 

More detailed refinery information may 

be needed for such an analysis but, for 

the more challenged refineries, a 5-ppm 

standard could potentially be cost 

prohibitive. A 5-ppm standard would 

also introduce further costs to address 

the contribution to gasoline sulfur from 

gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol 

denaturants, and contamination in the 

distribution system. Therefore, a 10- 

ppm annual average standard appears to 

be the point which properly balances 

feasibility with costs. Also, for these 

reasons, EPA believes that a viable ABT 

program is important to the success of 

the proposed Tier 3 fuels program 

(explained in more detail in Section 

V.A.2.b). 

Finally, as discussed in Section 

IV.A.6, reducing sulfur below 10 ppm 

would further reduce vehicle emissions 

and allow the proposed Tier 3 vehicle 

standards to be achieved more easily. 

However, we believe that a 10-ppm 

average standard will be sufficient to 

allow vehicles to meet the proposed 

Tier 3 standards. The level of the Tier 

3 standards was considered in light of 

a 10-ppm average sulfur level for 

gasoline. If we were to consider 

lowering sulfur further, we would then 

also have to consider reducing the 

vehicle standards further. Given the 

challenges associated with sulfur 

reductions below 10 ppm as discussed 

above, we do not believe this would be 

appropriate. 

b. How Would the Proposed ABT 

Program Assist With Compliance? 

As described more fully in Section 

V.E.1, we are proposing an ABT 

program that would reduce the average 

compliance burden for gasoline 

producers and importers. This program 

would permit the generation of credits 

by refineries that reduce their annual 

average sulfur level below 10 ppm, and 

transfer of these credits to other 

refineries to reduce or eliminate their 

need to make capital investments to 

meet the 10-ppm standard. The ABT 

program would thus provide refiners 

with multiple approaches to 

compliance, and each could choose the 

approach that minimizes their costs. 

We modeled an ABT program to 

estimate how it would affect 

compliance. As described in more detail 

in Section VII.B.4, our modeling 

determined the lowest cost approach on 

a refinery-by-refinery basis under two 

scenarios: an idealized scenario in 

which every refinery has the 

opportunity to make credit transfers 

with every other refinery in the nation, 

and a more limited scenario in which 

credit transfers would only occur within 

companies that own more than one 

refinery. Today a significant fraction of 

Tier 2 sulfur credits are transferred 

within companies, but there is still a 

considerable amount of inter-company 

trading occurring.345 Thus, assuming no 

trading between companies is a 

conservative assumption and the real 

impact is likely to be somewhere in 

between the two scenarios. Table V–2 

describes how compliance would be 

affected under these two scenarios. 

TABLE V–2—IMPACTS OF NATIONWIDE ABT PROGRAM ON COMPLIANCE

ABT with nationwide 

credit transfers 

ABT with intra-company 

credit transfers 

Number of refineries that generate credits .............................................................................. 46 18 

Number of refineries that consume credits ............................................................................. 25 8 

Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume credits ........................................... 40 85 

Total modeled refineries ................................................................................................... 111 111 

Based on our ABT modeling, we 

believe that a significant number of 

refineries would take advantage of the 

opportunity to generate or use credits, 

thus lowering their compliance burden 

under the proposed 10-ppm annual 

average standard. For a more complete 

discussion of our analysis of the 

proposed ABT program, refer to Chapter 

5 of the draft RIA. 

c. Adequacy of Proposed Refinery Lead 

Time 

Given the complexity of gasoline 

refining, numerous planning and action 

steps would be required for refiners to 

complete the refinery changes needed to 

comply with the proposed Tier 3 sulfur 

standards. The steps required to 

implement these changes include: the 

completion of scoping studies, 

financing, process design for new or 

revamped refinery units or subunits, 

permitting, detailed engineering based 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29924 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

upon the process design, field 

construction of the gasoline sulfur 

reduction facilities, and start-up and 

shakedown of the newly installed 

desulfurization equipment. 

We conducted a thorough lead time 

analysis in which we sequenced the 

estimated time to complete scoping 

studies, process design, permitting, 

detailed engineering, field construction, 

and start-up and shakedown in advance 

of production based upon the 

methodology used in our recent gasoline 

and diesel rules. 

For the proposed Tier 3 gasoline 

sulfur program, we estimated refinery 

lead times step-by-step for the 

construction of new grassroots FCC 

postreaters and the revamp of existing 

pre and postreaters. For each refinery 

project type, we estimated lead times for 

scoping studies, process design, 

permitting, detailed engineering, field 

construction, and start-up and 

shakedown. Estimated required lead 

times for scoping studies are six 

months. Process design ranged from six 

months for desulfurization equipment 

revamping to nine months for a 

grassroots postreater. It is during the 

process of performing their scoping 

studies and process design analysis that 

refiners would complete their permit 

applications. 

Based on discussions with refiners, a 

review of the permitting experience for 

Tier 2 and our current analysis, we 

estimated that permitting for 

desulfurization equipment revamping 

and the construction of a grassroots 

postreater would take 9 months. 

However, we estimated the overall leadtimes for Tier-3-related revamps to be 

considerably shorter, as described 

below. The estimates for permitting time 

are consistent with those of EPA’s Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS) and our regional offices, both 

of which have engaged in extensive 

dialog with potentially affected parties. 

A discussion of the permitting 

implications of Tier 3 is contained in 

Section V.B of the preamble. Detailed 

engineering efforts were estimated to 

require six months for desulfurization 

equipment revamping and nine months 

for grassroots postreaters. Field 

construction was estimated to require 

six months for revamped pre-and 

postreaters and 12 months for grassroots 

postreaters. Start-up and shakedown 

processes were estimated to require six 

months for revamped FCC treaters and 

9 months for grassroots postreaters. 

There is some degree of overlap among 

each of these steps as shown in Table 

V–3. 

To allow refiners to complete all these 

different steps and comply with the 10 

ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, 

assuming the Tier 3 proposal were to be 

finalized by the end of 2013, we would 

be providing three years of lead time. In 

addition to the three years of lead time, 

the proposed rulemaking also provides 

additional flexibility provided by the 

ABT program, small refinery delays, and 

hardship provisions. To support this 

timeline, we conducted several analyses 

of the expected refinery lead time 

requirements associated with the 

proposed Tier 3 standards and found 

that refinery operators would have more 

than adequate time to implement the 

required refinery charges. A justification 

for proposed timeline appears below. 

Complying with Tier 3 is expected to 

involve some grassroots FCC 

postreaters, but mostly we believe that 

refiners will revamp existing FCC 

postreaters. Revamping of existing FCC 

postreaters can be accomplished in 

approximately 2 years, or less (See 

Table V–3). Grassroots FCC postreaters 

are expected to require on average about 

three-years to install and start-up (See 

Table V–3). In comparision to FCC 

pretreaters, hydrocrackers and distillate 

hydrotreaters, FCC postreaters are much 

less costly, low pressure units that take 

less time to scope out, require shorter 

lead times for ordering the equipment, 

and less time to install. Furthermore, 

the grassroots FCC postreaters to be 

installed for Tier 3 are expected to be in 

a moderate to light desulfurization 

service because the refineries they will 

be installed in will already be 

complying with Tier 2 using an FCC 

pretreater. FCC naphtha from a refinery 

with an FCC pretreater is expected to 

only contain about 100 ppm sulfur. To 

comply with Tier 3, refiners installing 

these grassroots FCC postreaters would 

only need to desulfurize the FCC 

naphtha down to 25 ppm (about a 75% 

reduction). In comparison, a single-stage 

FCC postreaters would have to 

desulfurize FCC naphtha from as high as 

2400 ppm sulfur down to 25 ppm, a 

99% sulfur reduction. The more 

moderate desulfurization service of the 

grassroots FCC postreaters needed to 

comply with Tier 3 would be expected 

to streamline the scoping and design 

work. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29925 

It is useful to compare the proposed 

lead time for Tier 3 to what was 

provided for Tier 2. In the case of the 

Tier 2 standard, we provided a threeyear lead time along with an ABT 

program and other flexibilities to ease 

compliance. Refiners, though, 

commented that the three year timeline 

that we provided was not enough time. 

For the Tier 2 analysis, we assumed that 

refiners would solely install lowpressure FCC postreaters, which we 

believe could be scoped out, designed, 

installed and started up within a 3 year 

time period. However, many refiners 

complied with Tier 2 by installing highpressure FCC pretreaters which require 

long lead times for the procurement of 

the required equipment. Furthermore, 

those refiners that did not install highpressure FCC pretreaters instead 

installed grassroots FCC postreaters, 

many of which were designed for severe 

desulfurization service. An additional 

difference between Tier 3 and Tier 2 is 

that for Tier 3 we expect the installation 

of only 16 grassroots units, along with 

many revamps, but for Tier 2 virtually 

all refiners installed both grassroots FCC 

pretreaters and postreaters. The 

demands on the desulfurization vendors 

for scoping studies, and on the E & C 

industry for design and construction, 

and on the refiners to train their 

operations staff and start up the new 

units, was a lot greater for Tier 2 than 

what we would expect for Tier 3. The 

total estimated investment cost for Tier 

2 versus Tier 3 also highlights the 

difference in investment demands. 

The total investment for Tier-2 

desulfurization processing units was 

estimated to be about $6.1 billion, while 

the total investment for Tier-3 

desulfurization processing units is 

estimated to be about $2.1 billion. This 

simple comparison helps to illustrate 

that the proposed Tier 3 would be easier 

for refineries to obtain necessary 

permits, secure engineering and 

construction (E&C) resources, install 

new desulfurization equipment and 

make all necessary retrofits to meet the 

proposed sulfur standards. 

We assessed the permitting situation 

in more detail working in conjunction 

with the Office of Air Quality, Planning 

and Standards (OAQPS). Since the 

permitting process has little impact on 

the overall cost of compliance with Tier 

3, it is an issue primarily in terms of its 

potential impact on the time needed to 

complete the necessary refinery 

modifications. On a refinery-by-refinery 

basis, we provided OAQPS estimates of 

the additional heating demands for the 

new and revamped units per the 

desulfurization vendor submissions. 

OAQPS was able to project which 

refineries would likely trigger NOX, 

particulate matter and greenhouse gas 

emission permitting limits, which 

would likely lengthen the permitting 

process as refiners would need to offset 

the projected emission increases. As it 

turns out, only 2 of the 16 refineries 

which are projected to install grassroots 

units were projected to exceed 

particular permitting limits, and these 

solely did so based on the most 

conservative assumption that each 

would produce all the additional 

hydrogen on site using hydrogen plants 

(as opposed to using existing reforming 

capacity) and produce the electricity on 

site, to satisfy the needs of the new 

desulfurization equipment. When we 

provided a second heat demand 

estimate to OAQPS which assumes that 

refiners purchase their hydrogen and 

electricity from third parties, none of 

the refineries which we projected would 

install grassroots units was projected to 

have emission increases which would 

require offsets. Thus, many of the 

grassroots units that we project would 

be installed may end up with a 

streamlined permitting process. We seek 

comment on our estimates of the 

number of refineries that may trigger the 

need for new permits and the length of 

time necessary to obtain the various 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.002</GPH>
29926 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

346Moncrief, Philip & Ragsdale, Ralph. (2000). 

Can the U.S. E&C Industry Meet the EPA’s Low 

Sulfur Timetable? Paper presented at NPRA Annual 

Meeting, March 26–28, 2000. Paper No. AM–00–57. 

types of permits that may be required 

once the refiner applies for them. 

The various flexibilities that the 

proposed Tier 3 rule provides to refiners 

provide refiners additional time for 

complying. These flexibilities include 

the ABT program, the small refiner 

delay provisions and the hardship 

provisions. The ABT program allows a 

refiner, either within its own company 

or by purchasing credits on the open 

market, to delay higher investment cost 

investments, such as the investments in 

grassroots FCC postreaters, which 

would provide additional lead time for 

installing these units. This would occur 

if refiners would reduce the sulfur 

levels of their gasoline through 

operational changes or revamps of their 

existing FCC pretreaters and postreaters 

when the ABT Program begins in 2014. 

Potentially every refinery with either an 

FCC pretreater or an FCC postreater may 

be capable of generating early credits. 

Furthermore, we project that 66 

refineries would revamp their existing 

FCC postreaters to comply with Tier 3. 

Since revamps can be completed within 

two years or less, these refiners could 

potentially begin generating early 

credits during 2016, or before if refiners 

begin each of these revamps in early 

2014. During the period between 2014 

and 2017, these refineries which reduce 

their gasoline sulfur levels below that 

required by Tier 2 would generate 

credits. Refineries with higher cost 

capital investments, such as the 

grassroots FCC postreaters, could then 

delay making those investments through 

the purchase of credits. We estimate that 

sufficient credits could be genereated 

early to allow many of these refineries 

to delay compliance until as late as 

2020. The quantitative early credit 

analysis that we conducted showed that 

if refiners with an existing pretreater or 

postreater would generate early credits 

by lowering their gasoline sulfur down 

to 20 ppm starting in 2014 and if 

revamps were started up in 2016, one 

year before the program start date, that 

almost 6 times more credits would be 

available to offset the early credit 

demand by the refiners installing 

grassroots postreater units, assuming 

that they start up those units in 2018. 

Even if all grassroots postreaters were 

assumed to not start up until 2020, there 

would be almost 4 times more early 

credits available to those refiners 

installing grassroots postreaters 

assuming that the same early credit 

generation scenario would occur. 

Additional flexibility is also provided 

by the small refineries provisions which 

delays compliance by the refineries that 

refiner less than a net of 75,000 barrels 

of crude oil per day until 2020. Three 

of the 16 FCC postreater grassroots units 

that we project will be installed would 

be by small refineries. However, small 

refineries could also decide to comply 

early and generate credits starting as 

early as 2014. 

As in previous fuel programs, we are 

proposing hardship provisions to 

accommodate a refiner’s inability to 

comply with the proposed standard at 

the start of the Tier 3 program, and to 

deal with unforeseen circumstances that 

may occur at any point during the 

program. These provisions would be 

available to all refiners, small and nonsmall, though relief would be granted on 

a case-by-case basis following a showing 

of certain requirements; primarily that 

compliance through the use of credits 

was not feasible. We are proposing that 

any hardship waiver would not be a 

total waiver of compliance; rather, a 

hardship waiver would be short-term 

relief that would allow a refiner facing 

a hardship situation to, for example, 

receive additional time to comply. This 

hardship provision would allow a 

refiner to seek a delay in the case that 

there was insufficient time to comply. 

Finally, we believe that in reality, less 

leadtime than shown in Table V–3 

would actually be necessary. We held 

discussions with many refiners during 

2011, and so they have been well aware 

of Tier 3 and are familiar with the likely 

requirements. During our subsequent 

discussions with technology vendors 

and engineering firms, they explained to 

us that many refiners have already 

initiated, and by now, likely completed 

their scoping studies. Thus, actual time 

needed for designing, installing and 

starting of new desulfurization 

equipment for Tier 3 times would be 

even less than what we projected 

because many refineries may have 

already completed required scoping 

studies in anticipation of the Tier-3 

standards. Moreover, lead times for 

those refineries that have yet to start the 

scoping process can also be expected to 

decrease, since fewer refineries will be 

competing for the services of the 

desulfurization vendors. We request 

comment on the amount of lead time 

that we are providing refiners to scope, 

design, permit, construct and start-up a 

grassroots desulfurization unit, 

considering all the proposed flexibilities 

which allow refiners to stagger their 

capital investments and ease 

compliance. 

As in prior rules, we also evaluated 

the capability of E&C industries to 

design and build gasoline hydrotreaters 

as well as performing routine 

maintenance. Two areas where it is 

important to consider the impact of the 

fuel proposed sulfur standards are: (1) 

Refiners’ ability to procure design and 

construction services and (2) refiners’ 

ability to obtain the capital necessary for 

the construction of new equipment 

required to meet the new gasoline 

quality specification. We evaluated the 

requirement for engineering design and 

construction personnel in a manner 

consistent with the Tier 2 analysis, 

particularly for three types of workers 

needed to implement the refinery 

changes: front-end designers, detailed 

designers, and construction workers. We 

developed estimates of the maximum 

number of each of these types of 

workers needed throughout the design 

and construction process and compared 

those figures to the number of personnel 

currently employed in these areas. 

The number of job hours necessary to 

design and build individual pieces of 

refinery equipment and the job hours 

per piece of equipment were taken from 

Moncrief and Ragsdale.346 Their paper 

summarizes analyses performed in 

support of a National Petroleum Council 

study of gasoline desulfurization, as 

well as other potential fuel quality 

changes. The design and construction 

factors for desulfurization equipment 

are summarized in Table V–4. 

TABLE V–4—DESIGN AND

CONSTRUCTION FACTORS

Gasoline Refiners: 

Number of New Pieces of Equipment per Refinery ...................... 60 

Number of Revamped Pieces of 

Equipment per Refinery ............ 15 

Job Hours Per Piece of New Equipment: a

Front End Design .......................... 300 

Detailed Design ............................. 1,200 

Direct and Indirect Construction ... 9,150 

a Revamped equipment estimated to require 

half as many hours per piece of equipment. 

Refinery projects will differ in 

complexity and scope. Even if all 

refiners desired to complete their 

project by the same date, their projects 

would inevitably begin over a range of 

months. Thus, two projects scheduled to 

start up at exactly the same time are not 

likely to proceed through each step of 

the design and construction process at 

the same time. Second, the design and 

construction industries will likely 

provide refiners with economic 

incentives to avoid temporary peaks in 

the demand for personnel. 

Applying the above factors, we 

projected the maximum number of 

personnel needed in any given month 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29927 

347This approach is reflected in the draft 

regulatory text. 

for each type of job. The results are 

shown in Table V–5. In addition to total 

personnel required, the percentage of 

the U.S. workforce in these areas is also 

shown, assuming that half of all projects 

occur in the Gulf Coast 

TABLE V–5—MAXIMUM MONTHLY DEMAND FOR PERSONNEL

Front-end design Detailed 

engineering Construction 

Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Program: 

Number of Workers ......................................................................................................... 202 809 6,012 

Percentage of Current Workforce a ................................................................................. 11% 9% 4% 

aBased on current employment in the U.S. Gulf Coast assuming half of all projects occur in the Gulf Coast. 

To meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur 

standards, refiners are expected to 

invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 

2019 and utilize approximately 1,000 

front-end design and engineering jobs 

and 6,000 construction jobs. The 

number of estimated jobs required is 

small relative to overall number 

available in the U.S. job market. As 

such, we believe that three years, plus 

the additional flexibilities provided, is 

adequate lead time for refineries to 

obtain necessary permits, secure E&C 

resources, install new desulfurization 

equipment, and make all necessary 

retrofits to meet the proposed sulfur 

standards. For an in depth assessment of 

stationary source implications, refer to 

Section V.B. For more on our E&C 

assessment, refer to Section 4.5 of the 

draft RIA. 

3. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps 

In much of Europe and Japan, the 

gasoline sulfur level is capped at 10 

ppm. We, however, are not considering 

a 10-ppm cap for the U.S. The U.S. 

gasoline distribution system poses 

contamination challenges that make it 

difficult to set and enforce such a tight 

downstream per-gallon sulfur standard. 

In Europe, Japan, and California, 

finished petroleum products are 

generally shipped short distances 

directly from the refinery to the terminal 

with limited susceptibility to 

contamination. The U.S. has the longest 

and most complex gasoline distribution 

system in the world, making it harder to 

control sulfur contamination than in 

other countries. Petroleum products are 

shipped long distances through multiproduct pipelines. Further, gasoline 

goes through the same pipelines and 

terminals back-to-back with jet fuel 

(containing up to 3,000 ppm sulfur). 

Products are often in the custody of a 

number of separate companies before 

reaching the terminal. This system is 

very effective at delivering petroleum 

products to the bulk of the country, but 

pipeline transport inevitably introduces 

the potential for sulfur contamination of 

the gasoline being shipped through 

pipelines. Additionally, gasoline 

additives needed to provide critical fuel 

performance characteristics (e.g., 

corrosion control, demulsifiers) also 

contain varying levels of sulfur which 

contribute to the overall sulfur content 

of gasoline. Therefore, we are proposing 

a 10-ppm refinery average sulfur 

standard (discussed in Section V.A.2) 

with higher per gallon caps at both the 

refinery gate and at all points 

downstream, which is similar to what 

currently exists under the Tier 2 

program. We believe this is the most 

prudent approach for lowering in-use 

sulfur while maintaining flexibility 

considering cost and other factors. 

These per-gallon caps are important in 

the context of an average sulfur standard 

to provide an upper limit on the sulfur 

concentration that vehicles must be 

designed to tolerate. Since there are 

many opportunities for sulfur to be 

introduced into gasoline downstream of 

the refinery, these caps also limit 

downstream sulfur contamination and 

enable the enforcement of the gasoline 

sulfur standard in-use. 

We are proposing two options for the 

per-gallon sulfur caps. Under the first 

option, we are proposing to maintain 

both the current 80-ppm refinery gate 

sulfur cap and 95-ppm downstream 

sulfur cap.347 Because this represents no 

change from current requirements, we 

believe there would be no additional 

costs to refiners and downstream parties 

associated with satisfying these caps on 

gasoline sulfur content beyond those 

that were already incurred under the 

Tier 2 program. Compliance for 

downstream parties could be even easier 

given that the average refinery gate level 

would be lower. However, the high level 

of the caps means that vehicles still 

have to be designed to operate on high 

sulfur fuel, and there will be less 

attention paid to limiting contamination 

downstream of the refinery gate. 

Under the second approach, we are 

proposing that the refinery gate cap 

would be reduced to 50 ppm and the 

downstream cap would be reduced to 65 

ppm, in other words, a 30-ppm 

reduction in the caps to go along with 

a 20-ppm drop in the average standard. 

We are proposing that the 50-ppm 

refinery gate cap would take effect on 

January 1, 2020 when the small refiner, 

small volume refinery, and early credit 

use provisions would expire. The reason 

for the delay in the more stringent cap 

until 2020 is to avoid forcing additional 

refinery investments during the early 

credit usage period. A more stringent 

per-gallon cap would also be very 

difficult to enforce prior to the small 

refiner and small volume refinery 

provisions taking effect. Until that time, 

the current 80-ppm refinery gate sulfur 

cap would apply. Additional time 

beyond when the 50-ppm refinery gate 

sulfur cap is implemented would be 

allowed for gasoline produced to an 80- 

ppm sulfur cap to clear the distribution 

system before the 65-ppm downstream 

sulfur cap would replace the current 95- 

ppm downstream sulfur cap. Beginning 

February 1, 2020, a 65-ppm downstream 

sulfur cap would apply at all locations 

downstream of the refinery and 

importer gate with the exception of 

retail and wholesale-purchaserconsumer facilities. Beginning March 1, 

2020, a 65-ppm downstream sulfur cap 

would apply at all locations in the 

gasoline distribution system 

downstream of the refinery and 

importer gate. We note that the 

additional time for parties to comply 

with a more stringent downstream 

sulfur cap mirrors the schedule for 

compliance under the Tier 2 program. 

As discussed previously in Sections 

III and IV of today’s preamble, the 

vehicle emissions benefits associated 

with today’s proposal are driven by the 

proposed reduction in the average sulfur 

content of gasoline from 30 to 10 ppm. 

However, vehicle manufacturers have 

expressed concerns about the potential 

impacts on emissions performance if 

individual vehicles are exposed to 

gasoline above the proposed 10-ppm 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29928 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

348Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2011, 

October 6). Letter to EPA Administrator, Lisa 

Jackson. 349Refer to Section 4.2.4.1 of the draft RIA for a 

more detailed discussion of the impacts of lowering 

the refinery gate sulfur cap. 

350The requirements for transmix blenders are 

contained in 40 CFR 80.84(d). 437 °F is the 

maximum endpoint allowed for gasoline in ASTM 

D4814. 

351Transmix 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. 

352Transmix processors produce ∼0.1 percent of 

the gasoline consumed in the U.S. 

refinery average.348 As discussed in 

Section V.A.2.b, our analysis of the 

potential response to the proposed ABT 

provisions assessed three options for 

refineries: remaining at their current 

sulfur levels and using credits, reducing 

sulfur levels to 10 ppm and neither 

generating or using credits, or reducing 

sulfur levels to 5 ppm and generating 

credits. We did not have available 

information that would enable us to 

assess refineries that might stay above 

10 ppm and reduce their sulfur levels 

part way (e.g., reduce sulfur from 50 

ppm today to 20 ppm under Tier 3). 

Nevertheless, we anticipate that in most 

cases refineries would respond by 

making operational changes and/or 

minor investments in order to reduce 

their credit burden and reduce their 

compliance costs. This anticipation, 

along with the fact that a 10-ppm 

average standard by definition limits the 

amount of gasoline that can remain at 

higher sulfur levels, means that we 

anticipate most credit-using refineries 

would still average less than 20 ppm in 

their physical gasoline production, and 

either all or virtually all gasoline would 

be expected to average at or below 30 

ppm. Therefore, we believe that a 50- 

ppm per-gallon cap at the refinery gate 

would not impose any additional cost or 

burden beyond the current 80-ppm pergallon cap. Our discussions with 

refiners indicate that a 50-ppm sulfur 

cap would provide refiners with 

sufficient flexibility to produce gasoline 

during temporary upsets and 

turnarounds through the use of credits 

without necessitating the installation of 

additional desulfurization 

equipment.349 However, it would 

provide some additional assurance of 

in-use gasoline quality and help to 

address vehicle manufacturer concerns. 

We also believe that implementing a 

65-ppm downstream sulfur cap would 

provide essentially the same flexibilities 

to downstream parties as the existing 

sulfur caps. We believe that maintaining 

a 15-ppm differential between the 

proposed refinery gate sulfur cap of 50 

ppm and the proposed 65-ppm 

downstream sulfur cap would provide 

pipeline operators, transmix processors, 

and gasoline additive users the same 

flexibility as provided under the current 

80/95 ppm sulfur caps. 

Pipeline operators are currently 

allowed to blend limited volumes of 

transmix into gasoline in their systems 

provided that the resulting gasoline 

meets all fuel quality specifications and 

the endpoint of the blended gasoline 

does not exceed 437 °F.350 This enables 

pipeline operators to avoid the 

installation of additional transmix 

storage and loading equipment at a 

number of remote locations to facilitate 

shipping small volumes of transmix to 

processing facilities by truck. We 

believe that a 65-ppm sulfur cap would 

provide sufficient flexibility to allow 

pipeline operators to continue this 

practice. 

Currently transmix processors must 

produce gasoline sufficiently below the 

95-ppm downstream sulfur cap to 

accommodate any downstream sulfur 

increases from the use of gasoline 

additives and contamination from 

further distribution. The sulfur content 

of the gasoline produced by transmix 

processors is determined by the sulfur 

content of the transmix they receive, 

which in turn is primarily a function of 

the sulfur content of gasoline and jet 

fuel components in the transmix.351

Transmix processors do not handle 

sufficient volumes to support the 

installation of currently available 

desulfurization units.352 Data provided 

by the largest operator of transmix 

processing facilities indicates that 

relatively few batches of the gasoline 

they currently produce approach 80 

ppm sulfur. Most batches are 

approximately 10 ppm above the 

current 30-ppm refinery sulfur average. 

Therefore, we believe that under a 10- 

ppm refinery average standard and 50- 

ppm refinery sulfur cap, transmix 

processors would be able to produce 

gasoline sufficiently under the proposed 

65-ppm downstream sulfur cap to 

accommodate the additional sulfur 

contribution from the use of additives 

and contamination during further 

distribution. Since the 65-ppm 

downstream cap would not take effect 

until 2020, while the 10-ppm average 

standard would take effect in 2017, we 

would have three years of experience 

with which to verify this and take 

corrective action if necessary. 

In addition to proposing refinery gate 

and downstream per gallon sulfur caps 

of either 80 ppm and 95 ppm or 50 ppm 

and 65 ppm, we are also requesting 

comment on the potential 

implementation of a refinery gate sulfur 

cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream 

sulfur cap as low as 25 ppm. This would 

further constrain downstream 

contamination and limit the temporary 

exposure of vehicles in-use to sulfur 

levels that would significantly degrade 

their emission performance. This would 

serve to provide added assurance that 

all parts of the country would receive 

the full emission benefits of gasoline 

sulfur control. However, we are only 

seeking comment on it and not 

proposing it due to the potential cost 

increases resulting from further 

constraints on refinery and distribution 

system operations. While a 50-ppm 

refinery gate cap may not impact 

refinery costs, in order to meet a 20-ppm 

refinery gate cap and downstream 

standard of 25 ppm we expect that 

essentially all refineries would need to 

invest to meet the 10-ppm annual 

average standard. Our modeling of a 

non-ABT scenario, discussed in Section 

VII.B, shows that the sulfur control costs 

would increase by almost 10 percent, 

with no net change in average in-use 

sulfur levels. Similarly, while a 65-ppm 

downstream cap may have little or no 

impact on downstream operations, a 25- 

ppm downstream sulfur cap would 

likely require changes in pipeline 

operations, treatment of gasoline 

transmix, and formulation and use of 

sulfur containing gasoline additives 

(e.g., corrosion inhibitors, and 

demulsifiers) that could further increase 

the costs of the standard. The extent of 

such impacts and associated costs, 

however, are difficult to quantify. 

Consequently we seek comment on the 

appropriateness, impacts, and costs of 

lowering the per-gallon caps to 20 ppm 

at the refinery gate, and 25 ppm 

downstream. 

Further, in order to facilitate the 

enforcement of the downstream cap and 

prevent the potential dumping of high 

sulfur materials into gasoline under the 

guise of adding gasoline additives, we 

are proposing additional requirements 

to clarify the treatment of gasoline 

additives. Parties that introduce 

additives to gasoline at over 1.0 volume 

percent are required to satisfy all of the 

obligations of a fuel manufacturer 

including demonstration that the 

finished blend meets the applicable 

sulfur specification. A party other than 

a fuel refiner or importer who adds a 

quantity of additive(s) amounting to less 

than 1.0 percent by volume of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29929 

353 40 CFR 79.2(d)(1). 

354 Generally, a source is a major source if its 

‘‘potential to emit’’ a regulated NSR pollutant is 

greater than either 100 or 250 tons/year depending 

on the industrial type of the source and whether the 

area is designated nonattainment for the particular 

pollutant. All refineries in the U.S. are major 

sources for purposes of NSR. A major modification 

is a physical change or a change in the method of 

operation that causes a significant emissions 

increase and a significant net emissions increase of 

any pollutant regulated under the NSR program. (A 

net emissions increase differs from an emissions 

increase in that a net increase takes into account 

contemporaneous emissions changes from other 

projects at the source.) Significant emission rates 

vary depending on the pollutant and range from 0.6 

to 100 tons/year for criteria (NAAQS) pollutants 

and their precursors. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23). For 

GHGs, modifications of existing sources trigger NSR 

permitting requirements when there is an increase 

of GHG emissions of at least 75,000 tons/year of 

CO2 equivalent, as well as any increase of GHG 

emissions on a mass basis. At the time refineries are 

required to comply with the proposed fuel sulfur 

program, the GHG threshold may be different, but 

will not be lower than 50,000 tons/year. 

resultant additive(s)/fuel mixture is not 

considered a fuel manufacturer.353

Thus, the addition of sulfur to finished 

gasoline from additives used at less than 

1.0 volume percent is simply limited by 

the current 95-ppm downstream sulfur 

cap. We are proposing to limit the sulfur 

contribution from the use of a gasoline 

additive added downstream of the 

refinery at less than 1.0 volume percent 

to 3 ppm when added at the maximum 

recommended treatment rate. We 

believe that this limitation would not 

constrain the use of gasoline additives 

or result in significant additional costs 

to gasoline additive manufacturers. This 

is because information received from 

additive producers indicates that all 

current gasoline additives contribute 

less than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of 

the finished fuel when used at the 

maximum recommended treatment rate. 

The maximum treatment rate is already 

stated on product transfer document or 

packaging for the additive. We are 

proposing a requirement that additive 

manufacturers maintain records of their 

additive production quality control 

activities, which demonstrate that the 

sulfur content of additive production 

batches complies with the proposed 

sulfur requirement, for five years and to 

make these available to EPA upon 

request. 

B. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions 

It is important to the success of the 

proposed Tier 3 fuel program that 

refineries are able to obtain air permits, 

if needed, in time to complete the 

modifications necessary to comply with 

the proposed gasoline sulfur program. 

Accordingly, we have considered the 

implications of permitting requirements 

with respect to the implementation of 

the proposed gasoline sulfur program. 

This section provides information on 

this topic. In summary, we believe that 

only a small percentage of refineries 

would likely need to make 

modifications that will trigger a 

requirement to apply for air permits, 

and we anticipate that these permit 

applications would be processed 

quickly enough that air permitting will 

not be a significant obstacle to timely 

compliance with the gasoline sulfur 

program. In contrast to the Tier 2 

program, where EPA expected the need 

for NAAQS-related New Source Review 

(NSR) permits might be widespread 

among refineries, we believe that under 

the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

standard at most only about 19 

refineries would need NSR or 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permits. This number—which 

equates to approximately 17 percent of 

the 111 refineries projected to be 

affected by the proposed Tier 3 

standards—could be even lower if 

refineries apply emission controls to 

reduce emissions increases below the 

significance level or if they ‘‘net out’’ of 

NSR. 

If our final assessment of permitting 

prospects following analysis of 

comments indicates it would be 

appropriate, we would form a special 

team to monitor for permitting delays 

and assist in resolving associated 

problems. We also anticipate that other 

new requirements applicable to 

refineries that are being proposed for 

implementation in approximately the 

same period as the gasoline sulfur 

program would not interfere with the 

modifications needed to meet the new 

sulfur limits and would not create a 

competition for air permitting agency 

resources. 

We invite public comment on air 

permitting issues, and on possible 

actions we might be able to take to help 

make sure refineries can obtain needed 

permits expeditiously. As described in 

further detail in Sections V.B.4 and 

V.B.6, a number of mechanisms and 

resources are already available to help 

mitigate and streamline NSR permitting 

requirements associated with the 

proposed Tier 3 fuel program. For 

example, EPA has issued guidance on 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) analysis for GHG emissions, 

including a white paper that identifies 

specific technologies available for 

refinery process units. As explained in 

greater detail below, we expect that the 

types of equipment and process 

technologies that refiners would select 

to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards 

would generally be consistent with 

BACT for GHG emissions in terms of 

achievable, cost-effective, and energyefficient design even absent the 

requirement to obtain a permit, meaning 

that such a requirement would not 

necessitate a shift in project design or 

increase costs. 

1. Background on New Source Review 

Programs 

The New Source Review (NSR) 

program, as it applies to existing major 

sources of air pollution, requires that a 

permit be issued before a source begins 

construction of any project to modify 

the source that would result in a 

significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase of a 

pollutant regulated under this 

program.354 The physical modifications 

and operational changes that we expect 

refineries would make to comply with 

the proposed gasoline sulfur standards 

(described in Section V.A.1.d) could 

result in emissions increases in one or 

more pollutants that may trigger NSR 

requirements for preconstruction air 

permits. NSR permits specify what 

emission limits must be met by the new 

and modified equipment that is part of 

the proposed project. They may contain 

conditions to make sure that the 

modifications being made match 

parameters in the application that the 

permit-issuing agency relied on in its 

analysis. Permits contain emission 

limitations for new and modified units 

and also typically specify some aspects 

of how, consistent with the permit 

application, the project elements must 

be constructed and operated. For 

example, the permit may identify 

important design and operational 

parameters that are consistent with the 

established control technology 

determination(s) and help assure 

compliance with associated emission 

limitations. To assure that sources 

follow the permit requirements, permits 

also contain monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements. NSR 

permits are issued by a state or local air 

pollution control agency if it has its own 

permit program that has been approved 

by EPA in the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) or if it has been delegated the 

authority to issue federal Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits 

on behalf of EPA. An EPA Regional 

Office issues the permit in other cases. 

There are two separate sets of major 

source permit requirements that may 

apply to modifications at a refinery 

depending on the attainment status of 

the area in which a refinery is located. 

Each set of requirements is applied on 

a pollutant-specific basis, so that in 

some cases both permit programs may 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29930 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

355The PSD program stems from part C of Title 

I of the Clean Air Act. The implementing 

regulations are contained in 40 CFR 51.166 and 

52.21. 

356A system of ‘‘increments’’ is the mechanism 

used in the PSD program to define significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. 

An increment is the maximum allowable increase 

in ambient concentrations of a pollutant in an area 

relative to a specified baseline. Increases above that 

level are considered to significantly deteriorate air 

quality and cannot be allowed. 

357The Nonattainment NSR program stems from 

part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act. The 

implementing regulations are contained in 40 CFR 

51.165 and 50 CFR part 51 appendix S. Under 

Nonattainment NSR, a major source is generally any 

source with a potential to emit of 100 tons/year or 

more of the nonattainment pollutant, regardless of 

industrial type (lower thresholds apply for some 

pollutants/classifications). The thresholds for a 

significant emissions increase under Nonattainment 

NSR are generally the same as under PSD but lower 

for certain pollutants/classifications. 

358Toxic air pollutants are excluded from the 

PSD program. 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(6); 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(v). 

359These processing time periods assume that the 

refinery can successfully show that the emission 

increases associated with the modifications will not 

cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or 

increment (under PSD) or can obtain needed 

emissions offsets for the emission increases (under 

Nonattainment NSR). 

apply to the same modification project. 

The PSD permit program applies to any 

major modification at a source located 

in a designated attainment or 

unclassifiable area for any NAAQS 

pollutant.355 PSD requires compliance 

with emission limitations achievable 

through installation of BACT, an air 

quality analysis to show that the 

modification will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any NAAQS 

or applicable PSD increment,356 an 

assessment of impact on visibility and 

other conditions in national parks and 

similar federal lands, an additional 

impacts analysis, and an opportunity for 

public involvement. The second set of 

requirements is known as the 

Nonattainment NSR program because it 

applies to major modifications at 

sources located in areas designated as 

nonattainment for a specific NAAQS 

pollutant.357 The Nonattainment NSR 

requirements include, among other 

things, that a proposed major 

modification meet the lowest achievable 

emission rate (LAER) for each triggering 

nonattainment pollutant for which the 

source is major and for which there will 

be a significant emissions increase, 

obtain emission offsets for those 

nonattainment pollutants, and provide 

an opportunity for public involvement. 

LAER is generally a more stringent 

emission limitation than BACT. LAER is 

derived from either the most stringent 

emission limitation contained in the 

implementation plan of any state for the 

same type of source or the most 

stringent emission limitation achieved 

in practice. Emission offsets are 

emissions reductions, generally 

obtained from other existing stationary 

sources located in the vicinity of a 

proposed source. Such offsets must be 

equal to or larger than the emissions 

increase resulting from the modification 

to ensure that the growth being allowed 

to occur does not interfere with the 

ability of an area to continue making 

reasonable further progress towards 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

As described previously in Section 

V.A.1.d, there are several types of 

process changes refineries could make 

to meet the proposed gasoline sulfur 

levels. To different degrees, all these 

technologies involve process heat from 

fuel combustion and, thus, have the 

potential to increase emissions of 

pollutants associated with combustion 

that are regulated under NSR,358 such as 

NOX, VOCs, PM2.5, PM10, CO, SO2, and 

GHGs. The addition of certain 

technologies could also result in 

equipment leaks of petroleum 

compounds, which could increase 

emissions of VOCs and other pollutants. 

It is also possible that the removal of 

more sulfur from the gasoline stream 

could require increased capacity or 

increased utilization of other refinery 

processes, such as hydrogen plants and 

sulfur recovery units (SRUs), which are 

sources of air emissions. The emissions 

increases associated with a 

desulfurization project would vary from 

refinery to refinery, depending on a 

number of refinery-specific factors, such 

as the refinery output volume, refinery 

configuration, feedstocks, choice of 

desulfurization technology, and type of 

fuel used to operate affected process 

heaters. 

As described in more detail in Section 

V.B.4, we anticipate that the types of 

changes that would occur at most 

refineries would not result in sufficient 

emissions increases to require major 

NSR permits as a prerequisite for 

completing the needed changes. The 

major NSR permitting requirements 

would not be triggered for several 

reasons: because the emissions increase 

or the net emissions increase is 

naturally less than the significant level, 

because the refinery installs control 

technologies on project-affected units to 

further limit the emissions increase, 

and/or because the refinery ‘‘nets out’’ 

all or part of the emissions increase. 

However, we anticipate that some 

refineries have the potential to 

experience significant emissions 

increases and significant net emissions 

increases as a result of process changes 

necessary to meet the proposed gasoline 

sulfur standard and, therefore, may 

trigger major NSR (Nonattainment NSR 

and/or PSD). These facilities would 

have to obtain a major NSR 

preconstruction permit prior to making 

these necessary process changes. For 

any required major NSR permits, the 

associated control technology 

requirements (BACT and/or LAER) 

would apply only to new or modified 

units associated with the project and not 

to units at the refinery that are not 

affected by the project. We do not 

anticipate that the time frames required 

for the small number of affected 

refineries to obtain any needed NSR 

and/or PSD permits will present an 

obstacle to timely compliance with the 

proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

requirements. We are proposing 

approximately 3 years of lead time. 

However, as discussed in section V.E., 

this is extended to up to 6 years of lead 

time for all small refineries, as well as 

for all other refineries if they take 

advantage of the flexibility of the early 

credit provisions. In comparison, as 

discussed in section V.A.2.c, 95 of the 

111 refineries are anticipated to be able 

to comply within 2 years, and the 

remaining 16 within 3 years. For the 16 

that may require up to 3 years to comply 

due to the construction of grassroots 

hydrotreaters, only 2 of these are 

projected to potentially trigger the need 

for new permits, and even then only for 

PSD for greenhouse gases, and only if 

they choose to produce their own 

hydrogen. As a result, only two 

refineries may actually require the full 

3 years to comply. 

For facilities subject to major NSR, the 

timing of permit issuance could vary 

depending on a number of factors, 

including the clarity and completeness 

of the application, the complexity of 

process changes, the type of permit 

required, air quality impact, control 

technology reviews, and the permitting 

agency’s overall permit workload. The 

time spent preparing a permit 

application is under the control of the 

applicant. Once a permit application is 

complete, permitting authorities 

operating under approved SIPs should 

be able to issue a permit within 9 to 12 

months if the permit applies to NAAQS 

pollutants. Because EPA-issued permits 

and permits issued by states operating 

under a delegation from EPA are subject 

to additional analysis and interagency 

consultation steps specified in federal 

law, it can take a few more months if, 

for example, there are endangered 

species or historical preservation 

issues.359 For permits that apply only to 

GHGs, we anticipate that less time will 

be necessary both to prepare the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29931 

360Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires 

all major sources and some minor sources of air 

pollution to obtain an operating permit. A Title V 

permit contains all air pollution requirements that 

apply to the source, including emissions limits and 

monitoring, record keeping, and reporting 

requirements. It also requires that the source report 

its compliance status to the permitting authority 

annually. All existing refineries potentially affected 

by the proposed Tier 3 fuel standards have Title V 

permits and, because Title V permits by themselves 

generally do not establish new applicable 

requirements, the only implication of the proposed 

Tier 3 fuel standards would be the ‘‘roll-in’’ of any 

new NSR permit requirements into existing refinery 

Title V permits. Permitting agencies have efficient 

processes to accomplish this that do not delay 

construction of proposed projects. 

application and for the permitting 

authority to approve the permit. The 

CAA requires that EPA take final action 

on a PSD permit within one year of the 

filing with the agency of a complete 

application. 42 U.S.C. 7475(c). 

Refineries that are able to avoid major 

NSR may be required to obtain a stateissued minor NSR permit. Generally, 

minor NSR permits involve less 

extensive and/or stringent requirements 

and have shorter processing times than 

major NSR permits. 

2. Background on NSR Experience 

Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program 

Many of the modifications that 

refineries are projected to make in order 

to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel 

program are similar in type, although 

not necessarily in number or magnitude, 

to the changes that were needed to 

comply with the Tier 2 fuel program 

finalized in 2000. Therefore, 

information on the Tier 2 experience 

may assist the public in understanding 

the permitting issues for the Tier 3 fuel 

program and in providing comment on 

possible actions we might undertake to 

help refineries expeditiously obtain 

needed permits. 

The Tier 2 program was designed to 

reduce the average sulfur content of 

gasoline from about 300 ppm to 30 ppm, 

a reduction of about 90 percent. 

Anticipating that many refineries would 

have to make modifications that might 

trigger the need for NSR permits, we 

addressed the permitting issue in the 

proposal for the Tier 2 program, in the 

final rule, and during implementation. 

At proposal, we provided background 

information on the NSR program and its 

relationship to the types of changes 

likely to be required at refineries. We 

had not estimated the number of 

refineries that might trigger NSR, but we 

stated that the number could be 

substantial. We invited comment on a 

number of actions that EPA, states, and/ 

or refineries could pursue in order to 

help refineries avoid the need for NSR 

permits or to obtain permits more 

expeditiously than might otherwise be 

the case. These actions included the 

following: 

• Use of plantwide applicability 

limits, possibly facilitated by new EPA 

guidance or rules addressing issues 

specific to refineries. 

• Issuance of new federal guidance on 

streamlining certain major NSR 

permitting requirements such as control 

technology and compliance parameters. 

• Use of emissions reductions 

resulting from vehicles operating on 

lower sulfur gasoline as offsets for 

refineries seeking Nonattainment NSR 

permits. 

• Use of model permits and permit 

applications. 

• EPA refinery permitting teams. 

The Tier 2 proposal also addressed 

issues related to the Title V permitting 

program,360 and requested comments on 

possible approaches by which refineries 

might satisfy some NSR and Title V 

requirements at the same time. 

We received comments on refinery 

permitting issues from the refining 

industry, the automobile manufacturing 

industry, state and local agencies that 

administer air permitting programs, and 

environmental and community groups. 

Based on these comments and statutory 

constraints, we decided that it was not 

necessary or appropriate to exempt Tier 

2 projects from the normally applicable 

preconstruction review process. We also 

decided not to pursue the development 

of guidance on plantwide applicability 

limits for refineries based on comments 

suggesting this would be an 

unproductive effort because of the 

complexity of refineries. Nonetheless, 

we concluded that it was useful to add 

certainty to the anticipated permitting 

actions and schedules, and to minimize 

the possibility of delay. Accordingly, 

EPA took two types of actions to 

promote these objectives. First, as we 

are now proposing for Tier 3 (see 

proposed program flexibilities 

discussion in V.E.1.-3.), we structured 

the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program to 

allow additional lead time for many 

refineries (i.e., certain refineries would 

be able to make desulfurization changes 

later than the otherwise applicable 

compliance date to meet Tier 2 

requirements). This approach was 

expected to help address the concerns 

over the availability of necessary new 

equipment and permitting backlogs 

caused by many refineries acting to 

obtain permits and order equipment 

within the same time period.Second, we 

stated our intention to take several 

actions during implementation of the 

Tier 2 rule to expedite and impart 

greater certainty in obtaining necessary 

major NSR permits (described in more 

detail below). We also stated our 

intention to assist states and refiners on 

a case-by-case basis in their efforts to 

address any unique permitting problems 

that might arise and, thus, remedy 

potential problems that could cause 

unanticipated delays. We committed to 

work with refiners and the state/local 

permitting agencies on a case-by-case 

basis, where a refinery had unique 

circumstances that necessitated unique 

treatment. We clarified that, in our 

efforts to provide greater certainty and 

to facilitate more expeditious 

permitting, we were in no way 

shortcutting existing opportunities for 

public participation in making 

permitting decisions. We encouraged 

refineries to begin discussions with 

permitting authorities and to submit 

permit applications as early as possible. 

The final Tier 2 rule identified three 

key actions that we intended to take 

(and subsequently took) to provide 

assistance that would be useful toward 

helping states issue timely permits to 

refineries. The first such action was to 

organize a special EPA team, comprised 

of Headquarters and Regional Office 

experts, to track the overall progress in 

permit issuance and to be available to 

assist state and local permitting 

authorities, refineries, and the public 

upon request to resolve site-specific 

permitting issues. The team made 

special efforts to be aware of state and 

local permitting actions that were 

underway during the time between the 

finalization of the Tier 2 program and 

the compliance time frame. Experience 

during this period suggested that state 

and local permitting agencies, as 

predicted in their comments on the 

proposed Tier 2 program, were able to 

process permit applications in a timely 

manner, without much need for special 

troubleshooting help from the EPA 

team. In many cases, the modifications 

to allow compliance with Tier 2 

requirements were subject to only minor 

NSR permitting requirements rather 

than major NSR, or those modifications 

were rolled into another permitting 

action that was needed for other 

modifications or expansions due to 

other technical or market developments. 

We believe it is reasonable to expect 

that similar outcomes (refineries not 

needing major NSR permits) would 

result in connection with air permitting 

for the modifications refineries would 

need to make under the proposed Tier 

3 gasoline sulfur program. 

The second action we took was to 

develop new guidance on emission 

control technology requirements to meet 

BACT and LAER. We issued this 

guidance in 2001. It addressed the levels 

of control that could be reasonably 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29932 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

361 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002). 

362 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

363 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012). 

364 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). 

365Listings of areas currently designated 

nonattainment for all the NAAQS are available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. 

366 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). 

367 73 FR 28321 (May 18, 2008). On January 4, 

2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

anticipated to represent BACT or LAER 

under the major NSR requirements. Our 

general experience following the release 

of this BACT/LAER guidance was that it 

did not play a substantial role in the 

permitting of refinery projects for Tier 2. 

That is, due to their own expertise and 

the need to consider refinery-specific 

factors, state and local permitting 

authorities generally did not find it 

necessary to rely on our guidance in 

their own permitting processes for 

refineries making changes to meet the 

Tier 2 requirements. In addition, many 

of the refinery projects were able to 

avoid major NSR, so BACT and LAER 

were not requirements that had to be 

met. Again, we believe it is reasonable 

to expect that similar outcomes 

(refineries not needing major NSR 

permits) would result in connection 

with air permitting for the modifications 

refineries would need to make to meet 

the proposed gasoline sulfur standard. 

The third action we took was a fasttrack effort to develop new guidance on 

the use of emissions reductions 

resulting from vehicles operating on 

lower sulfur gasoline as emission offsets 

for refineries seeking Nonattainment 

NSR permits. We invited comment on a 

draft version of this guidance five 

months after the final Tier 2 rule. The 

draft guidance discussed in depth how 

the use of such offsets could be made 

consistent with seven criteria given in 

the CAA for such offsets. We received 

many comments from state and local air 

agencies and community groups 

opposing the proposed offset guidance 

on legal, fairness, and environmental 

justice grounds. One refiner 

recommended that EPA set aside a 

portion of the Tier 2 reductions in each 

state as offsets, rather than leaving this 

decision to each state. We did not 

finalize the draft guidance, and no state 

further pursued a system under which 

vehicle emissions reductions were made 

available to refineries as offsets for 

Nonattainment NSR permits. 

3. Changes in the NSR Permitting 

Program Since Tier 2 Final Rule 

The Tier 2 fuel program was 

promulgated in early 2000, and most 

refiners were required to comply with 

those requirements by 2006. During and 

since that period, there have been a 

number of changes to the major NSR 

programs. These changes are 

summarized here to facilitate public 

comment as to how these changes may 

affect whether refinery modifications 

undertaken as a result of the proposed 

Tier 3 fuel program would trigger NSR 

and/or the requirements that refiners 

and permitting authorities would have 

to meet. 

In 2002, we issued a final rule known 

as the NSR Reform Rule.361 This rule 

revised the EPA-administered NSR 

programs and changed the minimum 

approvals required for SIP-approved 

NSR programs for NSR applicability. 

Some of the provisions of the 2002 final 

rule have been vacated by the Court, 

subsequently amended by EPA, or are 

currently under reconsideration. Two 

key components of the NSR Reform 

Rule that remain in place are a new 

applicability test for projects involving 

existing emissions units (the ‘‘actual-toprojected-actual’’ applicability test) and 

provisions that allow for the 

establishment of plantwide applicability 

limits (PALs). The change in the 

applicability test since the Tier 2 

experience means that fewer 

modifications may be found to have 

emissions increases that are above the 

significant emission levels, in which 

case fewer major NSR permits may need 

to be issued. The PAL provisions offer 

a voluntary alternative for determining 

major NSR applicability that can 

provide sources with significant 

flexibility to manage facility-wide air 

emissions without triggering major NSR 

permitting. Refineries that have 

established PALs or will establish one 

or more PALs prior to or as part of 

permitting associated with the Tier 3 

fuel program will be far less likely to 

trigger major NSR permitting 

requirements. 

We have also taken a series of actions 

that have had the effect of making 

emissions of GHGs a factor in 

determining whether a PSD permit is 

required for a refinery modification. 

Under the applicable PSD provisions in 

the CAA, GHGs became regulated under 

the PSD program on January 2, 2011 

after EPA adopted tailpipe emissions 

standards for these pollutants under 

Title II of the CAA. Because the 

incorporation of GHGs into the PSD 

program had the potential to 

significantly expand the number of 

sources required to obtain PSD permits, 

EPA adopted the 2010 Tailoring Rule to 

phase in the PSD permitting 

requirements according to a series of 

steps based on different GHG emission 

thresholds.362 At this time the Tailoring 

Rule requires that any modification at 

an existing refinery that increases GHG 

emissions by 75,000 tons per year or 

more of CO2 equivalent and also 

produces any mass increase in GHG 

emissions would trigger the need for a 

PSD permit that addresses GHG 

emissions.363 Because there are no 

NAAQS for GHGs and, therefore no 

nonattainment areas, only PSD could 

potentially apply to a refinery 

modification with respect to increases 

in GHG emissions. The analysis 

(described in Section V.B.4) indicates 

that only a small number of large 

refineries would be affected. For the 

sources that would need a PSD permit 

for GHGs, the main substantive 

requirement for obtaining the permit is 

to apply BACT for GHG emissions from 

the new or modified unit(s) because an 

air quality analysis is not required. 

Another development since 2000 has 

been the establishment of several new 

and revised NAAQS and the designation 

of nonattainment areas under some of 

these NAAQS. At the time of the final 

Tier 2 rule, the NAAQS of most 

relevance to Nonattainment NSR 

permitting for refineries were the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, the PM10 NAAQS, and 

the SO2 NAAQS, because these NAAQS 

accounted for the vast majority of the 

existing nonattainment areas. The 

designation of new nonattainment areas 

under the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour 

ozone became effective in 2004. 

Designations under the 1997 NAAQS for 

PM2.5 became effective in 2005. In 2008, 

we again revised the ozone NAAQS and 

designations under that standard 

became effective in July 2012.364 In 

2006, we revised the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS and in 2009 (2011 for a few 

areas) we designated areas under the 

2006 PM2.5 standard.365 In December 

2012 we revised the primary annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and designations 

associated with that revised standard 

are expected to become effective in 

2015.366 One effect of this evolution of 

the NAAQS and associated attainment 

status for areas is that it has become 

more common over time for sources to 

be located in ozone or PM2.5

nonattainment areas and thus subject to 

Nonattainment NSR rather than to PSD 

for their VOC, NOX, and PM2.5

emissions increases. However, over the 

same time period, some areas currently 

designated as nonattainment for ozone 

and/or PM2.5 are expected to be 

redesignated to attainment. Therefore, 

we do not expect a dramatic shift on a 

national basis in one direction or the 

other. 

In 2008, we issued a final rule 

specifying in detail how NSR applies to 

PM2.5.367 In addition, in 2010 we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29933 

EPA, No. 08–1250, 2013 WL 45653 (filed July 15, 

2008, consolidated with 09–1102, 11–1430), issued 

a judgment that remanded EPA’s 2008 PM 2.5 NSR 

rule and ordered the EPA to repromulgate the rule 

‘‘pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this 

opinion.’’ Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of 

the CAA establishes additional provisions for 

particulate matter nonattainment areas. EPA is 

evaluating the impact of the court decision on the 

provisions of the 2008 rule. 

368 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010). On January 

22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 10–1413 

(filed Dec. 17. 2010), issued a judgment that vacated 

and remanded the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) 

and 52.21(k)(2) (concerning implementation of the 

PM2.5 SILs) and vacated the provisions at 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) (adding the 

PM2.5 SMC) that were promulgated as part of the 

rule. 

369 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010) and 75 FR 

35520 (June 22, 2010). 

370 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012). 

371These memos are available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ 

guidance_clarificationmemos.htm, http:// 

www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/ 

appwso2.pdf, and http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ 

documents/20100629no2guidance.pdf. 

372 Keller, P. (February 2013). New Source Review 

Permitting Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 

Gasoline Program. Memorandum to the docket. 

supplemented this rule with additional 

provisions for the PSD program 

specifically.368 The latest rule, among 

other things, established PM2.5

increments, and as of October 20, 2011, 

sources that trigger PSD for PM2.5 are 

required to show compliance with the 

applicable increment, in addition to 

showing that they do not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In 2010, EPA finalized new NAAQS 

for 1-hour NO2 and 1-hour SO2.369 EPA 

has completed the initial round of 

mandatory designations for the 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS and all areas have been 

designated unclassifiable/attainment.370

The first round of designations for the 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS will be made in 

June 2013, thus we do expect there to 

be nonattainment areas for the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS by the time that refineries 

might need to seek NSR permits to make 

the required facility modifications for 

the Tier 3 program. However, we expect 

that no refinery would have increases in 

SO2 emissions that are large enough to 

trigger major NSR, so any change in 

attainment status for the SO2 NAAQS 

should have no effect on permitting 

issues. 

In areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable for the 1-hour NO2 or 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS, the air quality 

impacts assessment required to obtain a 

PSD permit can present new challenges 

for permit applicants. This is because 

demonstrating that a modification will 

not cause or contribute to a violation of 

these 1-hour standards may require 

more refined and data-intensive air 

quality modeling approaches than has 

previously been required to make this 

demonstration with respect to the preexisting NAAQS for NO2 and SO2. To 

assist permit applicants in performing 

the required analysis of 1-hour NO2 and 

SO2 air quality impacts, we have issued 

several guidance memos that describe 

available alternative approaches and 

flexibilities.371 In addition, EPA 

provides technical assistance with 

modeling issues upon request. 

4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery 

Changes and Permitting Implications 

EPA has performed a refinery-byrefinery assessment of the physical and 

operational changes that are likely to be 

needed to allow each active refinery in 

the U.S. to produce gasoline that 

complies with the proposed Tier 3 fuel 

specifications. We have also assessed 

the likely effects of those changes on 

refinery emissions. This assessment is 

described in more detail in Section 5.4 

of the draft RIA. Using this assessment, 

we were able to gain a reasonable 

understanding of the potential scope of 

NSR permitting requirements refiners 

might face under the proposed Tier 3 

program. In general, our assessment 

indicates that only a small number of 

refineries will likely need to make 

modifications of a type and size that 

would trigger the need for a PSD or 

Nonattainment NSR permit. The 

assessment and this conclusion take 

into account the changes in the NSR 

program and its context since 2000 

described in Section V.B.3. A technical 

memorandum describing in detail our 

analysis and results is in the public 

docket for this proposal.372

In our analysis, we started with the 

estimates we have made regarding the 

physical and operational changes that 

would be required at each refinery 

(described in Section 5.4 of the draft 

RIA). The modifications at a given 

refinery could include revamps to 

existing FCC pre- or post-treatment 

unit(s) or the installation of a new 

grassroots post-treatment unit for sulfur 

reduction. Based on the projected 

refinery-specific changes, we estimated 

the increased demand for energy (i.e., 

fuel to generate process heat, steam and 

electricity), hydrogen, and sulfur 

recovery associated with meeting the 

proposed Tier 3 standards. We selected 

representative industry emission factors 

for NAAQS pollutants, their precursors, 

and GHGs for each emitting process and 

combined them with estimates of 

incremental activity to estimate the 

emissions changes at each equipment 

unit (or group of similar units) at each 

refinery. 

To determine upper and lower 

bounds for emissions increases resulting 

from changes necessary to meet the 

proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 

specification, we evaluated two 

scenarios, a no ABT scenario (assuming 

no trading of sulfur credits) and the 

primary ABT scenario described in 

Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. We did not 

have sufficient detailed information to 

predict which refineries would find it 

most profitable to generate additional 

electrical power, hydrogen and high 

octane blendstocks internally on site 

rather than purchasing these inputs 

from external suppliers. If a refinery 

generates these additional inputs 

internally on site, the additional 

emissions would count towards the 

significant emissions rates and could 

affect the need for a major NSR permit. 

To account for these variables, we 

evaluated a high and a low case for each 

identified scenario. Under the high case, 

we assumed 100 percent internal 

generation of the additional electrical 

power, hydrogen, and high octane 

blendstocks and under the low case, 100 

percent external generation of the same. 

We expect refineries to actually be 

somewhere between these two extreme 

cases in the future. For the identified 

scenarios and cases, we compared the 

emissions increase for each pollutant at 

each refinery to the significant 

emissions increase threshold for that 

pollutant, taking into consideration the 

current attainment status for each 

pollutant where the refinery is located. 

We found that the no ABT scenario, low 

case had the lowest number of refineries 

estimated to trigger major NSR and the 

primary ABT scenario, high case had 

the highest, although the overall 

numbers did not vary greatly. 

An important aspect of our analysis is 

that we assumed that refineries would 

not install new emission controls on 

affected units for the purpose of staying 

below the significant emissions increase 

threshold and thereby not triggering 

major NSR. In particular, we did not 

assume that selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) to control NOX emissions would 

be applied to new or modified fuel 

combustion units. This is an important 

assumption that tends to result in 

overestimates of the number of major 

NSR permits needed for NAAQS-related 

pollutants. In reality, applying new 

emission controls would be an option 

that refineries may employ to legally 

avoid major NSR permitting. We also 

did not assume that refineries would 

‘‘net out’’ of NSR by taking credit for 

any emissions reductions occurring 

within a contemporaneous timeframe, 

including any new emissions reduction 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29934 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

373Because state requirements regarding minor 

NSR permitting vary and we do not expect minor 

NSR permitting programs to be a significant 

challenge for refinery modification projects, we did 

not attempt to estimate how many of the remaining 

refineries might need to obtain minor NSR permits. 

374See ‘‘Available and Emerging Technologies for 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the 

Petroleum Refining Industry,’’ October 2010, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ 

ghgpermitting.html. 

375These are codified in 40 CFR part 63, Subpart 

CC (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From Petroleum refineries) and 40 CFR 

part 63, Subpart UUU (National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum 

Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic 

Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units). 

projects initiated specifically for the 

purpose of ‘‘netting out.’’ This analysis 

resulted in a prediction of whether a 

PSD and/or a Nonattainment NSR 

permit would be needed for each 

refinery and the pollutants that would 

have to be addressed in those permits, 

under each of the two scenarios. Only 

the results for the primary ABT 

scenario, high case are presented here. 

The results for the no ABT scenario, 

which are not greatly different, are 

described in the previously referenced 

technical memo found in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

We found that under the primary ABT 

scenario, high case, 19 refineries 

appeared likely to have significant 

emissions increases for one or more 

pollutants and thus would trigger major 

NSR.373 This equates to approximately 

17 percent of the 111 refineries 

projected to be affected by the proposed 

Tier 3 standards. Of these 19 refineries, 

we predicted that 13 refineries would 

need permits for NAAQS-related 

pollutants and their precursors (PSD 

and/or Nonattainment NSR) and for 

GHGs (results for GHG are discussed 

below). Thus, compared to the Tier 2 

program where EPA expected the need 

for NAAQS-related NSR permits might 

be widespread among refineries, we 

believe that under the proposed Tier 3 

program only about 13 refineries would 

need major NSR air permits to address 

NAAQS pollutants. This number could 

be lower if those refineries apply 

pollution controls, such as SCR for NOX, 

to sufficiently reduce the emissions 

increases to levels that are below the 

applicable pollutant significance level, 

or if the refineries can achieve 

emissions reductions elsewhere at the 

facility to ‘‘net out’’ of major NSR. For 

refineries that are required to obtain a 

major NSR permit for NAAQS 

pollutants, the permitting process is 

expected to normally take about 9 to 12 

months once the permitting authority 

has received a complete application. 

All 13 refineries just described as 

potentially needing NSR permits for 

NAAQS pollutants are also projected to 

need PSD permits for GHGs. In addition 

to these 13 refineries, we estimated that 

6 other refineries may require a PSD 

permit addressing only GHG emissions 

from new or modified equipment that is 

part of the project. For these refineries, 

BACT must be applied for GHG 

emissions, which we expect in most 

cases would mean that new or modified 

fuel-burning equipment would have to 

be designed for good energy efficiency. 

We expect that the types of equipment 

and process technologies that refiners 

would modify or add to meet the 

proposed Tier 3 standards would 

generally be consistent with BACT for 

GHG emissions in terms of achievable, 

cost-effective, and energy-efficient 

design even absent the requirement to 

obtain a permit, meaning that such a 

requirement would not necessitate any 

shift in project design or increase costs. 

This expectation is based on the fact 

that there are strong economic 

incentives for refiners to design and 

purchase the most energy-efficient 

process equipment to minimize the cost 

of production. For example, most of the 

new or modified units expected to be 

involved in refinery projects designed to 

meet the proposed Tier 3 standards are 

fuel combustion units (e.g., process 

heaters). Because fuel cost (direct cost in 

the case of purchased natural gas and 

opportunity cost in the case of refinerygenerated fuel gas) represents a 

significant component of total operating 

cost for such units, refineries will strive 

to maximize energy efficiency based on 

available technologies as part of their 

project design. EPA requests comment 

on the likelihood that refineries’ costs 

for equipment and process technology 

for compliance with Tier 3 would 

include any associated costs of 

compliance with NSR. 

In 2010, EPA issued a white paper on 

available and emerging technologies for 

reducing GHGs from the petroleum 

refining industry.374 This white paper 

addresses the types of equipment 

expected to be involved in projects 

designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 

fuel standards, including process 

heaters/boilers, hydrogen plants, and 

sulfur recovery units. The identified 

GHG control technologies for these 

types of units predominately involve 

opportunities for energy efficiency. 

Consistent with the findings reported in 

the white paper, our experience to date 

with GHG permitting at refineries and 

other similar sources supports the 

application of energy efficient design 

and operation of affected units as BACT, 

and we do not expect that in the time 

frame associated with Tier 3-related 

projects, add-on controls would be 

required. 

For EPA-issued permits and permits 

issued by state or local agencies under 

delegation, consultation with other 

federal agencies under the Endangered 

Species Act and consideration of 

environmental justice would also be 

required. Significantly, no air quality 

modeling of GHGs would be required, 

and thus there would be no need to 

obtain extensive input information on 

meteorology and emissions from other 

nearby sources. Given these differences, 

we expect that the timeline for obtaining 

a permit only for GHG emissions should 

be shorter by several months than the 

timeline for a permit that addresses 

NAAQS pollutants. 

We invite public comment on our 

analysis including ways in which we 

might improve the assessment between 

now and the final rule. 

5. New Source Performance Standards 

and National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries 

In addition to the proposed Tier 3 

rulemaking, we are also conducting 

other rulemakings to set new and 

revised limits for direct emissions from 

refineries of NAAQS-related pollutants 

and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). 

This section provides summary 

information on these rulemaking efforts, 

so that comments on the proposed Tier 

3 program can be more fully informed. 

We first regulated petroleum 

refineries in 1974 when the agency 

issued the New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) to control NAAQSrelated air pollutants. The NSPS applies 

to refinery process units that 

commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

June 11, 1973, but before May 14, 2007. 

On June 24, 2008, we amended the 

NSPS and issued new standards for 

most process units constructed, 

reconstructed, or modified after May 14, 

2007 and for flares which commence 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction after June 24, 2008. We 

were petitioned to reconsider these final 

rules and on September 12, 2012, EPA 

finalized amendments and technical 

corrections to address issues related to 

flares and process heaters. There are two 

existing Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards to 

control HAPs that apply specifically to 

petroleum refineries.375 These standards 

are referred to as MACT 1 and 2 and 

were issued in 1995 and 2002, 

respectively. EPA is required to perform 

risk and technology reviews (RTR) to 

assess residual risk for MACT standards 

for HAPs within eight years of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29935 

376 76 FR 15451 (March 21, 2011) and 78 FR 7138 

(January 31, 2013). 

377Some approaches for controlling NAAQSrelated pollutants do require additional electrical 

power or otherwise may increase GHG emissions. 

Conversely, some approaches to increasing energy 

efficiency (and thereby reducing GHG emissions) 

can increase emissions of NAAQS-related 

pollutants if compensating changes are not made in 

downstream emission control devices, for example 

increases in NOX emissions from higher combustion 

temperatures. 

378See ‘‘PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for 

Greenhouse Gases,’’ March 2011 and ‘‘Available 

and Emerging Technologies for Reducing 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum 

Refining Industry,’’ October 2010, both available at 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html. 

promulgation of the original MACT 

standards. In addition, EPA is required 

to perform a technology review of 

advancement in processes, practices and 

control requirements every eight years 

after promulgation of the MACT. EPA is 

planning to issue a single rulemaking 

that will address the RTR analyses for 

both MACT 1 and 2. 

Finally, on March 21, 2011 EPA 

published MACT standards for 

Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 

and on January 31, 2013 EPA finalized 

revisions to those standards based on 

reconsideration.376 These standards 

apply to boilers and process heaters at 

refineries. Because any changes that are 

made to meet new requirements of these 

rulemakings would likely reduce rather 

than increase refinery emissions, we do 

not expect these modifications to trigger 

NSR unless a refinery chooses to 

increase the capacity of one or more of 

its units at the same time.377 This means 

that we expect the final rules would not 

themselves increase the major NSR 

workload for refinery environmental 

permitting staffs or for permitting 

agencies in the same period that these 

organizations need to prepare and 

process permit applications related to 

the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. 

(Minor NSR permitting workload may 

be affected.) 

6. Steps for Streamlining the Permitting 

Process 

As we did for Tier 2, we could 

organize a Headquarters-Regional 

response team to monitor and address 

any delays in permitting by facilitating 

coordination among organizations 

where needed to resolve permitting 

issues. The mission of this team would 

also include tracking the overall 

progress in permit issuance and 

assisting state and local permitting 

authorities, refineries, and the public 

upon request to resolve site-specific 

permitting issues. The team would be 

comprised of EPA staff knowledgeable 

about permitting programs and refinery 

operations, so the team could provide 

expert assistance and troubleshoot 

permitting issues in a timely fashion. 

We invite comment from refineries, 

permitting authorities, and others 

regarding the usefulness of such a team. 

We will continue to maintain and 

refine the tools and resources that have 

proven useful to permit applicants and 

permitting authorities, such as the 

RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse, the 

Support Center for Regulatory 

Atmospheric Modeling, and our webbased resources on GHG permitting. 

These GHG permitting resources 

include various materials on the topic of 

BACT for GHG, including white papers 

and copies of our comments on recent 

draft permits proposed by state and 

local permitting agencies.378 One of the 

white papers, described previously in 

Section V.B.4, addresses petroleum 

refining, and provides information on 

control techniques and measures that 

are available to mitigate GHG emissions 

in order to assist states and local air 

pollution control agencies, tribal 

authorities, and regulated entities in 

implementing technologies or measures 

to reduce GHGs under the CAA, 

particularly in permitting under the PSD 

program and the assessment of BACT. 

We believe the guidance we provided 

on BACT and LAER for NOX and VOC 

shortly after the final Tier 2 rule was not 

widely utilized by either refineries or 

permitting authorities. Nevertheless, we 

invite comment on whether additional 

guidance on BACT and LAER for these 

and other NAAQS-related pollutants 

would be useful to support permitting 

for Tier 3-related modifications as well 

as the appropriate scope and substance 

of such guidance. We anticipate that if 

we do develop any new BACT/LAER 

guidance, we would provide an 

opportunity for public comment on the 

draft guidance before finalizing it. 

For Tier 3-related NSR permit 

applications submitted to EPA Regional 

Offices, we will assist members of the 

local communities in understanding the 

applications and our proposed permits, 

in offering comment, and participating 

in our decisions. We also encourage 

similar assistance efforts by the state 

and local permitting authorities, and we 

invite comment on the specific forms 

that our and their support should take. 

EPA received comments during the 

Tier 2 rulemaking that vehicle 

emissions reductions should be allowed 

to be used as part of ‘‘netting out’’ of 

NSR. This concept is now relevant to 

GHG emissions, in addition to the 

NAAQS-related pollutants to which it 

was relevant at the time of the Tier 2 

rulemaking. At that time we responded 

to the comments by saying that the use 

of vehicle emissions reductions for 

netting purposes was not permitted by 

the NSR regulations, since the creditable 

emissions reductions used for netting 

purposes must result from reductions 

occurring at the modified source. We 

noted, for example, that the definition of 

net emissions increase in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(3)(i) includes only increases 

and decreases occurring ‘‘at the source’’. 

We believe this provision in the NSR 

rules is well founded in the CAA. 

Setting aside the issue of whether we 

have authority to change this provision, 

the potential consequences of changing 

it to allow the use of non-source 

emissions reductions in ‘‘netting out’’ of 

NSR would be far reaching. We are not 

proposing such a change as part of this 

rulemaking, and we believe that any 

proposal for such a change should be 

based on a much better assessment of its 

possible implications than can be 

accomplished as part of this rulemaking. 

We also note that ‘‘netting out’’ of NSR 

could be a complex and often timeconsuming process because all 

contemporaneous emissions increases 

and decreases within the refinery must 

be properly accounted for, so the ability 

to use vehicle emissions reductions in 

the netting analysis would not 

automatically make ‘‘netting out’’ a 

time-saving shortcut around the 

permitting process that would otherwise 

apply. Nevertheless, we invite comment 

regarding how critical such a change 

may be to successful permitting of the 

modifications needed to comply with 

the proposed Tier 3 program, possible 

legal rationales for such a change, and 

the possible implications beyond the 

Tier 3 rule including ways to limit such 

implications by making the change 

specific to vehicle emissions reductions 

that are closely linked to changes in fuel 

properties that result from the refinery 

modifications. 

Finally, we invite comment on issues 

related to state and local minor source 

NSR programs and how they may relate 

to implementation of the proposed Tier 

3 fuel program. EPA rules give states 

wide latitude in the design and 

operation of their minor source 

programs, and we do not routinely 

require states to report their minor 

source permitting activity to us. 

Therefore, focused comments on this 

issue would be helpful. 

C. Standards for Denatured Fuel 

Ethanol and Other Oxygenates 

Current gasoline requirements include 

the prohibition on blending gasoline 

with denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that 

has sulfur content higher than 30 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29936 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

379 40 CFR 80.385(e). 

380California Code of Regulations, Title 13, 

Section 2262.9, ‘‘Requirements Regarding 

Denatured Ethanol Intended For Use as a Blend 

Component in California Gasoline’’. 

381The current California requirements which are 

based on a maximum 5 percent denaturant level in 

DFE are as follows: maximum 1.1 volume percent 

benzene, maximum 10 volume percent olefins, and 

maximum 35 volume percent aromatics. ASTM 

International Standard D4806–11(a), ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for 

Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel’’ requires that the 

maximum denaturant concentration in DFE is 5 

volume percent. 

382RFA publication entitled ‘‘Fuel Ethanol, 

Industry Guidelines, Specifications and 

Procedures,’’ 2011. 

383For example, Aventine Renewable Energy 

Fuel-Grade Ethanol specifications at http:// 

www.aventinerei.com/pdfs/fuel_grade_spec.pdf. 

384ASTM International D4806–11(a), ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Denatured Ethanol for Blending 

with Gasolines for Use as Automotive SparkIgnition Engine Fuel’’. 

385See the definition of Renewable Fuel in 40 

CFR 80.1401. 

ppm.379 This requirement reflects the 

current 30-ppm refinery average sulfur 

requirement. Consistent with this 

requirement and our proposed 

introduction of a 10-ppm refinery 

average sulfur standard, we propose that 

manufacturers of DFE for use by 

oxygenate blenders would be required 

to meet a 10-ppm sulfur cap. 

California’s requirements for DFE, 

which became effective in December 

2003, are as follows: maximum 10 ppm 

sulfur, maximum 0.06 volume percent 

benzene, maximum 0.5 volume percent 

olefins, and maximum 1.7 volume 

percent aromatics.380 Denaturants used 

to manufacture DFE must also meet 

maximum benzene, olefins, and 

aromatics specifications that are based 

on the anticipated dilution ratio when 

blended with ethanol.381 Additionally, 

in July 2002, the Renewable Fuel 

Association (RFA) recommended that 

all ethanol produced for use in the U.S. 

should be manufactured in accordance 

with the California specifications 

primarily because of logistical 

difficulties in segregating ethanol 

destined for California from other 

destinations.382 RFA recently indicated 

that all ethanol producers are adhering 

to this recommendation. Some DFE 

marketers have also adopted California’s 

DFE requirements as part of their 

specifications.383 Consequently, we 

believe that the implementation of a 10- 

ppm sulfur cap for DFE would not result 

in increased burden to ethanol 

producers. We are proposing it to 

reduce emissions from motor vehicles, 

the same reason we are proposing a 

more stringent sulfur standard for 

gasoline into which it is blended. 

Further, the ASTM International 

specification for DFE allows only 

natural gasoline, gasoline blendstocks, 

and gasoline as denaturants.384 Similar 

to the ASTM specifications, we are 

proposing to require that only natural 

gasoline, gasoline, and gasoline 

blendstocks for oxygenate blending 

(BOB) be used as ethanol denaturants. 

We believe that this limitation is needed 

to prevent the use of other denaturants 

that might adversely impact vehicle 

emissions performance. We believe that 

the ASTM specifications are already in 

use by industry and, therefore, EPA’s 

adoption of the same specifications 

would not result in an increased burden 

to DFE producers. We further believe 

that limiting the type of gasoline 

blendstocks that can be used as 

denaturant to BOBs would not impose 

a new burden on DFE producers since 

other gasoline blendstocks would not 

typically be available to DFE producers. 

We request comment on whether there 

should be an allowance for other 

gasoline blendstocks to be used as 

ethanol denaturants. 

With regard to benzene, olefins, and 

aromatics, we believe that these 

proposed requirements along with 

Internal Revenue Service ethanol 

denaturant requirements would limit 

benzene, olefins, and aromatics content 

of DFE to very low levels. Therefore, we 

are not proposing any limits on these 

parameters in DFE. Nevertheless, we are 

requesting comments on whether we 

should adopt the State of California’s 

benzene, olefin, and aromatics 

specifications for DFE. We are also 

proposing to limit the maximum 

concentration of denaturant that can be 

used in DFE to 2 volume percent. Under 

the RFS2 regulations, if the denaturant 

level is 2 volume percent or less 

(effectively less than 2.5 volume percent 

considering rounding) the entire volume 

of denatured fuel ethanol can be used 

for determining compliance with the 

RFS2 renewable fuel volume 

requirements.385

We also request comment on whether 

to require manufacturers of denaturants 

for use in DFE to register with EPA, and 

demonstrate compliance with the 

maximum sulfur, benzene, olefins, and 

aromatics specifications enforced in the 

State of California based on the 

anticipated dilution with ethanol. We 

believe that such additional 

requirements on the denaturants used to 

manufacture DFE would not be 

necessary given that DFE producers 

would be required to meet the proposed 

specifications and the proposed 

requirement that denaturant 

concentration in DFE be limited to a 

maximum of 2 volume percent. 

We propose that producers of DFE 

would be required to meet the proposed 

fuel quality requirements for their 

product and provide batch reports to 

EPA. This is similar to the requirements 

for gasoline refiners. This approach 

would provide an appropriate level of 

assurance on the quality of DFE which 

has become such a large component in 

the gasoline fuel pool. We believe that 

this approach would not result in 

additional burden to ethanol producers 

beyond the annual batch reports that 

they would need to submit to EPA and 

the information they provide on product 

transfer documents (PTDs). Currently, 

under the fuel and fuel additives 

registration requirements at 40 CFR part 

79, manufacturers of DFE are required to 

register their products with EPA prior to 

introducing DFE into commerce. Also, 

DFE producers currently test each batch 

of their product in order to provide 

assurance to blenders that it meets the 

current fuel quality requirements. This 

information is critical to ethanol 

blenders to avoid testing each batch of 

an ethanol blend that they manufacture. 

The proposed requirements would 

facilitate unfettered downstream ethanol 

blending. 

We are also proposing that the 

proposed fuel quality specifications and 

requirements for DFE (except those 

related to the use of denaturants) would 

apply to other oxygenates used in 

gasoline. We are proposing that the 

oxygenate quality requirements would 

become effective for oxygenate 

producers/importers on January 1, 2017. 

We are proposing that oxygenate 

producers and importers would be 

required to register by December 1, 

2016, or 30 days prior to the date when 

they produce/import oxygenate (which 

ever date is later). Registration under the 

RFS program would be sufficient to 

fulfill this proposed requirement. We 

are proposing that oxygenate blenders 

be required to begin using oxygenates 

that comply with the proposed 

requirements beginning March 1, 2017. 

We also seek comment on the ability of 

these blenders to comply with the 

proposed requirements earlier, and 

appropriateness of such an earlier 

compliance date. 

D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible 

Fueled Vehicles 

FFVs are vehicles that are capable of 

operating on both gasoline and gasoline 

blends containing up to 85 volume 

percent denatured ethanol. Whether 

FFVs are operating on clear gasoline 

(E0), E85, or any level of ethanol in 

between, to maintain emission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29937 

386The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

has a program to assist in the funding for the 

installation of as many as 10,000 ethanol blender 

pumps over the next 15 years in rural areas. Growth 

Energy has a ‘‘Blend Your Own Ethanol’’ program 

to encourage the installation of ethanol blender 

pumps. 

387 73 FR 22277, 22281 (April 25, 2008). 

388Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach 

to Fuel Quality Standards for Fuel Used in FlexibleFuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), 

Memorandum to the docket. 

389ASTM International D5798–11, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Flexible-Fuel Automotive SparkIgnition Engines’’. 390Letter to Robert Sydney, Division of Energy 

Resources, Boston, MA, from James Caldwell, U.S. 

EPA, February 15, 2006. 

391ASTM International D4806–11(a), ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Denatured Ethanol for Blending 

with Gasolines for Use as Automotive SparkIgnition Engine Fuel’’. 

392 In August of 2011 the retail price of E85 was 

approximately 60 cents per gallon more than 

gasoline on an energy content adjusted basis. 

393Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach 

to Fuel Quality Standards for Fuel Used in FlexibleFuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), 

Memorandum to the docket. 

performance the vehicles still need the 

fuel to meet certain quality 

specifications, such as the 10-ppm 

average gasoline sulfur standard 

proposed today. We anticipate that the 

volume of higher level ethanol blends 

used in FFVs may increase substantially 

as the volume requirements of the RFS 

program increase. Significant public and 

private initiatives are also currently 

underway to expand the use of ethanol 

blender pumps that dispense a variety 

of ethanol blends for use in FFVs.386

Therefore it is becoming increasingly 

important that all fuels used in FFVs, 

not just gasoline, meet fuel quality 

standards. A lack of clarity regarding the 

standards that apply to fuels used in 

FFVs could act to impede the further 

expansion of ethanol blended fuels, 

which is important to satisfying the 

requirements of the RFS program. For 

these reasons, we believe it is important 

that our gasoline quality standards for 

not just sulfur, but also benzene, Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP), detergency, and 

compliance with the interpretive rule 

defining the phrase ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ in CAA section 211(f)(1) 387

(i.e., contain only carbon, hydrogen, 

oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur) apply to 

any fuel used in an FFV. At the same 

time, it is not necessarily clear how we 

should implement such standards 

within the context of our existing 

regulations. For this reason we are 

seeking comment on appropriate 

regulatory mechanisms for doing so. 

The following sections discuss potential 

approaches for gasoline-ethanol blends 

both above and below 50 percent 

ethanol. We have also developed a 

possible approach, along with draft 

regulations, that are included in the 

docket on which we specifically seek 

comment.388

1. Standards for E51–83 

Historically, ‘‘E85’’ has been used to 

describe fuel blends containing gasoline 

and ethanol with a minimum and 

maximum ethanol content of 68 volume 

percent and 83 volume percent, 

respectively. The recent update to the 

ASTM International specification for 

‘‘E85’’ included a reduction in the 

minimum ethanol concentration to 51 

volume percent.389 As part of the 

updated specification, ASTM retired the 

name ‘‘E85’’ in favor of ‘‘ethanol fuel 

blends for flexible-fuel automotive 

spark-ignition engines.’’ ASTM took this 

action because the term ‘‘E85’’ has 

caused confusion regarding the 

variability in the ethanol content 

depending upon seasonal climactic 

conditions and regional gasoline 

volatility specifications. For the 

purposes of this discussion, ‘‘E51–83’’ 

refers to the fuel which meets the new 

ASTM D5798–11 specifications. 

Currently, only reformulated gasoline 

blendstocks for oxygenate blending 

(RBOBs) and gasoline that has 

previously been demonstrated to 

comply with applicable EPA 

specifications (reformulated gasoline 

(RFG) and conventional gasoline (CG)) 

are used to manufacture E51–83.390 The 

Agency believes that the use of these 

blendstocks prevents inappropriate 

blending components (e.g., chemical 

wastes) from being used in the 

production of E51–83. Use of these 

blendstocks would also help ensure that 

E51–83 meets the necessary sulfur 

levels we are proposing today. We note, 

however, that use of only these 

blendstocks is interfering with 

expansion of E51–83 into the 

marketplace by preventing blends at the 

upper range of the allowed ethanol 

content. At higher ethanol 

concentrations, blenders often cannot 

meet the minimum volatility 

specifications set by ASTM for cold start 

performance when using only BOBs and 

gasoline. Prior to the recent update of 

the ASTM specifications, it was 

frequently not possible to manufacture 

‘‘E85’’ that met both the ASTM 

minimum volatility specification and 

the EPA requirements regarding the 

blendstocks that can be used. As a 

result, some marketers discontinued 

distributing ‘‘E85.’’ Although the ASTM 

update provided a compliance method 

for manufacturing E51–83, the result is 

that less ethanol can be used in FFVs, 

because the ethanol concentration is 

forced down from 83 percent toward the 

51 percent minimum. 

To address this situation, we believe 

that we need to prescribe requirements 

for E51–83 that would enable the 

continued expansion into the 

marketplace. We believe that such 

requirements could focus more on the 

product and less on how it is made. We 

also believe that E51–83 should meet 

the same sulfur, RVP, and benzene 

standards otherwise applicable to 

gasoline as well as the ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ requirements. We are therefore 

seeking comments on whether we could 

extend these requirements to E51–83. 

We note that establishing such 

requirements could allow the use of 

butane and natural gasoline liquids 

(NGL) to manufacture E51–83 with 

sufficient volatility to meet the ASTM 

specifications. Butane is commonly 

blended into gasoline and NGL is the 

denaturant specified by ASTM for the 

manufacture of DFE.391 Additionally, 

because NGL and butane are less 

expensive than gasoline or BOBs, we 

anticipate that such a change could help 

to reduce the price of E51–83 relative to 

finished gasoline.392

Further, we note that requiring E51– 

83 to meet the same standards as 

gasoline would subject E51–83 

manufacturers to all the sampling, 

testing, and reporting obligations of 

refiners. While this would provide 

maximum blending flexibility, it could 

also limit the parties that might choose 

to blend E51–83. Currently oxygenate 

blenders are exempt from much of this 

regulatory burden. For this reason, we 

are also seeking comments on whether 

we could establish requirements that 

would allow producers of E51–83 to 

avoid the compliance burdens of a 

refiner. We are seeking comments on 

one such approach that would require 

the use of only blendstocks that meet 

certain specifications to produce E51– 

83. We believe that use of only 

blendstocks (including butane and NGL) 

that meet these specifications would 

ensure the final blend would always 

meet the standards. These approaches 

are discussed in greater detail in the 

docket for this rulemaking.393 We seek 

comment on these approaches, and any 

other approaches that could be used to 

remove hurdles for blending of E51–83 

while still ensuring the product meets 

the fuel quality requirements needed to 

maintain vehicle emission performance. 

2. Standards for Mid-Level Ethanol 

Blends (E16–50) 

As discussed earlier, whether FFVs 

are operating on clear gasoline (E0), E85, 

or any level of ethanol in between, to 

maintain emission performance these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29938 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

395Report on Ethanol Producers Survey, 

Presented at the California Phase 3 Reformulated 

Gasoline Regulation Workshop, June 15, 2000, Carl 

Reeder, Archer Daniels Midland. 396 40 CFR 80.330, 80.335, 80.365, and 80.370. 397Under the proposed Tier 3 program, as 

explained in Section V.C, we are requiring fuel 

ethanol producers to comply with the 10-ppm 

standard. However, for the reasons discussed above, 

we still do not believe it is appropriate to allow 

them to generate sulfur credits under the proposed 

ABT program. 

vehicles still need the fuel to meet 

certain quality specifications. For this 

reason, we believe it is important that 

higher ethanol blends also meet the 

same standards that apply to gasoline. 

Our various standards for gasoline 

already apply to any fuel sold for use in 

motor vehicles, which is commonly or 

commercially known or sold as 

gasoline. In the fuel and fuel additive 

registration program, the gasoline family 

includes fuels composed of at least 50 

percent clear gasoline by volume.394 As 

a result, our gasoline standards already 

apply to E16–50 ethanol blends. And 

yet, such fuels currently can only be 

used in FFVs. Therefore, in addition to 

seeking comment on the need to have 

E16–50 blends comply with the gasoline 

sulfur, benzene, and RVP standards, we 

also seek comment on the means of 

doing so. For example, can and should 

the Agency simply treat E16–50 as 

gasoline under our regulations and 

clarify that gasoline means any fuel that 

contains 50 percent or more gasoline? 

Alternatively, should the Agency treat 

E16–50 as an alternative fuel used in 

FFVs? In which case we seek comment 

on whether we should take the same 

approach for E16–50 as discussed above 

for E51–83 with respect to sulfur, 

benzene, RVP standards, and 

substantially similar requirements 

under section 211(f). 

In the context of considering whether 

and how to apply gasoline standards 

and requirements to E16–50 we also 

seek comment on whether it might be an 

appropriate reading of our regulatory 

and statutory authority to allow E16 to 

E50 blends to have higher RVP levels 

than otherwise required by our 

regulations for gasoline. As the ethanol 

level increases, the volatility increase 

caused by blending ethanol with 

gasoline begins to decline, such that at 

E30 there is only about a 0.5-psi RVP 

increase. While still an increase 

compared to the standards that apply to 

gasoline other than E9–10, it is 

considerably less than the full 1-psi RVP 

increase that results at E10. The 

evaporative emission increase caused by 

E30 would then be less than for E10. 

Thus, we seek comment on whether it 

would be an appropriate reading of our 

regulatory and statutory authority to 

allow higher RVP levels for such blends, 

at least in some limited situations and 

time frames (e.g., using existing 

regulatory research exemptions for 

demonstration programs) where new 

efforts are being made to introduce such 

blends into the market. We further seek 

comment on data that might help 

quantify both the evaporative and 

exhaust emission impacts necessary to 

support any such action. 

E. Proposed Program Flexibilities 

1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading 

Program 

As mentioned in Section V.A.2.b, we 

are proposing an ABT program which 

reduces the cost and promotes the 

feasibility of the program by allowing 

refiners and importers to choose the 

most economical compliance strategy 

(investment in technology, credits, or 

both) to meet the proposed Tier 3 

average gasoline sulfur standard. The 

program allows refiners and importers 

to generate standard credits for 

overcompliance with the 10-ppm sulfur 

standard beginning in 2017. These 

credits could be generated indefinitely 

and banked or transferred to others for 

compliance with the average sulfur 

standard. The proposed program also 

permits refiners and importers to 

generate early credits for 

overcompliance with today’s 30-ppm 

average sulfur standard from 2014 to 

2016. Early credits may be used towards 

compliance with the 10-ppm standard 

beginning in 2017, banked for use 

through 2019, and/or transferred to 

other refiners or importers subject to the 

sulfur standard. 

a. Eligibility 

Under the ABT program, we are 

proposing that U.S. refiners who 

produce gasoline by processing crude 

oil and/or intermediate feedstocks 

through refinery processing units are 

eligible to generate both early credits 

(2014–2016) and standard credits (2017 

and later). As proposed, importers are 

also eligible to generate both early and 

standard sulfur credits on gasoline 

imported into the United States. 

We are proposing that sulfur credits 

may only be generated for gasoline that 

is subject to the proposed sulfur 

requirements as described at § 80.1603. 

This excludes gasoline designated for 

export. It also excludes California 

gasoline (gasoline produced or imported 

for use in California) but includes 

gasoline produced by California 

refineries for use outside the state. 

Although California gasoline is not 

covered by our proposed sulfur 

program, we seek comment on whether 

to include California gasoline in the 

ongoing ABT program under Tier 3 (not 

the early credit program). The result 

would be a national 10-ppm average 

gasoline sulfur standard. This approach 

could provide some additional 

compliance flexibility to refiners, but it 

would also require reporting of batch 

data to EPA for California gasoline. 

We have received inquiries whether 

fuel ethanol producers or blenders 

should be eligible to generate credits 

under the proposed gasoline sulfur 

program. Denatured fuel ethanol 

currently contains around 9 ppm sulfur 

on average, ranging anywhere from 2 to 

almost 30 ppm.395 While certain batches 

of ethanol could theoretically be low 

enough in sulfur to generate credits, it 

is our desire to limit credit generation 

to companies required to comply with 

the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, 

i.e., refiners and importers. Experience 

in the unleaded gasoline program 

suggests widespread abuse and fraud 

when credits have been allowed to be 

generated or sold by non-obligated 

parties. Thus, in order to allow ethanol 

producers (or blenders) to generate 

sulfur credits under Tier 3, they would 

need to be treated as refiners and subject 

to our batch testing, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements for the 

finished gasoline they produce.396

Currently, downstream blenders are 

exempt from these regulations because 

the certification and compliance burden 

is being borne by the upstream 

refiners.397 Furthermore, since many 

refiners currently comply with our 

standards taking into consideration the 

fuel property changes expected as a 

result of downstream ethanol blending, 

providing ethanol blenders with sulfur 

credit would result in double counting 

the effects of ethanol. To avoid this, we 

would need to restructure our gasoline 

regulations to shift the point of 

compliance to the many terminals and 

bulk plants where ethanol is blended 

and finished gasoline is produced 

instead of the refinery gate. While 

possible, this would significantly 

expand the amount of sampling, testing, 

recordkeeping, and reporting required to 

demonstrate compliance with our 

gasoline standards. It would also 

considerably expand the amount of 

sampling, testing, recordkeeping, and 

reporting required of ethanol blenders. 

As discussed in Section V.C, we are 

proposing a cap of 10 ppm on the sulfur 

content of denatured fuel ethanol (DFE). 

Over compliance with the per-gallon 

cap would not be a valid basis for credit 

generation, as you would expect that in 

all cases the DFE would be below the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29939 

cap. To allow credit generation, we 

would need to propose an additional 

annual average sulfur standard for DFE 

at some level below 10 ppm, and allow 

credits to be generated for over 

compliance with that standard. 

Accordingly, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to allow ethanol producers 

or blenders to generate sulfur credits 

under the proposed gasoline sulfur 

program. 

b. Standard Credit Generation 

Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are 

proposing standard credit generation 

provisions similar to those offered 

under Tier 2 as well as the MSAT2 

gasoline benzene program. We are 

proposing an ongoing sulfur credit 

program that would allow refiners and 

importers to average within and across 

companies to meet the new 10-ppm 

average sulfur standard in the most costeffective manner possible. Refiners and 

importers could generate standard 

credits for overcomplying with the 10- 

ppm standard on a volume-weighted 

annual average basis beginning January 

1, 2017. Standard credit generation 

periods would be 12 months long and 

synchronized with compliance 

demonstration periods. 

We are proposing that small refiners 

and small volume refineries could 

generate standard credits beginning 

with the start of their program on 

January 1, 2020. Eligible small refining 

entities could also generate standard 

credits for over compliance with the 10- 

ppm standard from January 1, 2017 

through December 31, 2019 by 

voluntarily opting in to the Tier 3 sulfur 

program during a time period when it 

would otherwise not apply. Regardless 

of whether they were generated early or 

not, all standard credits generated by 

small refiners and small volume 

refineries would be subject to the credit 

life provisions described in Section 

V.E.1.d. For a summary of the small 

refiner and small volume refinery ABT 

provisions, refer to Section V.E.1.f. 

c. Early Credit Generation 

To encourage early gasoline 

desulfurization and give the refining 

industry flexibility to stagger their 

investments over time, we are proposing 

that refiners and importers could also 

generate early credits for overcomplying 

with today’s 30-ppm gasoline sulfur 

standard on a volume-weighted annual 

average basis from January 1, 2014 

through December 31, 2016. Under the 

ABT program, we are proposing that 

refiners and importers would not need 

to establish a gasoline sulfur baseline or 

meet a trigger point in order to generate 

early credits. They would simply need 

to demonstrate that their average U.S. 

gasoline sulfur levels are below today’s 

30-ppm Tier 2 standard during the early 

credit generation period. We believe this 

simple early credit approach is possible 

because U.S. gasoline is currently 

averaging around 30 ppm today based 

on compliance data. Since during the 

proposed early credit generation period 

refiners and importers would need to 

continue to comply with the existing 

Tier 2 sulfur standards, absent Tier 3, 

they would need to maintain this level 

of performance on an industry average 

basis. Accordingly, any additional 

gasoline sulfur reductions beyond 30 

ppm could thus be attributed to the 

proposed Tier 3 program. 

Refiners and importers supplying 

gasoline containing less than 30 ppm 

sulfur from January 1, 2014 through 

December 31, 2016 could choose from 

generating either standard credits under 

the existing Tier 2 program or early 

credits under the proposed Tier 3 

program, but not both (at least not for 

the same volume of gasoline). Sulfur 

credits would be generated on an annual 

average basis. Refiners and importers 

could make the decision at the end of 

the year whether credits generated in 

2014, 2015 or 2016 would be more 

valuable used/traded to comply with the 

Tier 2 program or banked for the Tier 3 

program. Some year-end credits could 

be designated as Tier 2 and some 

designated as Tier 3 provided the same 

volume of gasoline was only used to 

generate one type of credit. We believe 

that the proposed early credit program 

structure is the simplest approach to 

giving refiners and importers incentive 

for doing more sulfur control earlier 

than required and providing additional 

lead time to meet the Tier 3 annual 

average standard. We seek comments on 

alternative ways to structure the early 

credit program to help ease the 

transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3. 

Under past fuel programs (e.g., 

MSAT2), we precluded importers from 

generating early credits under the 

premise that they did not need 

additional lead time to comply with our 

fuel standards because, most likely, they 

would not be investing in new refining 

technologies. We also thought it would 

be difficult for them to establish 

representative baselines from which 

early credits could be generated. Since 

we are not proposing early credit 

baselines under Tier 3, as discussed 

above, we are proposing to allow 

importers to generate early credits for 

sending over-compliant gasoline to the 

United States prior to the start of the 

program, but seek comment on the 

appropriateness of doing so. 

d. Credit Life Provisions 

Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are 

proposing that early credits must be 

used towards compliance within three 

years from the start of the program; 

otherwise they would expire and 

become invalid. In other words, early 

credits must be applied towards the 

2017, 2018 or 2019 compliance years. 

After February 29, 2020, all early credits 

would expire and become invalid. The 

proposed three-year early credit life 

provision would offer considerable 

flexibility to refiners phasing in Tier 3 

gasoline sulfur controls while still 

placing a 2020 end date at which point 

the intended sulfur program is fully 

implemented and enforceable. It would 

provide a date certain by when auto 

manufacturers could have confidence 

for the design of their vehicles that all 

vehicles in-use are running on 10 ppm 

average fuel. Otherwise, it is possible 

that the greater ease of generating early 

credits relative to 30 ppm sulfur (as 

opposed to 10 ppm in 2017 and beyond) 

could allow higher sulfur levels to 

continue well beyond 2019. Refiners 

that are able to generate early credits 

may choose to hold onto them for later 

use, rather than trade them to other 

refiners who may need them sooner. 

The proposed three-year early credit life 

provision would also be consistent with 

the duration of the small volume 

refinery provisions described below. We 

seek comment on the lifetime of early 

credits and the implications on in-use 

sulfur levels beyond 2019 should we 

allow them to have a longer credit life. 

We are proposing that standard 

credits must be used within five years 

from the year they were generated 

(regardless of when/if they are traded); 

otherwise they would expire and 

become invalid. For example, standard 

credits generated in 2017 could be 

applied towards 2018–2022 compliance, 

as well as 2017 compliance. After 

February 28, 2023, standard credits 

generated in 2017 would expire and 

become invalid. Similarly, standard 

credits generated in 2018 could be 

applied towards 2019–2023 compliance, 

as well as 2018 compliance. After 

February 29, 2024, standard credits 

generated in 2018 would expire, and so 

on and so forth. 

We believe the five-year standard 

credit life provision, when final, would 

give refiners and importers sufficient 

time to use credits generated in previous 

years while still placing limitations on 

credit life that would help with 

enforcement. Five years is consistent 

with the proposed recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements (described in 

more detail in Section V.F.1) as well as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29940 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the current Tier 2 and MSAT2 standard 

credit life provisions. 

e. Credit Trading Provisions 

It is possible that sulfur credits could 

be generated by one party, subsequently 

transferred or used in good faith by 

another, and later found to have been 

calculated or created improperly or 

otherwise determined to be invalid. If 

this occurs, as in past fuel programs, we 

are proposing that both the seller and 

purchaser would have to adjust their 

sulfur calculations to reflect the proper 

credits and either party (or both) could 

be determined to be in violation of the 

standards and other requirements if the 

adjusted calculations demonstrate 

noncompliance with the 10-ppm 

standard. 

Under the proposed Tier 3 ABT 

program, sulfur credits must be 

transferred directly from the refiner or 

importer generating them to the party 

using them for compliance purposes. 

This ensures that the parties purchasing 

them are better able to assess the 

likelihood that the credits are valid. An 

exception exists where a credit 

generator transfers credits to a refiner or 

importer who inadvertently cannot use 

all the credits. In this case, the credits 

could be transferred a second time to 

another refiner or importer. After the 

second trade, the credits must be used 

or they would be terminated. Allowing 

a maximum of two trades is consistent 

with other recent fuel programs and we 

believe it is sufficiently flexible while 

still preserving adequate means for 

enforcement. Nonetheless, we seek 

comment on the need for allowing more 

than two trades for sulfur credits under 

the proposed Tier 3 program. 

There are currently no prohibitions 

against brokers facilitating the transfer 

of credits from one party to another. 

Any person can act as a credit broker, 

regardless of whether such person is a 

refiner or importer, as long as the title 

to the credits is transferred directly from 

the generating refiner or importer to the 

using refiner or importer. This 

prohibition on outside parties taking 

ownership of credits was promulgated 

in response to problems encountered 

during the unleaded gasoline program 

and has since appeared in subsequent 

fuels rulemakings. Maintaining this 

prohibition would allow for maximum 

program enforceability and consistency 

with all of our other ABT programs for 

mobile sources and their fuels. 

Nonetheless, we seek comment on the 

need for this restriction under the 

proposed Tier 3 program. 

f. Summary of ABT Provisions for Small 

Refiners and Small Volume Refineries 

We are proposing that small refiners 

and small volume refineries would have 

an additional three years to comply with 

the 10-ppm annual average standard, or 

until January 1, 2020. This is the 

primary form of relief offered to small 

refining entities under the proposed 

Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. The 

proposed credit provisions are similar to 

those offered to non-small refiners. 

Eligible small refiners and small volume 

refineries would be able to generate 

early credits for overcomplying with the 

30-ppm Tier 2 standard from January 1, 

2014 through December 31, 2016. Like 

non-small refiners, they would need to 

make the decision whether these credits 

would be more valuable under the Tier 

2 program or the proposed Tier 3 

program. While early credits could help 

postpone investments by up to three 

years, they could not be used by small 

refiners or small refineries to postpone 

sulfur investments beyond their January 

1, 2020 start date. However, early 

credits generated by small entities from 

2014–2016 could be traded/sold to nonsmall refiners subject to the January 1, 

2017 standard and the credit revenues 

could be used to help offset their Tier 

3 investments. 

As explained above, small refiners 

and small volume refineries could 

generate standard credits relative to the 

10-ppm standard beginning with the 

start of their program on January 1, 

2020. Eligible small refining entities 

could also generate standard credits for 

over compliance with the 10-ppm 

standard from January 1, 2017 through 

December 31, 2019 by voluntarily 

opting in to the Tier 3 sulfur program 

earlier than required. Regulatory 

flexibility provisions offered to small 

refiners and small volume refineries are 

described in more detail below. 

2. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions 

a. Small Business Regulatory Flexibility 

Provisions 

As in previous fuel rulemakings, our 

justification for including provisions 

specific to small businesses is that these 

entities generally have a greater degree 

of difficulty in complying with the 

standards compared to other entities. 

In developing the proposed Tier 3 

gasoline sulfur program, we evaluated 

the environmental need as well as the 

technical and financial ability of 

refiners and others in the fuel industry 

to meet the sulfur standards as 

expeditiously as possible. We believe it 

is feasible and necessary for the vast 

majority of the program to be 

implemented in the established time 

frame to achieve the air quality benefits 

as soon as possible. Based on 

information available from small 

refiners and others, we believe that 

entities classified as small generally face 

unique circumstances with regard to 

compliance with environmental 

programs, compared to larger entities. 

Thus, as discussed below, we are 

proposing several regulatory flexibility 

provisions for small entities in the fuels 

industry to reduce the burden that our 

proposed program could have on them. 

Small entities generally lack the 

resources that are available to larger 

companies, including those large 

companies that own small-capacity 

refineries, to raise capital for investing 

in a new regulatory program, such as 

shifting of internal funds, securing of 

financing, or selling of assets. Small 

entities are also likely to have more 

difficulty in competing for any needed 

engineering and construction resources. 

As such, we are proposing provisions 

that would provide assistance for small 

entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 

standards. This proposed approach 

would allow the overall program to 

begin as early as possible; achieving the 

air quality benefits of the program as 

soon as possible, while helping to 

ensure that small entities have adequate 

time to raise capital for new fuel 

desulfurization equipment or to make 

any other needed changes. We believe 

that small business regulatory 

flexibilities could provide these entities 

with additional help and/or time to 

accumulate capital internally or to 

secure capital financing from lenders, 

and could spread out the availability of 

any needed engineering and 

construction resources. 

i. Delayed Standards for Small Refiners 

As explained in Sections V.A.1.c and 

V.E.1.f, we are proposing an option that 

would allow small refiners to postpone 

compliance with the Tier 3 program for 

up to three years. This delayed 

compliance schedule for small refiners 

is not intended as an opportunity for 

those refiners to greatly expand their 

production of >10 ppm sulfur gasoline, 

but rather would help small refiners 

with compliance with the program. 

Since the compliance costs for their 

competitors would rise during these 

three years and since their gasoline 

would be sold into the same fungible 

market, this delay would not only 

provide them more lead time, but also 

financial support towards later 

compliance. Small refiners choosing 

this option would have from January 1, 

2017 through December 31, 2019 to 

continue production of gasoline with an 

average sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29941 

Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). 

Compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur 

standard would begin on January 1, 

2020. Any small refiner choosing this 

option would be allowed to continue 

using Tier 2 gasoline sulfur credits 

through December 31, 2019 to meet 

their refinery average 30-ppm sulfur 

standard (however, these credits may 

not be used for compliance with the 

proposed Tier 3 10-ppm average sulfur 

standard). 

ii. Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps 

During the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

Panel process, small refiners raised the 

concern that a refinery gate cap of 20 

ppm could cause problems during a 

refinery turnaround or an upset because 

a cap of this level could result in a 

refiner not being able to produce 

saleable gasoline. The Panel likewise 

had concerns that a downstream cap of 

25 ppm may cause problems for small 

downstream entities such as transmix 

processors because, as they noted in 

their comments during the Panel 

process, transmix processors may not be 

able to reprocess finished gasoline down 

to this level. Thus, the Panel 

recommended that EPA assess and 

request comment on retaining the 

current Tier 2 refinery gate and 

downstream caps of 80 and 95 ppm, 

respectively, to help provide maximum 

flexibility and avoid system upsets for 

the entire refining and distribution 

system. Further, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Panel 

members recommended that EPA 

propose retaining the 80-ppm and 95- 

ppm caps. The Panel also recommended 

that, if EPA were to propose caps lower 

than 80 and 95 ppm, the Agency request 

comment on additional refinery gate 

and downstream caps that are above 20/ 

25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm. 

As discussed in Section XI.C, we are 

proposing to either maintain the current 

80/95 ppm caps or to lower them to 50/ 

65 ppm. Should we lower the caps to 

50/65 ppm, given the stringency of the 

10-ppm average standard, we anticipate 

that they would provide the same level 

of flexibility for refiners, pipelines, 

terminals, transmix processors, and 

gasoline additive manufacturers as the 

current 80/95 ppm caps. Should we 

lower the caps to 50/65, we are 

proposing to allow the current Tier 2 80- 

ppm refinery gate cap to remain in place 

through December 31, 2019. Compliance 

with the 50-ppm refinery gate cap 

would begin on January 1, 2020, when 

the 10-ppm average sulfur standard is 

required for all refiners. Similarly, we 

are proposing to allow the Tier 2 95- 

ppm downstream cap to remain in effect 

through February 29, 2020. Compliance 

with the 65-ppm downstream cap 

would begin on March 1, 2020. For 

more information on the proposed cap 

provisions, refer to Section V.A.3. 

iii. Credit-Related Flexibilities 

As described above in Section V.E.1, 

we are proposing an ABT program. 

Refiners and importers would be able to 

generate early sulfur credits from 

January 1, 2014 through December 31, 

2016 relative to the current 30-ppm Tier 

2 average sulfur standard (i.e., credits 

may be generated for any reductions 

below 30 ppm prior to the start of the 

general Tier 3 program). Beginning 

January 1, 2017 standard credits may be 

generated for overcompliance with the 

proposed 10-ppm Tier 3 sulfur standard. 

In addition, small refiners and small 

volume refineries would be able to 

generate standard credits from January 

1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 for 

reductions below 10 ppm prior to their 

proposed program start date of January 

1, 2020. 

During the SBREFA Panel process, 

one Small Entity Representative (SER) 

commented that importers should be 

allowed to participate in the credit 

program. In previous EPA fuel 

programs, importers have generally been 

treated as refiners, except for the 

purposes of early credit generation. 

Refiners have historically been required 

to establish a baseline in order to 

generate early credits. Importers 

generally do not have a specific baseline 

or amount of fuel that they import in a 

given year, so participation in the early 

credit market would not have been 

feasible under those programs. 

However, under the proposed Tier 3 

sulfur program, refiners and importers 

are not required to establish baselines; 

the existing 30-ppm Tier 2 standard 

serves as the ‘‘baseline.’’ Therefore, as 

discussed above in Section V.E.1.c, we 

are proposing to allow importers to 

participate in the early credit program 

as well as the ongoing standard credit 

program. 

iv. Gasoline Additive Manufacturers 

During the SBREFA Panel process, 

some gasoline additive manufacturing 

SERs raised the concern that they would 

have difficulty meeting a 25-ppm pergallon sulfur cap, and the Panel 

recommended that EPA request 

comment on whether or not gasoline 

additives should be allowed to remain 

at levels above 25 ppm sulfur, and on 

potential methods for ensuring that bulk 

additives do not increase the sulfur 

level of the resultant fuel blend. 

However, as discussed above and in 

Section V.A.3, we are proposing to 

either retain the current 80/95 ppm caps 

or only go to 50/65 ppm. Both of these 

options would have the same 15-ppm 

differential between the refinery gate 

and downstream caps, thus we are not 

proposing any additional provisions for 

gasoline additives beyond what already 

exists under the current Tier 2 program. 

b. Small Volume Refinery Provisions 

During the development of this 

proposal and throughout the SBREFA 

process, it became evident that some 

refineries may experience higher 

compliance costs on a per-gallon basis 

than other refineries, and in some cases 

considerably higher. It also became 

apparent that in many of these cases it 

was not necessarily a refinery owned by 

a refiner/company that would meet the 

SBA definition of a small business 

(however, these refineries tend to be 

small volume refineries). In an 

oversupplied gasoline market, these 

refineries may have difficulty justifying 

capital investments to comply with the 

proposed sulfur standard. In recognition 

of this concern under the RFS program, 

Congress granted all small refineries 

with a crude oil throughput of less than 

or equal to 75,000 barrels per calendar 

day (bpcd) additional time to comply. 

As such, we are also proposing delayed 

Tier 3 sulfur standards for approved 

small volume refineries. Overall, we 

believe that these small refineries are 

disproportionally impacted when it 

comes to their cost of compliance and 

ability to rationalize the investment 

costs in today’s gasoline market. Giving 

these refineries additional lead time 

would allow them more time to invest 

in desulfurization technology, take 

advantage of advancements in 

technology, develop confidence in a 

Tier 3 credit market as a means of 

compliance, and avoid competition for 

capital, engineering, and construction 

resources with the larger refineries. We 

are proposing that approved small 

volume refineries would receive a threeyear delay (January 1, 2017 through 

December 31, 2019) in meeting the 10- 

ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, 

similar to the small refiner delay. Credit 

generation opportunities for approved 

small volume refineries would be 

identical to those proposed for small 

refiners as described in Section V.E.1.f. 

A refiner would need to apply and be 

approved for small volume refinery 

status. We are proposing a small volume 

refinery net crude throughput of less 

than or equal to 75,000 bpcd, and we 

request comment on whether or not a 

different crude throughput would be 

more appropriate. To determine 

compliance with this threshold, we 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29942 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

398For more information on Part 80 regulatory 

streamlining options, refer to Section VI. 

propose to base the crude throughput on 

the highest crude throughput for either 

the 2010 or 2011 calendar years. 

3. Provisions for Refiners Facing 

Hardship Situations 

As in previous fuel programs, we are 

proposing hardship provisions to 

accommodate a refiner’s inability to 

comply with the proposed standard at 

the start of the Tier 3 program, and to 

deal with unforeseen circumstances that 

may occur at any point during the 

program. These provisions would be 

available to all refiners, small and nonsmall, though relief would be granted on 

a case-by-case basis following a showing 

of certain requirements; primarily that 

compliance through the use of credits 

was not feasible. We are proposing that 

any hardship waiver would not be a 

total waiver of compliance; rather, a 

hardship waiver would be short-term 

relief that would allow a refiner facing 

a hardship situation to, for example, 

receive additional time to comply. EPA 

would determine appropriate hardship 

relief based on the nature and degree of 

the hardship, as presented by the refiner 

in their hardship application, and on 

our assessment of the credit market. 

In addition to the unforeseen 

circumstances and extreme hardship 

circumstances waivers being proposed 

today and discussed in more detail 

below, the Panel also recommended that 

EPA request comment on the concept of 

long-term cap relief should we lower the 

sulfur caps below the current 80/95- 

ppm level if the circumstances both 

warrant it and can be structured in a 

way to allow for it. Such a provision 

may require segregation of their fuel 

through to the retail station in order for 

it not to preclude enforcement on the 

gasoline supplied by other refiners 

serving the area. Therefore, in providing 

comment on such a hardship provision, 

please also comment on potential 

compliance and enforcement 

mechanisms to account for such longerterm relief, e.g., fuel segregation, 

tracking, reporting and recordkeeping, 

etc. 

a. Temporary Waivers Based on 

Unforeseen Circumstances 

We are proposing a provision which, 

at our discretion, would permit any 

refiner to seek a temporary waiver from 

the Tier 3 sulfur standards under certain 

rare circumstances. This waiver 

provision is similar to provisions in 

existing fuel regulations. It is intended 

to provide refiners relief in 

unanticipated circumstances—such as a 

refinery fire or a natural disaster (i.e., 

force majeure)—that cannot be 

reasonably foreseen now or in the near 

future. Under this provision, a refiner 

could seek a hardship waiver for relief 

if it could demonstrate that the 

magnitude of the impact was so severe 

as to require such an extension. We are 

proposing that the refiner would be 

required to show that: (1) The waiver 

would be in the public interest; (2) the 

nonconformity was unavoidable; (3) it 

would meet the proposed Tier 3 

standards as expeditiously as possible; 

(4) it would make up the air quality 

detriment associated with the 

nonconforming gasoline, where 

practicable; and (5) it would pay to the 

U.S. Treasury an amount equal to the 

economic benefit of the nonconformity 

less the amount expended to make up 

the air quality detriment. These 

conditions are similar to those in 

previous fuels regulations, and are 

necessary and appropriate to ensure that 

any waivers granted would be limited in 

scope. 

As discussed, such a request would be 

based on the refiner’s inability to 

produce compliant gasoline at the 

affected facility due to extreme and 

unusual circumstances outside the 

refiner’s control that could not have 

been avoided through the exercise of 

due diligence. The hardship request 

would also need to show that other 

avenues for mitigating the problem, 

such as the purchase of credits toward 

compliance under the proposed credit 

provisions, had been pursued and yet 

were insufficient or unavailable. In light 

of the proposed flexibilities including 

the ABT program, we expect that the 

need for such requests would be rare. 

b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme 

Hardship Circumstances 

In addition to the provision for shortterm relief in extreme unforeseen 

circumstances, we are also proposing a 

hardship provision where a refiner 

could receive a hardship waiver based 

on severe economic or physical lead 

time limitations of the refinery to 

comply with the Tier 3 standards at the 

start of the program. A refiner seeking 

such hardship relief under this 

proposed rule would have to 

demonstrate that these criteria were 

met. In addition to showing that 

unusual circumstances exist that impose 

extreme hardship in meeting the 

proposed standards, the refiner would 

have to show that: (1) It has made best 

efforts to comply, including through the 

purchase of credits; (2) the relief granted 

under this provision would be in the 

public interest; (3) the environmental 

impact would be acceptable; and (4) it 

has active plans to meet the 

requirements as expeditiously as 

possible. We expect that hardship relief 

requests under this provision would 

mostly be applicable at the beginning of 

the Tier 3 program, when refiners are 

making their investments to comply. If 

hardship relief under these 

circumstances was approved, we would 

expect to impose appropriate conditions 

to ensure that the refiner was making 

best efforts to achieve compliance 

offsetting any loss of emission control 

from the program. We believe that 

providing short-term relief to those 

refiners that need additional time due to 

hardship circumstances would help to 

facilitate the adoption of the overall Tier 

3 program for the majority of the 

industry. However, we do not intend for 

hardship waiver provisions to 

encourage refiners to delay planning 

and investments they would otherwise 

make. Again, because of the flexibilities 

of the proposed overall program, we 

expect that the need for additional relief 

would be rare. 

F. Compliance Provisions 

For the most part, the proposed Tier 

3 sulfur standards simply reflect a 

lowering of the current Tier 2 sulfur 

standards. Thus, we are proposing to 

retain most of the same compliance 

provisions as the current Tier 2 

program, with exceptions as noted. 

However, we are also proposing and 

seeking comment on several fuel 

program regulatory streamlining 

measures, including a broader program 

redesign to streamline the reformulated 

gasoline and anti-dumping 

regulations.398 Some of these 

streamlining measures, if adopted, may 

also impact the Tier 3 sulfur compliance 

provisions proposed below. FF 

1. Registration, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

Registration, recordkeeping, and 

reporting are necessary to track 

compliance with the Tier 3 standards 

and the ABT program. This section 

describes the proposed compliance 

provisions of today’s program. 

a. Registration Requirements 

We are proposing that refiners, 

importers, and anyone acting as a 

refiner (e.g., a terminal with blending or 

other refining operations) who expects 

to produce or import gasoline would be 

required to register each of its facilities 

with EPA by June 1, 2016, or six months 

prior to producing gasoline meeting the 

Tier 3 standards and/or participating in 

the credit program. After the program 

begins on January 1, 2017, any nonmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29943 

registered parties must register at least 

three months prior to producing 

gasoline or participating in the credit 

market under the Tier 3 program. Most 

refiners, importers, and ethanol 

producers are currently registered with 

EPA under other 40 CFR part 80 fuels 

programs. We are proposing that those 

who are already registered would not 

have to register again. 

For registration, we are proposing to 

use the same basic forms that previous 

fuels programs have used. These forms 

are well known in the regulated 

community and are simple to fill out. 

Upon receipt of a completed registration 

form, EPA would issue a unique 4-digit 

company identification number and a 

unique 5-digit facility identification 

number. As with existing fuels 

programs, these numbers would be 

required for all reports sent to EPA and 

for PTDs. 

Registrations would not expire and 

would not have to be renewed; however, 

we are proposing that registered parties 

would be responsible for notifying us of 

any change to their company or facility 

information. 

An entity’s registration must include 

a corporate name and address 

(including the name, telephone number, 

and email address of a corporate 

contact); and, for each facility operated 

by the entity: 

• Type of facility (e.g., refinery, 

import facility, pipeline, terminal, 

transmix facility, etc.) 

• Facility name. 

• Physical location. 

• Contact name, telephone number, 

and email address. 

b. Reporting Requirements 

We are proposing to require refiners 

and importers to submit annual reports 

demonstrating their compliance with 

the Tier 3 standards and on the 

generation, use, and transfer of sulfur 

credits at each of its refineries or import 

facilities. Similar to our other sulfur 

programs, we are also proposing to 

require refiners and importers to submit 

data on individual batches of gasoline 

(including batch volume and sulfur 

content). Based on our experience with 

existing gasoline and sulfur-based 

programs, we believe that requiring 

annual reports and individual sulfur 

batch data would provide an effective 

means of monitoring compliance with 

the standards and the credit program. 

We are proposing that manufacturers 

of DFE and other oxygenates would be 

required to submit an annual report that 

includes the total volume of DFE/ 

oxygenate produced and an attestation 

that all batches met the proposed fuel 

quality requirements: sulfur content, 

composition (i.e., composed only of 

carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and 

sulfur), and denaturant concentration as 

applicable. 

We are proposing that reports would 

be due annually on March 31. 

c. Recordkeeping Requirements 

Similar to current EPA fuels 

programs, we are proposing that refiners 

and importers would be required to 

retain all records that demonstrate 

compliance with the Tier 3 program, 

including ABT program information. 

We are proposing that manufacturers 

of DFE and other oxygenates would be 

required to keep records on individual 

batches of DFE/oxygenate (including 

batch volume, sulfur content, and 

denaturant concentration as applicable). 

All parties in the gasoline production 

and distribution system subject to 

today’s proposed rule would also be 

required to keep records of all PTDs and 

records of any quality assurance 

programs. Records would need to be 

retained for five years. For credit 

transactions, records would need to be 

retained for five years from the usage 

date. Records would need to be made 

available to EPA on request. We are also 

proposing that if electronic records are 

kept, hard copies should be made 

available upon request. 

We are proposing to allow parties to 

claim information submitted to EPA as 

confidential business information (CBI). 

Parties making such a claim would be 

required to follow all reporting guidance 

and clearly mark the information being 

claimed as proprietary. EPA would treat 

information covered by such a claim in 

accordance with the regulations at 40 

CFR part 2 and other Agency procedures 

for handling proprietary information. 

2. Sampling and Testing Requirements 

Under the Tier 2 program, a sulfur 

concentration must be determined for 

every batch of gasoline. We are 

proposing to retain that requirement 

under Tier 3. As with the Tier 2 

program, this every batch testing 

requirement would be required to occur 

prior to the batch leaving the refinery. 

We are proposing to retain the current 

sampling, testing, and sample retention 

requirements. However, as discussed 

below in Section VI.A.3, we are 

proposing performance based 

measurement standards that would 

allow refiners to use alternate test 

methods for measuring sulfur. 

We are proposing that manufacturers 

of DFE would be required to test each 

individual batch of DFE for its sulfur 

content. 

We request comment on these 

elements related to sampling and 

testing, as well as the sampling and 

testing requirements in the proposed 

regulations. 

3. Small Refiner Compliance 

To qualify for small refiner status 

under the Tier 3 program, we are 

proposing that a refiner must apply by 

March 31, 2014. As with our other EPA 

fuels programs, we are proposing to 

continue using the Small Business 

Administration definition of a small 

refiner: 1,500 employees (companywide). To qualify for small refiner status 

under Tier 3, we are also proposing that 

a small refiner must meet the following 

additional criteria: 

• The refiner must have produced 

gasoline from crude oil during the 2011 

calendar year. 

• The refiner must have owned and 

operated the refinery during the period 

from January 1, 2011 through December 

31, 2011. New owners that purchased a 

refinery after that date would do so with 

full knowledge of the proposed 

regulations, and should have planned to 

comply along with their purchase 

decisions. As with existing fuel 

programs, we are proposing that a 

refiner that restarts a refinery in the 

future may be eligible for small refiner 

status. Thus, a refiner restarting a 

refinery that was shut down or nonoperational during calendar year 2011 

could apply for small refiner status. In 

such cases, we would judge eligibility 

under the employment and crude oil 

capacity criteria based on the most 

recent 12 consecutive months prior to 

the application, unless we conclude 

from data provided by the refiner that 

another period of time is more 

appropriate. However, we propose to 

limit this to a company that owned the 

refinery at the time that it was shut 

down. New purchasers would not be 

eligible for small refiner status for the 

same reasons described above. 

• The refiner must have had 1,500 

employees or less based on the average 

number of employees for all pay periods 

from January 1, 2011 through December 

31, 2011 for all subsidiaries, parent 

companies (i.e., any company or 

companies with controlling interest), 

and joint ventures. 

• The refiner must have had a crude 

oil capacity less than or equal to 

155,000 bpcd during the 2011 calendar 

year. 

A refiner applying for status as a 

small refiner would be required to apply 

and provide EPA with several types of 

information, as specified in the 

regulations, by March 31, 2014. All 

refiners seeking small refiner status 

under this program would need to apply 

for small refiner status, regardless of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29944 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

whether or not the refiner had been 

approved for small refiner status under 

another fuel program. As with 

applications for relief under other rules, 

applications for small refiner status 

under this proposed rule that are later 

found to contain false or inaccurate 

information would be void ab initio. 

Requirements for small refiner status 

applications: 

• The total crude oil capacity as 

reported to the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) of the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) for the 

most recent 12 months of operation. 

This would include the capacity of all 

refineries controlled by a refiner and by 

all subsidiaries and parent companies 

and joint ventures. We would presume 

that the information submitted to EIA is 

correct. (In cases where a company 

disagreed with this information, the 

company could petition EPA with 

appropriate data to correct the record 

when the company submitted its 

application for small refiner status. EPA 

could accept such alternate data at its 

discretion.) 

• The name and address of each 

location where employees worked 

during the 2011 calendar year; and the 

number of employees at each location 

during this time period. This would 

include the employees of the refiner and 

all subsidiaries and parent companies 

and joint ventures. 

• In the case of a refiner who 

reactivates a refinery that was either 

shutdown or non-operational from 

January 1, 2011 through December 31, 

2011, the name and address of each 

location where employees worked since 

the refiner reactivated the refinery and 

the average number of employees at 

each location for each calendar year 

since the refiner reactivated the refinery. 

• The type of business activities 

carried out at each location. 

• Contact information for a corporate 

contact person, including: name, 

mailing address, phone and fax 

numbers, email address. 

• A letter signed by the president, 

chief operating officer, or chief 

executive officer of the company (or a 

designee) stating that the information 

contained in the application was true to 

the best of his/her knowledge and that 

the company owned the refinery as of 

January 1, 2011. 

We are proposing that an approved 

small refiner that exceeds the employee 

count or crude capacity criteria due to 

merger with, acquisition by, or the 

acquisition of another entity will lose its 

small refiner status. In situations where 

a small refiner loses its small refiner 

status due to merger with a non-small 

refiner, acquisition of another refiner, or 

acquisition by another refiner, we are 

proposing provisions which are similar 

to those in our existing fuels programs 

to allow an additional 30 months of lead 

time to comply with the Tier 3 program 

after the disqualifying event.399 The 

proposed 30 months of additional lead 

time would only apply to refineries that 

had previously been subject to small 

refiner relief, as we believe there would 

be no adverse environmental impact 

because of the pre-existing relief 

provisions that applied to the small 

refiner. We are also proposing that a 

refiner would lose its small refiner 

status if it ceases to process crude oil. 

Our intent has been, and continues to 

be, limiting the small refiner relief 

provisions to a small subset of refiners 

that are challenged, as discussed above. 

However, it is also our intent to avoid 

stifling normal business growth. 

Therefore, we are proposing that an 

approved small refiner who exceeds the 

employee count or crude oil capacity 

criteria through normal business 

practices, may retain its small refiner 

status. Further, in the sole case of a 

merger between two approved small 

refiners we are proposing to allow such 

refiners to retain their small refiner 

status. Additional financial resources 

would not typically be provided in the 

case of a merger between two small 

refiners. Small refiner status for the two 

entities of the merger would not be 

affected; hence the original compliance 

plans of the two refiners should not be 

impacted. Moreover, no environmental 

detriment would result from the two 

small refiners maintaining their small 

refiner status within the merged entity 

as they would have likely maintained 

their small refiner status had the merger 

not occurred. 

We request comment on whether or 

not these provisions remain appropriate. 

4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance 

In the case of small volume refineries, 

the application process for qualification 

is similar to that of a small refiner. A 

refiner that is both a small refiner and 

owns a small volume refinery need not 

apply for small volume refinery status; 

the small refiner application is all that 

is needed. We are proposing a net crude 

throughput threshold of no more than 

75,000 bpcd based on the highest 

throughput in calendar years 2010 or 

2011 as the basis for receiving small 

volume refinery status. We request 

comment on whether or not another 

threshold would be more appropriate. 

We are proposing that refiners would 

need to include the following in their 

applications: 

• Proof that the refiner produced 

gasoline from crude oil during the 2011 

calendar year. 

• Proof that the refiner owned and 

operated the refinery during the period 

from January 1, 2011 through December 

31, 2011. 

• The refinery’s total crude 

throughput as reported to EIA for each 

of calendar years 2010 and 2011. Again, 

we would presume that the information 

submitted to EIA is correct. In cases 

where a refiner disagrees with this 

information, the refiner could petition 

EPA with appropriate data to correct the 

record when the refiner submits its 

application for small volume refinery 

status. EPA could accept such alternate 

data at its discretion. 

• Contact information for a corporate 

contact person, including: name, 

mailing address, phone and fax 

numbers, email address. 

• A letter signed by the president, 

chief operating officer, or chief 

executive officer of the company (or a 

designee) stating that the information 

contained in the application was true to 

the best of his/her knowledge and that 

the company owned the refinery as of 

January 1, 2011. 

5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and 

Penalties 

We are proposing to retain the Tier 2 

requirements for attest engagements for 

generation of both early and standard 

credits, use of credits, and compliance 

with the proposed program, using the 

procedures used in other EPA fuels 

programs for attest engagements. The 

violation and penalty provisions 

applicable to today’s proposed program 

would be very similar to the provisions 

currently in effect in other gasoline 

programs as well. We request comment 

on the need for additional attest 

engagement, violation, penalty, or any 

other compliance and enforcement 

related provisions specific to the 

proposed Tier 3 program. 

6. Special Fuel Provisions and 

Exemptions 

The following paragraphs discuss 

several provisions and exemptions for 

gasoline that we are proposing would 

apply in special circumstances. 

a. Gasoline Used in Military 

Applications 

In our diesel fuel program, we 

provided an exemption for diesel fuel 

used in tactical military vehicles and 

nonroad engines and equipment with a 

national security exemption (NSE) from 

the vehicle and engine emissions 

standards. Due to national security 

considerations, some of EPA’s existing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29945 

400 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area 

Population Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 

2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ 

popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2011–0135. 

401U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 

2005 National-Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 

regulations allow the military to request 

and receive NSEs for vehicles, engines, 

and equipment from emissions 

regulations if the operational 

requirements for such vehicles, engines, 

or equipment warrant such an 

exemption. Fuel used in these 

applications would also be exempt if it 

is used in tactical military vehicles, 

engines, or equipment that are not 

covered by an NSE but, for national 

security reasons (such as the need to be 

ready for immediate deployment 

overseas), these applications need to be 

fueled on the same fuel as those with an 

NSE. We are proposing this exemption 

under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline 

program. 

b. Gasoline Used in Research, 

Development, and Testing 

Similar to other EPA fuels programs, 

we are proposing to allow requests for 

an exemption from the Tier 3 standards 

for gasoline used for research, 

development, and testing purposes (‘‘R 

& D exemption’’). We recognize that 

there may be legitimate research 

programs that require the use of gasoline 

with sulfur levels greater than those 

allowed under the proposed Tier 3 

program. Thus, we are proposing 

provisions for obtaining an exemption 

from the prohibition against persons 

producing, distributing, transporting, 

storing, selling, or dispensing gasoline 

that does not meet the Tier 3 gasoline 

sulfur standards, where such fuel is 

necessary to conduct a research, 

development, or testing program. 

Parties seeking an R & D exemption 

would be required to submit an 

application for exemption to EPA that 

describes the purpose and scope of the 

program, and the reasons why the 

noncompliant gasoline is necessary. 

Upon presentation of the required 

information, an exemption could be 

granted at the discretion of EPA, with 

the condition that EPA could withdraw 

the exemption in the event the Agency 

determines the exemption is not 

justified. In addition, an exemption 

based on false or inaccurate information 

would be considered void ab initio. 

Gasoline subject to an exemption would 

be exempt from certain provisions of 

this rule, including the sulfur standards, 

provided certain requirements are met. 

These requirements include the 

segregation of the exempt gasoline from 

non-exempt gasoline, identification of 

the exempt gasoline on PTDs, and pump 

labeling. 

c. Gasoline for Export 

Gasoline produced for export, and 

that is actually exported for use in a 

foreign country, would be considered 

exempt from the fuel content standards 

and other requirements of this proposed 

rule. Such gasoline would be considered 

as intended for use in the U.S. and 

subject to the proposed standards unless 

it is designated by the refiner and the 

PTD states that the gasoline is for 

‘‘export only’’. Gasoline intended for 

export would be required to be 

segregated from all gasoline intended for 

use in the U.S. Distributing or 

dispensing such fuel for domestic use 

would be illegal. 

d. Other Special Provisions and 

Potential Exemptions 

We are proposing provisions for 

Alaska that would allow the refinery 

gate and downstream caps to remain at 

the current Tier 2 80-ppm and 95-ppm 

levels, respectively, should the caps be 

lowered to 50 and 65 ppm (per Section 

V.A.3). 

Additionally, in previous fuels 

programs we have included exemptions 

for racing fuel and for fuel used in the 

U.S. territories of Guam, American 

Samoa, and the Northern Mariana 

Islands. We request comment on 

whether or not such exemptions would 

be needed for this program. 

G. Statutory Authority for Proposed Tier 

3 Fuel Controls 

We are proposing gasoline sulfur 

controls under our authority in section 

211(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. This 

section gives us the authority to 

‘‘control or prohibit the manufacture, 

introduction into commerce, offering for 

sale, or sale’’ of any fuel or fuel additive 

for use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle 

engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad 

vehicle (1) whose emission products, in 

the judgment of the Administrator, 

cause or contribute to air pollution 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger the public health or welfare 

[section 211(c)(1)(A)] or (2) whose 

emission products will impair to a 

significant degree the performance of 

any emission control device or system 

which is in general use, or which the 

Administrator finds has been developed 

to a point where in a reasonable time it 

would be in general use were the fuel 

control or prohibition adopted [section 

211(c)(1)(B)]. We are proposing controls 

on gasoline sulfur levels based on both 

of the Clean Air Act criteria, as 

described in more detail below. 

1. Section 211(c)(1)(A) 

Under the first criterion, we believe 

that emission products of gasoline with 

current levels of sulfur contribute to 

ambient levels of ozone, particulate 

matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon 

monoxide (CO), which are all pollutants 

for which EPA has established National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). These pollutants are linked 

with respiratory and/or cardiovascular 

problems and other adverse health 

impacts leading to increased medication 

use, hospital admissions, emergency 

department visits, and premature 

mortality. Approximately 159 million 

people currently live in counties 

exceeding a NAAQS.400 Motor vehicles 

also emit air toxics, and the majority of 

Americans continue to be exposed to 

ambient concentrations of air toxics at 

levels which have the potential to cause 

adverse health effects, including cancer, 

immune system damage, and 

neurological, reproductive, 

developmental, respiratory, and other 

health problems.401 A more detailed 

discussion of the health and 

environmental effects of these 

pollutants is included in Section II.B. 

As discussed in this section, emissions 

of these pollutants cause or contribute 

to ambient levels of air pollution that 

are reasonably anticipated to endanger 

public health and welfare. Control of 

gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm will lead to 

significant, cost-effective reductions in 

emissions of these pollutants, with the 

benefits to public health and welfare 

significantly outweighing the costs. 

EPA has evaluated the technical 

feasibility of achieving these sulfur 

levels, including the cost of the 

reductions and the impact on fuel 

supply. As discussed in Section V.A, we 

have concluded that these reductions 

are feasible in the lead time provided 

and should not have an adverse impact 

on the adequacy of gasoline fuel supply 

to meet demand. For more on the 

feasibility of the proposed fuel program, 

refer to Chapter 4 of the draft RIA. 

As discussed in Section III, EPA also 

evaluated the emissions reductions from 

pre-Tier 3 vehicles that would be 

achieved by controlling gasoline sulfur 

levels. These reductions are significant 

and contribute to the total monetized 

health benefits. EPA also evaluated the 

cost per ton of emissions reduced for the 

proposed program, of which the 10-ppm 

sulfur standard is a part. As can be seen 

in Section VII.D, the program is very 

cost-effective in 2030. Even in 2017, 

when the emission reductions are 

almost entirely due to the sulfur 

standards (and the costs are attributed to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29946 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

both the fuel and vehicle standards), the 

cost-effectiveness of the program is 

reasonable. In sum, EPA concludes that 

the entire body of evidence strongly 

supports the view that controlling 

gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm is quite 

reasonable in light of the emissions 

reductions and benefits achieved, taking 

costs into consideration. For more detail 

on the costs and benefits of the 

proposed standards, refer to Chapter 8 

of the draft RIA. 

The control of gasoline sulfur down to 

10 ppm provides significant reductions 

in harmful emissions. The fuel program 

is cost-effective and produces benefits to 

public health and welfare whose value 

significantly outweighs the costs. These 

reductions can be achieved in a manner 

that is technologically feasible, and will 

not disrupt fuel supply. 

Section 211(c)(2)(A) requires that, 

prior to adopting a fuel control based on 

a finding that the fuel’s emission 

products contribute to air pollution that 

can reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare, EPA 

must consider ‘‘all relevant medical and 

scientific evidence available, including 

consideration of other technologically or 

economically feasible means of 

achieving emission standards under 

[section 202 of the Act].’’ EPA’s analysis 

of the medical and scientific evidence 

relating to the emissions impact from 

motor vehicle engines, which are 

impacted by gasoline sulfur, is 

described in more detail in Chapter 6 of 

the draft RIA. EPA has also satisfied the 

statutory requirement to consider ‘‘other 

technologically or economically feasible 

means of achieving emission standards 

under section [202 of the Act].’’ This 

provision has been interpreted as 

requiring consideration of establishing 

emission standards under section 202 

prior to establishing controls or 

prohibitions on fuels or fuel additives 

under section 211(c)(1)(A). See Ethyl 

Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d. 1, 31–32 (DC 

Cir. 1976). In Ethyl, the court stated that 

section 211(c)(2)(A) calls for good faith 

consideration of the evidence and 

options, not for mandatory deference to 

regulation under section 202 compared 

to fuel controls. Id. at 32, n.66. EPA is 

also proposing Tier 3 emissions 

standards for motor vehicles under 

section 202. In order to meet these more 

stringent standards, the program 

requires a reduction in the sulfur 

content of gasoline to the 10-ppm 

annual average. 

2. Section 211(c)(1)(B) 

Under the second criterion, we 

believe that sulfur in gasoline will 

significantly impair the emissioncontrol systems expected to be in 

general use in motor vehicle engines 

designed to meet the Tier 3 emission 

standards proposed in this rule. EPA is 

proposing to restrict gasoline sulfur 

content to an annual average of 10 ppm 

beginning in 2017, to enable compliance 

with new emission standards based on 

the use of advanced emission control 

technology that will be available to Tier 

3 engines and California’s Low Emission 

Vehicle (LEV III) program. 

Section IV describes the substantial 

adverse effect of high gasoline sulfur 

levels on the emission-control devices 

or systems for Tier 3 vehicles and 

engines meeting the proposed emission 

standards. As discussed in Section 

IV.A.6, modern three-way catalytic 

exhaust systems utilize platinum group 

metals (PGM), metal oxides, and other 

active materials to selectively oxidize 

organic compounds and carbon 

monoxide in the exhaust gases. These 

systems simultaneously reduce nitrogen 

oxides when air-to-fuel ratio control 

operates in a condition of relatively low 

amplitude/high frequency oscillation 

about the stoichiometric point. Sulfur is 

a well-known catalyst poison. There is 

a large body of work demonstrating 

sulfur inhibition of the emissions 

control performance of PGM three-way 

exhaust catalyst systems. The nature of 

sulfur interactions with washcoat 

materials, active catalytic materials and 

catalyst substrates is complex and varies 

with catalyst composition and exhaust 

gas composition and exhaust 

temperature. The variation of these 

interactions with exhaust gas 

composition and temperature means 

that the operational history of a vehicle 

is an important factor; continuous lightload operation, throttle tip-in events and 

enrichment under high-load conditions 

can all impact sulfur interactions with 

the catalyst. 

Operating the catalyst at a sufficiently 

high temperature under net reducing 

conditions (e.g., air-to-fuel equivalence 

that is net fuel-rich of stoichiometry) 

can effectively release the sulfur oxides 

from the catalyst components. Thus, 

regular operation at sufficiently high 

temperatures at rich air-to-fuel ratios 

can minimize the effects of fuel sulfur 

levels on catalyst active materials and 

catalyst efficiency. However, it cannot 

completely eliminate the effects of 

sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 

vehicles in the in-use fleet recently 

completed by EPA shows that emission 

levels immediately following high 

speed/load operation is still a function 

of fuel sulfur level, suggesting that 

lower fuel sulfur levels will bring 

emission benefits unachievable by 

catalyst regeneration procedures alone. 

Furthermore, regular operation at these 

temperatures and at rich air-to-fuel 

ratios is not desirable, for several 

reasons. The temperatures necessary to 

release sulfur oxides are high enough to 

lead to thermal degradation of the 

catalyst over time via thermal sintering 

of active materials. Sintering reduces 

the surface area available to participate 

in reactions. Additionally, it is not 

always possible to maintain these 

catalyst temperatures (because of cold 

weather, idle conditions, light load 

operation) and the rich air-to-fuel ratios 

necessary can result in increased PM, 

NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, 

reducing fuel sulfur levels has been the 

primary regulatory mechanism to 

minimize sulfur contamination of the 

catalyst and ensure optimum emissions 

performance over the useful life of a 

vehicle. 

The impact of gasoline sulfur has 

become even more important as vehicle 

emission standards have become more 

stringent. Some studies have suggested 

an increase in catalyst sensitivity to 

sulfur (in terms of percent conversion 

efficiency) when standards increase in 

stringency and emissions levels 

decrease. Emission standards under the 

programs that preceded the Tier 2 

program (Tier 0, Tier 1 and National 

LEV, or NLEV) were high enough that 

the impact of sulfur was considered 

negligible. The Tier 2 program 

recognized the importance of sulfur and 

reduced the sulfur levels in the fuel 

from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in 

conjunction with the new emission 

standards. At that time, very little work 

had been done to evaluate the effect of 

further reductions in fuel sulfur— 

especially on in-use vehicles that may 

have some degree of catalyst 

deterioration due to real-world 

operation. 

In 2005, EPA and several automakers 

jointly conducted a program that 

examined the effects of sulfur and other 

gasoline properties, benzene, and 

volatility on emissions from a fleet of 

nine Tier 2 compliant vehicles. 

Subsequently, EPA conducted a much 

more extensive study of the effects of 

sulfur on emissions from Tier 2 

vehicles. These studies demonstrate that 

emissions from Tier 2 vehicles continue 

to be very sensitive to gasoline sulfur 

levels below the current 30-ppm average 

standard. For more on the estimated 

emission impacts, refer to Section III.B. 

Furthermore, vehicles already capable 

of meeting the proposed Tier 3 

standards have been found to be 

extremely sensitive to the effects of 

sulfur. A Chevy Malibu was tested and 

found to be able to meet the proposed 

Tier 3 standards on low-sulfur gasoline, 

but following operation on higher-sulfur 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29947 

gasoline, its emission levels exceeded 

the standard. As explained in Section 

IV.A, following operation over 2 FTP 

cycles on 33 ppm sulfur fuel, NOX

emissions alone were more than double 

the proposed Tier 3 30 mg/mi 

NMOG+NOX standard. 

Overall, the Tier 3 Program would 

reduce fleet average NMOG+NOX

emissions by over 80 percent. The 

feasibility of the proposed 30 mg/mi 

NMOG+NOX fleet average standard 

depends on a degree of emissions 

control from exhaust catalyst systems 

that will require gasoline at 10 ppm 

sulfur or lower. The most likely control 

strategies would involve using exhaust 

catalyst technologies and powertrain 

calibration primarily focused on 

reducing cold-start emissions of NMOG 

and on both cold-start and warmed-up 

(running) emissions of NOX. An 

important part of this strategy, 

particularly for larger vehicles having 

greater difficulty achieving cold-start 

NMOG emissions control, will be to 

reduce NOX emissions to near-zero 

levels. This would allow sufficient 

NMOG compliance margin to allow 

vehicles to meet the combined 

NMOG+NOX emissions standards for 

the full useful life. 

Achieving the proposed Tier 3 

emission standards would require very 

careful control of the exhaust chemistry 

and exhaust temperatures to ensure high 

catalyst efficiency. The impact of sulfur 

on oxygen storage components in the 

catalyst makes this a challenge even at 

relatively low (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur 

levels. 

The negative impact of gasoline sulfur 

on NOX, NMOG and air toxic emissions 

occurs across all vehicle categories. 

However, the impact of gasoline sulfur 

on NOX emissions control of catalysts in 

the fully-warmed-up condition is 

particularly of concern for larger 

vehicles. Manufacturers face the most 

significant challenges in reducing coldstart NMOG emissions for these 

vehicles. Because of the need to reach 

near-zero NOX levels, any significant 

degradation in NOX emissions control 

over the useful life of the vehicle would 

likely prevent some if not most larger 

vehicles from reaching a combined 

NMOG+NOX low enough to comply 

with the 30 mg/mi fleet-average 

standard. These vehicles represent a 

sufficiently large segment of light-duty 

vehicle sales now and in the foreseeable 

future that their emissions could not be 

offset (and thus the fleet-average 

standard achieved) by certifying 

vehicles to bins below the fleet average. 

Any degradation in catalyst 

performance due to gasoline sulfur 

would reduce or eliminate the margin 

necessary to ensure in-use compliance 

with the proposed Tier 3 emissions 

standards. Certifying to a useful life of 

150,000 miles vs. the current 120,000 

miles would further add to 

manufacturers’ compliance challenge 

for Tier 3 large light trucks (refer to 

Section IV.7.b for more on the useful life 

requirements). 

The impact of gasoline sulfur 

poisoning on exhaust catalyst 

performance and the relative stringency 

of the Tier 3 standards, particularly for 

larger vehicles and trucks, when 

considered together make a compelling 

argument for the virtual elimination of 

sulfur from gasoline. As discussed in 

Section V.A.2, the proposed 10-ppm 

standard for sulfur in gasoline 

represents the lowest practical limit 

from a standpoint of fuel production, 

handling and transport. While lowering 

gasoline sulfur to levels below 10 ppm 

would help ensure in-use vehicle 

compliance with the Tier 3 standards, 

the Agency believes that a gasoline 

sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow 

compliance with a national fleet average 

of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX. The level of 

the Tier 3 standards was considered in 

light of a 10-ppm average sulfur level for 

gasoline. Not only should a 10-ppm 

sulfur standard enable vehicle 

manufacturers to certify their entire 

product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 

fleet average standards, but based on the 

results of testing both Tier 2 vehicles 

and SULEV vehicles as discussed above, 

reducing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm 

should enable these vehicles to 

maintain their emission performance inuse over their full useful life. 

Section 211(c)(2)(B) requires that, 

prior to adopting a fuel control based on 

a significant impairment to vehicle 

emission-control systems, EPA consider 

available scientific and economic data, 

including a cost benefit analysis 

comparing emission-control devices or 

systems which are or will be in general 

use that require the proposed fuel 

control with such devices or systems 

which are or will be in general use that 

do not require the proposed fuel control. 

As described below, we conclude that 

the emissions control technology 

expected to be used to meet Tier 3 

standards would be significantly 

impaired by operation on gasoline with 

annual average sulfur levels greater than 

10 ppm. Our analysis of the available 

scientific and economic data can be 

found elsewhere in this document. The 

draft RIA includes a detailed analysis of 

the environmental benefits of the 

emission standards (Chapters 6 and 8), 

an analysis of the technological 

feasibility and cost of controlling sulfur 

to the levels established in the final rule 

(Chapters 4 and 5), and a costeffectiveness analysis of the sulfur 

control and motor vehicle and engine 

emission standards (Chapter 9). Under 

section 211(c)(2)(B), as just noted, EPA 

is also required to compare the costs 

and benefits of achieving emission 

standards through emission-control 

systems that would not be sulfursensitive, if any such systems are or will 

be in general use. We have determined 

that there are not (and will not be in the 

foreseeable future) emission control 

devices available for general use in 

motor vehicles that can meet the 

emission standards and would not be 

significantly impaired by gasoline with 

current gasoline sulfur levels. Emissions 

cannot be reduced anywhere near the 

magnitude contemplated by the 

proposed emission standards without 

the application of the kind of emissions 

control technology discussed in this 

proposal. 

Section 211(c)(2)(C) of the Clean Air 

Act requires that prior to prohibiting a 

fuel or fuel additive, EPA establish that 

such prohibition will not cause the use 

of another fuel or fuel additive ‘‘which 

will produce emissions which endanger 

the public health or welfare to the same 

or greater degree’’ than the prohibited 

fuel or additive. This finding is required 

by the Act only prior to prohibiting a 

fuel or additive, not prior to controlling 

a fuel or additive. Since EPA is not 

prohibiting use of gasoline sulfur, but 

rather is controlling the level of sulfur 

in these fuels, this finding is not 

required for this rulemaking. However, 

EPA does not believe that the proposed 

gasoline sulfur controls will result in 

the use of any other fuel or additive that 

will produce emissions that will 

endanger public health or welfare to the 

same or greater degree as the emissions 

produced by gasoline with current 

sulfur levels. Unlike the case of 

unleaded gasoline in the past, where 

lead performed a primary function by 

providing the necessary octane for the 

vehicles to function properly, sulfur 

does not serve any useful function in 

gasoline. It is not added to gasoline, but 

occurs naturally in the crude oil into 

which gasoline is processed. Were it not 

for the expense of sulfur removal, it 

would likely have been removed from 

gasoline years ago in order to improve 

the maintenance and durability 

characteristics of motor vehicle engines. 

We are also adopting the various 

controls for DFE, other oxygenates, 

butane blended into gasoline, and 

gasoline additives, under our authority 

in section 211(c)(1). As explained above, 

these controls are necessary to prevent 

emissions products that may endanger 

the public health or welfare or impair to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29948 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

a significant degree the performance of 

any emission control device or system. 

The proposal basically extends various 

controls on gasoline to DFE, other 

oxygenates, butane, and gasoline 

additives. The reasons for adopting the 

controls for gasoline apply as well to 

adopt the controls for DFE, other 

oxygenates, butane, and gasoline 

additives. 

VI. Technical Amendments and 

Regulatory Streamlining 

In addition to proposing new Tier 3 

vehicle standards and new gasoline 

sulfur standards, we are also proposing 

and seeking comment on a number of 

technical amendments and regulatory 

streamlining actions as part of the 

Regulatory Review initiative. Some of 

these may have some bearing on 

implementation of the proposed Tier 3 

vehicle and fuel standards, while others 

deal with other aspects of EPA’s existing 

vehicle and fuel regulations. 

EPA is also proposing to synchronize 

a number of different reporting 

deadlines under various regulations 

affecting transportation and motor 

vehicle fuels and fuel additives. This 

action would reduce regulatory burdens 

by aligning reporting deadlines across 

several programs and would lay the 

foundation for the overall goal of 

combining various fuels reports together 

into a single, simplified electronic 

format. 

A. Amendments to 40 CFR Parts 79 and 

80 

The following sections discuss our 

proposed changes to regulations in 40 

CFR part 79 and part 80. Some of these 

changes are technical amendments to 

correct minor errors or inconsistencies 

in the regulations; others are to address 

areas in the regulations that could 

benefit from clarification and/or 

streamlining. 

With regard to regulatory 

streamlining, the majority of these items 

involve clarifying vague or inconsistent 

language, removal or updating of 

outdated provisions, and decreasing the 

frequency and/or volume of reporting 

burden where data is either no longer 

needed or is redundant in light of other 

EPA fuels programs. In general, we 

believe that these changes would reduce 

burden on industry with no expected 

environmental impact. We believe that 

the regulatory streamlining items that 

we are proposing are changes that are 

straightforward and that should be made 

quickly. There are also additional items 

that would need further consideration 

and discussion, such as a new fuels 

program compliance structure, as 

discussed below in Section VI.A.1.b. We 

are also requesting comment on 

expanding the downstream butane 

blending provisions to allow for pentane 

blending, as discussed in Section 

VI.A.4. 

1. Regulatory Streamlining 

a. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

Below is a table listing the provisions 

that we are proposing to amend in 

today’s action. We have provided 

additional explanation for those 

amendments that warrant additional 

explanation below. 

TABLE VI–1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY STREAMLINING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

Section Description 

Varied ......................... Various sections amended to update references to test methods (see Section Section VI.A.1.a.iii). 

79.5 ............................. Revises periodic reporting requirements. 

80.2 ............................. Revises and adds definitions. 

80.8 ............................. Amended to update sampling test methods, and to state to which fuels § 80.8 applies. 

80.10 ........................... Added to allow for de minimis changes in compliance reports that would not require a resubmission of compliance reports when a minor discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered. 

80.46 ........................... Revises measurement of RFG fuel parameters. 

80.47 ........................... Revises Performance-Based Test Method Approach. 

80.65 ........................... Amended to reduce complex model test parameters and reporting. 

80.65(f)(5) ................... Added to allow for designation of an alternative lab. 

80.75 ........................... Revises RFG reporting requirements. 

80.82 ........................... Amended to apply butane blending provisions to entire part 80 and to revise RVP test method. 

80.101 ......................... Revises measurement of conventional gasoline fuel parameters. 

80.105 ......................... Amended to require identification of test methods used and revises reporting requirements. 

80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) ... Amended to allow an alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 

80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3) ... Added to allow an alternative detergent certification option. 

80.161(b)(2) ................ Amended to address the submission of gasoline detergent samples under the alternative gasoline detergent certification 

option. 

80.161(b)(3)(ii)(C) ....... Amended to reflect that documentation of the fuel injector deposit demonstration test would be required under the alternative detergent certification option. 

80.161(b)(3)(v) ............ Amended to state that the results of the intake valve and fuel injector deposit demonstration test must be submitted to 

EPA as part of the certification letter under the alternative detergent certification option. 

80.161(b)(3)(viii) ......... Amended to change ‘‘PFID test’’ to ‘‘fuel injector test’’. 

80.161(d)(1) ................ Amended to reflect the availability of the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 

80.163(a)(1)(iii) ........... Amended to allow use of the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 

80.164(a) .................... Amended to reference the test fuel requirements under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 

80.165 ......................... Amended the introductory paragraph to accommodate the alternative deposit control test procedures and standards 

under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 

80.167(a) .................... Amended the introductory paragraph to specify how confirmatory testing would be conducted for additives certified 

under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 

80.176 ......................... Added to specify the certification test procedures and standards under the alternative gasoline detergent certification 

option. 

80.177 ......................... Added to specify the certification test fuels under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 

80.178 ......................... Incorporates standards and test methods by reference. 

80.330 ......................... Revises sampling and testing requirements. 

80.370 ......................... Amended to require identification of test method used and revises reporting requirements. 

80.511 ......................... Revises per-gallon and marker requirements. 

80.572 ......................... Revises labeling requirements. 

80.573 ......................... Revises labeling requirements. 

80.574 ......................... Revises labeling requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29949 

402 61 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001). 

TABLE VI–1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REGULATORY STREAMLINING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS—Continued 

Section Description 

80.580 ......................... Incorporates test methods by reference. 

80.585 ......................... Revises test method approval process. 

80.604 ......................... Revises reporting requirements. 

80.1235(a)(6), ............. Amended to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock into previously certified gasoline (PCG) an alternative to directly test the blendstock for benzene. 

80.1235(a)(5) .............. Amended to clarify that refiners and importers may use either approach for blendstocks that are blended into either 

conventional gasoline or reformulated gasoline. 

80.1235(b)(2) .............. Amended to clarify EPA’s intent (per § 80.1238(b)) to allow refiners and importers to include oxygenate blended downstream of a refinery or import facility in their annual average benzene calculation, and to make the section consistent 

with § 80.1238(b). 

80.1238 ....................... Revises benzene determination. 

80.1347(a)(5) .............. Amended to require that a negative annual average must be reported as zero, and that a refiner must comply with 

§ 80.65(i) when producing RBOB or RFG and § 80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline. 

80.1347(a)(6) .............. Added to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock into previously certified gasoline (PCG) an alternative to directly test the blendstock for benzene. 

80.1348 ....................... Revises sample retention requirements. 

80.1349 ....................... Added to allow importers who import gasoline into the U.S. by truck to use the sampling and testing requirements in 40 

CFR part 80 subpart E as an alternative to the sampling and testing requirements in subpart L. 

80.1354 ....................... Revises reporting requirements for gasoline benzene program. 

80.1451 ....................... Revises RFS reporting requirements. 

i. Amendments Related to Reduction of 

Testing for Complex Model Fuel 

Parameters 

In §§ 80.65 and 80.75, we are 

proposing to streamline and reduce the 

RFG and CG testing and reporting 

burden of gasoline refiners and 

importers by reducing the testing and 

reporting requirements of certain fuel 

parameters associated with the complex 

model. Currently, for RFG, every 

parameter listed in § 80.65 must be 

tested for every batch and each 

parameter must be reported for every 

batch. No monthly compositing of batch 

samples is allowed for any parameter. 

For conventional gasoline, monthly 

compositing and batch reporting based 

on those monthly composites is allowed 

for all parameters except sulfur and 

benzene. However, with the phasing out 

of complex model standards, reduced 

testing and reporting is appropriate, 

particularly for RFG. In cases where a 

refiner is subject to only benzene, RVP, 

and sulfur standards, certain parameters 

no longer need to be tested and reported 

on an every-batch basis. However, the 

full slate of complex model parameters 

will still be needed in some cases. 

Specifically, refiners producing RFG 

during the summer VOC control season 

will still need to use the complex model 

to determine VOC performance, and 

thus must still measure and report the 

relevant complex model fuel 

parameters. In addition, small refiners 

that are subject to the delayed 

compliance option for the 0.62 volume 

percent benzene standard will have to 

use the complex model until 2015 for 

CG MSAT1 compliance.402 Currently, 

there are 17 complex model parameters 

on the RFG/anti-dumping batch report. 

We are proposing to eliminate reporting 

for American Petroleum Institute (API) 

gravity. In addition, oxygenates need 

not be reported unless the refiner’s 

gasoline includes oxygenates or the 

refiner is including downstream added 

oxygenate in its compliance 

calculations. Apart from being necessary 

for use in the complex model, these 

parameters have little use for program 

compliance. In addition, we are 

proposing to reduce testing and 

reporting as follows: For both RFG and 

conventional gasoline we propose to 

eliminate the requirement to test and 

report API gravity for batch certification 

purposes. For winter RFG, we propose 

to eliminate the requirement to test and 

report the following parameters on an 

every batch basis and instead allow 

testing and reporting of monthly 

composites: aromatics, distillations and 

olefins. Winter sulfur and benzene 

would continue to be tested and 

reported on an every batch basis. All 

summer complex model parameters 

would still be required to be tested and 

reported on an every batch basis. For 

conventional gasoline, since the 

regulations already allow for testing and 

reporting most parameters on a monthly 

composite basis, the only significant 

change would be to eliminate the batch 

certification testing and reporting for 

API gravity. Only benzene, sulfur, and 

any oxygenates that are actually 

included in the gasoline batch must be 

tested and reported on an every-batch 

basis (except for refiners that are still 

subject to a complex model toxics 

standard; they must test all parameters 

but may use monthly composite testing 

and reporting except for sulfur and 

benzene, and oxygenate, where 

applicable). The values for aromatics, 

olefins, and distillation terms may 

continue to be determined from 

monthly composites. These changes 

would substantially reduce the testing 

and reporting associated with each 

batch. We request comment on this 

reduced testing scheme. 

ii. Amendments Related to Reporting 

EPA is proposing to amend various 

provisions in 40 CFR parts 79 and 80 to 

reduce the number of different reporting 

deadlines that regulated parties must 

meet and to enable the future use of a 

unified and simplified reporting form. 

EPA’s goal is to simplify reporting and 

reduce the number of hours parties 

spend preparing and submitting reports. 

This overall effort responds to Executive 

Orders 13563 and 13610, which direct 

government agencies to simplify rules 

and to achieve reductions in paperwork 

and reporting burdens, and is part of 

EPA’s agency-wide effort to streamline 

regulatory reporting requirements. 

Currently under 40 CFR parts 79 and 

80, there are ten separate cyclical 

reporting dates each year (eleven in a 

leap year). This proposal would amend 

these deadlines so that all affected 

programs use the same four dates. 

Programs that would be affected by this 

proposal include the fuels and fuel 

additives registration program (40 CFR 

part 79, subpart A), the Reformulated 

Gasoline and Anti-Dumping program 

(40 CFR part 80, subparts D and E), the 

Gasoline Sulfur program (40 CFR part 

80 subpart H), the Motor Vehicle, 

Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine 

Diesel program (40 CFR part 80 subpart 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29950 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

I), the Gasoline Benzene program (40 

CFR part 80 subpart L), and the 

Renewable Fuel Standard program (40 

CFR part 80 subparts K and M). We are 

proposing that reporting deadlines 

would be standardized as follows: June 

1, for all reports covering quarter 1 of 

the compliance year; September 1, for 

quarter 2; December 1, for quarter 3; and 

March 31 for quarter 4. End of year 

compliance reports would also be due 

on March 31. 

These proposed changes would either 

delay or maintain current deadlines for 

nearly all required reports. Deadlines for 

all other annual reports would either be 

maintained if they matched the new 

quarterly deadline, or extended to 

match the new quarterly deadline. 

These proposed changes would not 

include ‘‘Attest Engagements’’ or 

reporting related to specific events 

under the Fuels Program, such as 

trading Renewable Identification 

Numbers (RINS) in EPA’s Moderated 

Transaction System (EMTS). All 

reporting deadlines for Attest 

Engagements and reporting specific 

events would remain the same. 

Respondents would still have the 

option to report earlier than any given 

deadline. Additionally, these deadline 

changes would allow EPA to develop a 

single electronic format that would 

collect all required data and maximize 

the capability of electronic reporting 

with data reuse, no duplicate fields, and 

a user-friendly interface. 

We would also be correcting a 

typographical error in 40 CFR 

80.1451(f)(2) and clarifying that reports 

are to be signed by the ‘‘responsible 

corporate officer.’’ Additionally, we 

would remove an incorrect reference 

under 79.5(a)(2). 

iii. Amendments To Update Test 

Methods 

Refiners, importers and oxygenate 

blenders producing gasoline and diesel 

motor vehicle fuel are required to test 

RFG, CG and diesel fuel for various fuel 

parameters including aromatics, 

benzene, distillation, olefins, oxygenate 

content, RVP, and sulfur. A number of 

relevant regulatory provisions currently 

have references to test methods that 

have since been revised and updated. 

We are proposing to update those test 

methods to reflect current test methods 

in order to ensure that all test methods 

are readily available to the regulated 

community. ASTM International 

(ASTM) test method D2622 is currently 

the designated test method for 

measuring sulfur (§§ 80.46(a)(1), 

80.580(b)(2)), in gasoline and diesel fuel 

at the 500 ppm sulfur standard. ASTM 

test methods D5453, D6920, D3120 and 

D7039 are currently alternative test 

methods for measuring sulfur 

(§§ 80.46(a)(3)(i), 80.46(a)(3)(ii), 

80.46(a)(3)(iii), 80.46(a)(3)(iv)) in 

gasoline. ASTM test method D5453 is 

also alternative test method for 

measuring sulfur (§ 80.580(c)(2)) in 

diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur 

standard, as well as ASTM test method 

D4294. ASTM test method D6667 is 

currently the designated test method for 

measuring sulfur (§ 80.46 (a)(2)) in 

butane. ASTM test methods D4468 and 

D3246 are currently alternative test 

methods for measuring the sulfur 

(§ 80.46(a)(4)(i), 80.46(a)(4)(ii)) content 

in butane. ASTM D1319 is currently the 

designated test method for measuring 

olefins (§ 80.46(b)) in gasoline and 

aromatics (§ 80.2(z)) in diesel fuel and is 

also allowed as an alternative test 

method for measuring aromatics 

(§ 80.46(f)(3)) in gasoline. ASTM D6550 

is currently an alternative test method 

for measuring olefins (§ 80.46(b)(2)(i)) in 

gasoline. ASTM test method D5599 is 

currently the designated test method for 

measuring oxygenates (§ 80.46(g)(1)) in 

gasoline. ASTM test method D4815 is 

currently an alternative test method for 

measuring oxygenates (§ 80.46(g)(2)) in 

gasoline. ASTM test method D5769 is 

currently the designated test method for 

measuring aromatics (§ 80.46(f)(1)) in 

gasoline. ASTM test method D3606 is 

currently the designated test method for 

measuring benzene (§ 80.46(e)) in 

gasoline. ASTM test method D86 is 

currently the designated test method for 

measuring the distillation (§ 80.46(d)) of 

gasoline. ASTM test method D5191 is 

currently the designated test method for 

measuring the RVP (§ 80.46(c)) of 

gasoline. ASTM test method D976 is 

currently the designated test method for 

measuring the Cetane Index (§ 80.2(w)) 

of diesel fuel. ASTM standard practice 

D4057 is currently the manual sampling 

standard practice for petroleum and 

petroleum products (§ 80.8(a)). ASTM 

standard practice D4177 is currently the 

automatic sampling standard practice 

for petroleum and petroleum products 

(§ 80.8(b)). ASTM standard practice 

D5842 is currently the RVP sampling 

standard practice for fuels (§ 80.8(c)). 

ASTM standard practice D5854 is 

currently the composite sampling 

standard practice for petroleum and 

petroleum products (§ 80.8(a)). 

Table VI–2 lists the designated 

analytical test methods and alternative 

analytical test methods for RFG, CG and 

diesel fuel that we are proposing to 

update in today’s action. The Agency 

has reviewed these updated ASTM test 

methods and believes that the revisions 

contained in them will result in 

improvements in the utilization of these 

test methods for the regulated industry. 

We also believe that our proposal to 

revise these test methods would not 

result in significant changes that would 

cause a user of an older version of the 

same method to incur increased 

compliance costs. Moreover, all of the 

revisions were deemed necessary by 

ASTM International so that 

improvements in the test method’s 

procedures would ensure better 

operation for the user of the test 

method. Thus, EPA is proposing today 

to update the regulations for the 

following ASTM test methods: (1) 

ASTM D2622–10, the designated test 

method for measuring sulfur in RFG, 

CG, and alternative test method for 

diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur 

standard; (2) ASTM D3120–08, 

alternative test method for sulfur in 

gasoline, ASTM D4294–10, alternative 

test method for sulfur in diesel fuel at 

the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (3) ASTM 

D5453–09, alternative test method for 

sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuel at the 

500 ppm sulfur standard; (4) ASTM 

D6667–10, designated test method for 

sulfur in butane; (5) ASTM D4468– 

85(2006), alternative test method for 

sulfur in butane; (6) ASTM D3246–11, 

alternative test method for sulfur in 

butane; (7) ASTM D1319–10, designated 

test method for measuring olefins in 

gasoline and aromatics in diesel fuel, as 

well as the alternative test method for 

measuring aromatics in gasoline; (8) 

ASTM D6550–10, alternative test 

method for measuring olefin content in 

gasoline; (9) ASTM D4815–09, 

alternative test method for measuring 

oxygenate content in gasoline; (10) 

ASTM D5599–00(2010), the designated 

test method for measuring oxygen 

content in gasoline; (11) ASTM D5769– 

10, the designated test method for 

measuring aromatics in gasoline; (12) 

ASTM D3606–10, the designated test 

method for measuring benzene in 

gasoline; (13) ASTM D86–11a, the 

designated test method for measuring 

distillation properties of gasoline; (14) 

ASTM D5191–10b, the designated test 

method for measuring the RVP of 

gasoline; (15) ASTM D976–06(2011), the 

designated test method for measuring 

the Cetane Index of diesel fuel; (16) 

ASTM D4057–06(2011), the manual 

sampling standard practice for 

petroleum and petroleum products; (17) 

ASTM D4177–95(2010), the automatic 

sampling standard practice for 

petroleum and petroleum products; (18) 

ASTM D5842–04(2009), the sampling 

standard practice for RVP of fuels; and 

(19) ASTM D5854–96(2010), the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29951 

composite sampling standard practice 

for petroleum and petroleum products. 

TABLE VI–2—PROPOSED DESIGNATED & ALTERNATIVE ASTM INTERNATIONAL ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS UNDER RFG, 

CG & DIESEL MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL PROGRAMS

Fuel parameter ASTM analytical test method 

Sulfur (gasoline) .................................................. ASTM D2622–10, entitled ‘‘Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry.’’ 

Sulfur (500 ppm diesel) ...................................... ASTM D2622–10, entitled ‘‘Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry’’ 

Sulfur (gasoline) .................................................. ASTM D5453–09, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light 

Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet 

Fluorescence.’’ 

Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel) ............................ ASTM D5453–09, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light 

Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet 

Fluorescence.’’ 

Sulfur (gasoline) .................................................. ASTM D3120–08, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of Sulfur in Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative Microcoulometry.’’ 

Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel) ............................ ASTM D4294–10, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Energy 

Dispersive Xray Fluorescence Spectrometry.’’ 

Sulfur (butane) .................................................... ASTM D6667–10, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Volatile Sulfur in 

Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence.’’ 

Sulfur (butane) .................................................... ASTM D4468–85(2006), entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by 

Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry.’’ 

Sulfur (butane) .................................................... ASTM D3246–11, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative 

Microcoulometry.’’ 

Oxygen content (gasoline) .................................. ASTM D5599–00(2010), entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in 

Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection.’’ 

Oxygen content (gasoline) .................................. ASTM D4815–09, entitled ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, 

DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography.’’ 

Olefins (gasoline) ................................................ ASTM D1319–10, entitled ‘‘Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum 

Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption.’’ 

Olefins (gasoline) ................................................ ASTM D6550–10, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for the Determination of Olefin Content of 

Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography.’’ 

Aromatics (gasoline and diesel) ......................... ASTM D1319–10, entitled ‘‘Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum 

Products by Fluorescent Indicator Absorption,’’ for diesel fuel, this method is the designated 

test method; for gasoline, this method is an alternative test method and if used as an alternative method, its results must be correlated to ASTM D5769. 

Aromatics (gasoline) ........................................... ASTM D5769–10, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene, Toluene, 

and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.’’ 

Benzene (gasoline) ............................................. ASTM D3606–10, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene 

in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography.’’ 

Distillation (gasoline) ........................................... ASTM D86–11a, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure.’’ 

Reid Vapor Pressure (gasoline) ......................... ASTM D5191–10b, entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products 

(Mini-Method).’’ 

Cetane Index (diesel) ......................................... ASTM D976–06(2011), entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels.’’ 

Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum 

Products.

ASTM D4057–06(Reapproved 2011), entitled, ‘‘Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.’’ 

Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.ASTM D4177–95(Reapproved 2010), entitled, ‘‘Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of 

Petroleum and Petroleum Products.’’ 

RVP Sampling for Fuels ..................................... ASTM D5842–04(Reapproved 2009), entitled, ‘‘Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling 

of Fuels for Volatility Measurement.’’ 

Composite Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.ASTM D5854–96(Reapproved 2010), entitled, ‘‘Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of 

Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products.’’ 

iv. Amendments Related to Downstream 

Blending 

Today’s proposed rule also clarifies 

the list of products that are not to be 

included in a refinery’s or importer’s 

compliance determination under 

§ 80.1240. Refiners and importers are 

currently required under § 80.1235(b)(2) 

to exclude oxygenate added to finished 

gasoline, RBOB or CBOB downstream of 

either the refinery that produced the 

gasoline or the import facility where the 

gasoline was imported. This conflicts 

with EPA’s intended approach in 

§ 80.1238(b), which allows refiners and 

importers to include oxygenate blended 

downstream of a refinery or import 

facility in their annual average benzene 

calculation, provided the refiner or 

importer meets certain requirements. 

We are proposing changes that would 

allow refiners and importers to include 

oxygenate blended downstream of their 

facility and that would make these 

related sections consistent. 

v. Amendments for Previously Certified 

Gasoline 

For benzene, we would also provide 

flexibility for refiners and importers by 

providing an alternative allowing them 

to directly sample and test each batch of 

blendstock, and treat the blendstock as 

the produced batch for blendstock that 

is blended into previously certified 

gasoline (PCG). We are proposing to add 

§ 80.1347(a)(6) to reflect this alternative. 

This practice is already allowed under 

the Tier 2 sulfur program (at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29952 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

403 70 FR 74561 (December 15, 2005). 

404The industry established ‘‘Top Tier’’ deposit 

control standards can be found at http:// 

www.toptiergas.com/deposit_control.html. EPA’s 

deposit control requirements are contained in 

§§ 80.140 through 80.174. 

§ 80.340(a)(2)). Refiners and importers 

are currently required to test the PCG for 

benzene before addition of blendstock, 

test the combined blend of PCG and 

blendstock for benzene, and calculate 

the properties of the blendstock by 

treating the PCG as a negative volume 

batch and treating the blended product 

as a positive batch. Due to variability in 

the benzene test method, the PCG 

approach can sometimes result in 

calculated blendstock benzene 

concentrations that are negative, which 

is physically impossible. We are 

proposing to amend the regulations at 

§ 80.1235(a)(6) (and add § 80.1347(a)(6), 

as mentioned) to allow refiners and 

importers that blend blendstock into 

PCG an alternative to directly test the 

blendstock for benzene. We expect that 

this would ensure a positive benzene 

test result. Also, today’s proposal would 

clarify that regardless of the approach 

used, a negative sulfur or benzene result 

cannot be reported; rather, any negative 

result must be rounded to zero. 

Similarly, no negative annual average 

result can be reported. We are also 

proposing to amend the regulations at 

§ 80.1235(a)(5) to clarify that refiners 

and importers may use either approach 

for blendstocks that are blended into 

either conventional gasoline or 

reformulated gasoline. 

Lastly, we are proposing to allow 

importers who import gasoline into the 

United States by truck to use the 

sampling and testing requirements in 

subpart E for truck importers as an 

alternative to the sampling and testing 

requirements in subpart L. EPA 

provided these alternative requirements 

in subpart E to eliminate the need to test 

every truckload of imported 

conventional gasoline for all complex 

model parameters, including 

benzene.403 Since Subpart L also 

requires importers to test every 

truckload of imported gasoline for 

benzene, EPA believes it is appropriate 

to allow truck importers of gasoline to 

use the sampling and testing 

requirements in subpart E as an 

alternative. Today’s rule proposes to 

amend the regulations to provide this 

alternative by adding a new § 80.1349. 

vi. Amendments Related to Designation 

of an Alternative Lab 

Refiners have indicated to EPA that 

significant problems are created when a 

facility’s designated lab is 

nonoperational and testing cannot be 

performed at the lab during that time 

period. We are thus proposing (at 

§ 80.65(f)(5)) that a facility have the 

ability to designate a back-up or 

alternative lab for testing during such 

times. In no case could this alternative 

lab be used to select the best test result, 

rather it could only be used on those 

occasions where operational necessity 

causes a need for it (e.g., the normal lab 

is closed, the apparatus for certain test 

methods are down, or independent lab 

personnel are not available). 

vii. Amendments Related to De Minimis 

Reporting Changes 

We are proposing for the correction of 

batch volume reports to allow for de 

minimis changes in reporting 

compliance that would not require a 

complete resubmission of compliance 

reports when a minor discrepancy of a 

few barrels is uncovered. This 

allowance for the correction of batch 

volume reports would apply to 

reporting for: RFG, anti-dumping, 

gasoline and diesel sulfur, MSAT2 and 

the RFS renewable volume obligation 

(RVO) (for RFS, this would only apply 

to the volume of fuels produced or 

exported that result in a RVO for 

obligated parties). We are proposing a 

new section 80.10 to define de minimis, 

for the purpose of this allowance, as no 

more than 500 gallons or by no more 

than 1 percent of the true batch volume 

in gallons, whichever value is less. We 

request comment on whether or not a 

different amount would be more 

appropriate. 

viii. Amendments Related to RFS2 

Annual Report Date 

Currently, the RFS2 final reporting 

date (last day of February) coincides 

with the RFG and Anti-dumping 

compliance deadline, which creates a 

staffing problem for regulated entities 

because the regulatory requirements are 

often handled by the same personnel. It 

was reported to EPA that this also 

creates an issue when small 

discrepancies in gasoline production or 

import volumes are realized, and can 

potentially trigger an increased RFS 

RVO and an ensuing scramble to obtain 

the necessary Renewable Identification 

Numbers (RINs) in real time. Delaying 

the RFS reporting date until after 

volumetric auditing would address this 

situation and would have no impact on 

emissions, air quality or compliance 

with the standard. As such, we are 

proposing to change the RFS2 reporting 

date in § 80.1451 to March 31. EPA is 

also seeking comment on whether the 

ability to transfer RINs in EMTS for 

satisfying RVOs under the previous 

compliance year should be extended 

from the last day of February to March 

31 as well. 

ix. Acceptance of Alternate Test Data 

Under the Gasoline Deposit Control 

Program 

The ‘‘Top Tier’’ deposit control 

gasoline standards developed by four 

major automakers are based on the 

premise that a more robust level of the 

control of vehicle engine and fuel 

systems beyond that provided by the 

EPA deposit control requirements is 

desirable.404 Several major gasoline 

marketers have adopted Top Tier for 

their gasoline. It is widely accepted that 

conformance with the Top Tier intake 

valve deposit (IVD) and fuel injector 

deposit (FID) control testing 

requirements is more challenging than 

complying with the EPA IVD and FID 

testing requirements. Yet additive 

packages must still be certified to EPA’s 

less stringent standards on older test 

procedures. We believe that EPA could 

accept IVD/FID test data that complies 

with the Top Tier requirements in place 

of IVD/FID data that complies with the 

current EPA testing requirements 

without jeopardizing the emissions 

benefits from EPA’s deposit control 

program. We are proposing that test data 

that complies with the Top Tier IVD 

performance standards at section 1.3.1 

could be used to satisfy EPA’s IVD 

control requirements. We are also 

proposing that test data that complies 

with the Top Tier FID performance 

testing standards at section 1.3.3 could 

be used to satisfy EPA’s FID control 

requirements. We believe that this 

allowance would provide significant 

saving to industry from reduced deposit 

control testing while maintaining the 

emissions benefits of EPA’s gasoline 

deposit control program. These changes 

are being proposed in the regulations at 

§§ 80.161(b), 80.163(a)(1)(iii), 80.164(a), 

80.165, 80.167(a), 80.176, and 80.177. 

b. Broader Regulatory Streamlining 

Through Program Restructuring 

The current set of fuel regulations is 

the result of programs that have been 

established over the years to reduce 

emissions from mobile sources. These 

programs include gasoline volatility 

(RVP), reformulated gasoline and antidumping, sulfur control (which the Tier 

3 program proposed today would 

revise), mobile source air toxics 

(MSAT1), benzene control (MSAT2), 

and the renewable fuel standards (RFS). 

Most of these regulations have been 

amended numerous times. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29953 

The RFG and anti-dumping 

regulations in particular contain some of 

the more burdensome requirements on 

sampling, testing, and reporting. They 

also have some of the more stringent 

restrictions on gasoline use (e.g., 

restricting where fuel produced can be 

sold, what it may be commingled with, 

etc.). EPA used the RFG and antidumping rules as the foundation for 

many aspects of subsequently 

developed fuel regulatory programs. 

However, the subsequent rules, 

considered as a whole, have supplanted 

most of the RFG and anti-dumping 

standards. For this reason, we are 

proposing to streamline the regulations 

in several places as described above. 

Initial discussions with fuel industry 

representatives have indicated that a 

comprehensive review of the complete 

set of fuel regulations contained in Parts 

79 and 80 (‘‘Registration of Fuels and 

Fuel Additives’’ and ‘‘Regulation of 

Fuels and Fuel Additives,’’ respectively) 

of the Code of Federal Regulations could 

lead to further streamlining of the 

regulations beyond the streamlining 

provisions proposed today. 

EPA expects that streamlining would 

result in more efficient and less costly 

compliance determinations for affected 

parties while maintaining the 

environmental benefits of the programs. 

Since such changes could require not 

just the removal or streamlining of 

existing provisions but also the 

replacement of several provisions with 

new, less onerous ones, we are not 

proposing such changes today. 

However, EPA requests comments on 

potential areas in the fuel regulations 

that may benefit from such a more 

comprehensive streamlining effort. For 

example, it may be possible for the RFG 

VOC standard to be met if a sufficiently 

stringent RVP level is attained. Under 

this scenario, sampling and testing 

requirements at the refinery would be 

reduced. Another potential scenario 

could involve consolidation of some 

RFG and anti-dumping rules; for 

example, a single set of rules governing 

the treatment of downstream ethanol 

blending and in-use surveys could 

provide greater efficiency and flexibility 

regarding fuel distribution. 

2. Subpart I Technical Amendments 

TABLE VI–3—40 CFR PART 80 SUBPART I (DIESEL FUEL) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

Section Description 

80.572(a) .................. Amended to remove the requirement for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel pump labels beginning November 30, 2014, and to 

amend the title to reflect that the section includes labeling requirements for dispensers of motor vehicle diesel fuel. 

80.584(b)(3)(i) .......... Amended to correct typographical error (‘‘notc’’ to ‘‘not’’). 

We are proposing to remove the 

requirement for diesel fuel pump labels 

for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel. 

Beginning December 1, 2010, all 

highway diesel fuel was required to be 

15 ppm or less; thus, highway diesel 

fuel labels are no longer needed to 

distinguish it from 500 ppm highway 

diesel fuel. However, we do recognize 

that it may confuse consumers who are 

accustomed to seeing the highway 

diesel fuel pump labels if those labels 

were to disappear, so we are also 

requesting comment on the removal of 

this labeling requirement. Note that if 

highway diesel fuel pump labels are no 

longer required by the regulations, retail 

and wholesale purchaser-consumer 

facilities would be free to continue 

labeling to eliminate confusion if they 

so choose. 

3. Performance-Based Measurement 

Systems (PBMS) 

TABLE VI–4—PBMS-RELATED TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

Section Description 

80.46 ........................................................ Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for measuring gasoline parameters. 

80.47 ........................................................ Added to extend the performance-based approach to other parameters besides diesel sulfur. 

80.101(i)(1)(i)(A),(i)(3)(i)(C), (i)(3)(ii)(C) ... Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for measuring gasoline parameters. 

80.330(c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2) ....................... Amended to allow for performance-based approaches for sampling and testing. 

80.370(a)(7)(iv) ........................................ Amended to require identification of the test method used to measure the sulfur content of a batch. 

80.585(a) and (d)(4) ................................ Amended to state the process for approval of test methods prior to and after adoption of PBMS for all 

fuel programs. 

80.1348 .................................................... Amended to state the sample retention requirements prior to and after adoption of PBMS for all fuel 

programs. 

80.1354(b)(2) ........................................... Amended to require identification of the test method used to measure the benzene concentration of a 

batch. 

Consistent with EPA’s performancebased measurement system (PBMS) 

initiative (as discussed below), today we 

are proposing a PBMS for those 

chemical and physical properties of 

motor vehicle fuels regulated by EPA’s 

motor vehicle fuel programs. 

Specifically, these are gasoline 

properties at § 80.46, gasoline sulfur at 

§§ 80.195 and 80.1603, and diesel fuel 

properties at § 80.2(z). This PBMS sets 

forth procedures and criteria by which 

laboratories making measurements to 

demonstrate compliance with fuels 

regulations may qualify alternative 

analytical test methods to those required 

in the regulations. It also sets minimum 

statistical quality control (SQC) 

requirements, following standard 

industry practices, by which 

laboratories must maintain and 

document the precision and accuracy of 

analytical methods used in the context 

of these programs. EPA envisions that 

the proposed PBMS would provide 

additional flexibility to the regulated 

industry in choosing test methods and 

foster innovation and improvement in 

the precision and accuracy of the 

measurement of motor fuel properties 

while not making any reductions in the 

emission benefits that result from motor 

fuel programs. It should also provide 

cost savings to the regulated industry by 

providing rapid access to newlydeveloped test methods with speed and 

ease of analysis. Some of these newer 

methods use smaller quantities of 

consumables and less-expensive 

instrumentation that are easier to 

automate, thus reducing both operating 

costs and environmental impact. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29954 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

405See §§ 80.580, 80.584 and 80.585. 

406ASTM D 1319–03ε1 (see § 80.46(f)(3)). 

407ASTM D 4815–04 (see § 80.46(g)(2)). 

408ASTM D 6550–05 (see § 80.46(b)(2)(i)). 

409ASTM methods D 5453–08a, D 6920–07, D 

3120–06ε1, and D 7039–07 (see §§ 80.46(a)(3)(i) 

through 80.46(a)(3)(iv)). 

410ASTM D 4468–85 (reapproved 2000) and 

ASTM D 3246–96 (see §§ 80.46(a)(4)(i) and 

80.46(a)(4)(ii)). 

411ASTM International (ASTM) is one such 

organization. 

412Public Law 104–113, 104th Congress, March 7, 

1996, H.R. 2196. 

413 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004. This rulemaking 

used standard materials with known chemical 

composition to evaluate the accuracy of candidate 

test methods. 

414See §§ 80.584 and 80.545. 

415See § 80.580(c)(2). 

416See §§ 80.584(a)(2), 80.584(b)(2)(i) through 

80.584(b)(2)(iii), and 80.585. 

a. Background 

Refiners, importers and oxygenate 

blenders producing RFG, conventional 

gasoline and diesel fuel are required to 

test these fuels to determine the levels 

of various specified parameters. A 

designated test method is associated 

with each parameter to be tested (except 

for sulfur concentration in ultra-low 

sulfur diesel fuel, which must meet 

performance-based requirements 405) in 

40 CFR part 80. Table VI–5 lists the 

parameters/fuels and their 

corresponding designated test methods 

that we are proposing to update. 

TABLE VI–5—DESIGNATED ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS FOR GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL

Fuel parameter Designated analytical method 

Sulfur in gasoline .......................... ASTM D 2622–10 

Sulfur in butane ............................ ASTM D 6667–10 

500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel ......... ASTM D 2622–10 

Olefins in gasoline ........................ ASTM 1319–10 

Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in 

gasoline.

ASTM D 5191–10b, with the following correlation equation: 

RVP psi = (0.956 * X) ¥ 0.347 

RVP kPa = (0.956 * X) ¥ 2.39 

where: 

X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa. 

Distillation in gasoline ................... ASTM D86–11a 

Benzene in gasoline ..................... ASTM D 3606–10, except that instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete resolution of 

benzene, ethanol, and methanol peaks. 

Aromatics in gasoline ................... ASTM D 5769–10, except that sample chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard are optional. 

Oxygen and oxygenate content in 

gasoline.

ASTM D 5599–00(2010) 

Aromatics in diesel fuel ................ ASTM D1319–10 

In addition to the designated analytic 

methods for the parameters mentioned 

above, EPA has specified alternative test 

methods for some parameters. These 

alternative test methods may be used in 

lieu of the corresponding designated test 

methods, provided that all test results 

are correlated to the appropriate 

designated test methods. Alternative test 

methods have not been established for 

all regulated motor vehicle fuel 

parameters, however. Specifically, 

alternative test methods have been 

established for measuring the gasoline 

properties of aromatic content,406

oxygenate content,407 olefin content,408

and sulfur content 409 as well as sulfur 

in butane.410 Currently, if a regulated 

party wishes to use an alternative test 

method that is not already approved, it 

must petition the Agency, and EPA 

must approve the use of this alternative 

method through a rulemaking process 

that on average, may take more than a 

year to complete. 

Approving new methods through 

rulemaking has been identified as a 

barrier to the use of innovative 

analytical test methods. In order to 

address these concerns and similar ones 

in other media areas, the Agency’s 

Environmental Monitoring Management 

Council established a workgroup of 

scientists representing EPA’s 

Headquarters and Regional offices to 

consider establishing a performancebased approach to specifying analytical 

testing requirements. On the 

recommendations of the workgroup, the 

Agency decided to incorporate the 

PBMS approach into its programs, to the 

extent feasible. 

EPA’s practice, in recent rulemaking 

activities, of aligning its prescribed 

methods with those published by 

Voluntary Consensus-based Standards 

Bodies (VCSBs) 411 is almost consistent 

with the PBMS policy and with the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA).412 For 

example, in the nonroad diesel 

rulemaking, which controlled the sulfur 

content of diesel fuel,413 EPA required 

only that laboratories demonstrate their 

test methods’ ability to meet a set 

performance criteria rather than 

prescribing that a single specific method 

be used. Today’s proposal extends the 

diesel sulfur qualification approach to 

the chemical/physical properties 

measured in other motor vehicle fuel 

programs, with modifications 

appropriate to accommodate the 

differences among the fuel parameters. 

b. Overview of Proposed Program 

Requirements 

In a June 29, 2004 rulemaking, EPA 

specified a performance-based approach 

to measuring diesel sulfur at 15 ppm 

and 500 ppm and removed the previous 

requirement of particular designated 

and alternative methods for 15 ppm 

diesel sulfur.414 We decided, in that 

rulemaking, to offer users two 

approaches to selecting test methods for 

diesel sulfur at the 500 ppm level. The 

first of these was to use either the 

designated test method or specific 

alternative test methods.415 The second 

option was to meet performance based 

requirements similar to those adopted 

for 15 ppm diesel sulfur.416 We are 

proposing today to extend the 

performance-based approach to method 

selection and qualification to other 

parameters besides diesel sulfur, with 

modifications appropriate to 

accommodate the differences among the 

fuel parameters. 

Specifically, we are proposing 

requirements that laboratories would be 

required to demonstrate the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29955 

417Precision—the amount of consistency in a set 

of measurements performed on the same material. 

ASTM repeatability and reproducibility are 

examples of measures of precision. ASTM 

Repeatability (‘‘r’’)—the difference between 

successive test results obtained by the same 

operator with the same apparatus under constant 

operating conditions on identical test material. 

ASTM Reproducibility (‘‘R’’)—the difference 

between two single and independent test results 

obtained by different operators working in different 

laboratories on identical test material using the 

same method. 

418Accuracy—the closeness of a single 

measurement to its true value of what is being 

measured. 

419For some parameters the criteria will be based 

on the laboratory’s chosen method’s ability to 

closely predict the measurements made by EPA’s 

chosen or ‘‘designated’’ method. This approach is 

made necessary by the ‘‘method-dependent’’ 

definition of some of the parameters to be 

measured. 

420 Gravimetric standards are test materials made 

by adding a carefully weighed (hence 

‘‘gravimetric’’) quantity of the analyte of interest to 

a measured quantity of another substance known 

not to contain any of the analyte. The result is a 

solution with a very accurately known 

concentration of the analyte. The accuracy of 

gravimetric standard reference materials can be 

closely controlled and is not dependent on an 

analytical test method. 

precision 417 and accuracy 418 of chosen 

fuel parameter measurement methods. 

Once implemented, this proposal 

would: (1) Require individual 

laboratories to demonstrate adequate 

measurement quality, (2) allow 

laboratories to choose methods that 

meet their own needs, provided they 

can meet prescribed criteria rather than 

specific methods,419 and (3) require all 

laboratories making regulatory 

measurements to establish and maintain 

a statistical quality control program. 

EPA intends that the measurement 

system resulting from this proposal 

would make no compromises on 

precision or accuracy relative to the 

system that exists under current 

regulations. We intend to incorporate 

the standards and practices of Voluntary 

Consensus Standards Body (VCSB) 

organizations wherever feasible. 

Today’s PBMS approach applies to 

the qualification of analytical test 

instrumentation and methods used to 

measure various characteristics of 

individual fuel samples. It does not 

apply to sampling methods or in-line 

blending methods. While in-line 

blending certainly includes the use of 

analytical measurements, it is broader in 

scope than this proposal. Including inline blending methodologies in this 

proposed rulemaking would raise issues 

that could not be adequately addressed 

in the context of this proposed 

rulemaking. Furthermore, in-line 

blending already has a certification 

process, as specified in regulations at 

§ 80.65(f), that sets forth qualification 

criteria that take into account the 

unique combinations of sampling, 

control, and analysis that are involved 

with in-line blending. However, we seek 

comment on potentially expanding our 

PBMS to include sampling or in-line 

blending methods. 

c. How can we establish the accuracy of 

the measurement system (all qualified 

methods/installations) for each 

parameter? 

We are proposing to group the 

gasoline and diesel fuel parameters that 

must be measured (e.g., aromatics, 

sulfur, etc.), into two categories. These 

categories depend on whether it is 

feasible to construct and use gravimetric 

standards 420 for defining the parameter 

and thus determining the accuracy of a 

measurement method. For some 

parameters it is difficult or perhaps 

impossible to make gravimetric 

standards. This is particularly true 

where the parameter is actually a class 

of chemical compounds (themselves 

containing multiple chemical 

compounds) that may have a very large 

number of members (e.g., aromatics in 

gasoline). Use of gravimetric standards 

for establishing accuracy may also be 

hindered if many of the potential 

measurement methods are sensitive to 

the chemical composition of the 

material that the analyte is added (often 

called the ‘‘matrix’’) and are thus prone 

to being ‘‘confused’’ into giving 

inaccurate answers. Where these two 

problems are not present, the use of 

gravimetric standards is the ideal way to 

establish the accuracy of the analytical 

test method. We will describe these as 

‘‘absolute’’ parameters. The accuracy 

qualification test for a method 

measuring such parameters should 

center upon its being able to get the 

‘‘right’’ answer for one or more 

gravimetric standards. 

To establish the accuracy of methods 

measuring each parameter where 

gravimetric standards hindered, we are 

proposing to retain an EPA-prescribed 

reference method or ‘‘designated 

method’’ that would, in effect, define 

the parameter as ‘‘parameter X is, for 

federal regulatory purposes, whatever 

method Z measures.’’ Parameters that 

require such treatment will be described 

as ‘‘method-defined’’ parameters. 

Establishing the accuracy of a method 

intended to measure such a parameter 

would be accomplished by relating its 

measurements on a particular set of test 

fuels to measurements made on the 

same fuels by a laboratory operating the 

designated method. This approach is 

often referred to as correlating the new 

method with the designated method. In 

other words, measurements from the 

new method (the ‘‘candidate’’ for 

qualification) would be used to predict 

the measurements that the designated 

method would get on the same fuels 

(with, perhaps, some offset or 

adjustment equation applied) and then 

these predictions would be compared 

with the actual measurements made 

from those fuels by the designated 

method. If the predictions are 

consistently close to the designated 

method measurements and evenly 

distributed above and below these 

reference values, then the laboratory 

and the method it proposes to use 

would have a good case for qualification 

with regard to accuracy. Such a 

correlative approach to qualification is 

dependent for its workability upon the 

test fuels used to establish the 

correlation. Such fuels must be 

sufficiently varied along all important 

dimensions so that day-to-day 

production laboratory operations are 

very unlikely to turn up some unusual 

fuels (or a new class of fuels produced, 

say, by some new refining process) for 

which the correlation equation derived 

earlier is not accurate and where the 

predictions of the designated method’s 

results are quite erratic and inaccurate. 

In addition to the dependence of the 

method-defined approach upon the 

choice of fuels for establishing the 

correlation to the designated method, 

this approach also greatly elevates the 

importance of the designated method 

that is used. An increasingly obsolete 

designated method might need to be 

changed for practical reasons, but 

adoption of a new designated method 

could bring about a de facto change in 

the standard for the parameter in the 

absence of a prescribed correction 

equation designed to align the new 

designated method with the old. While 

the gravimetric approach to 

measurement has its own problems, it is 

free of the difficulties associated with 

any particular method. 

Our classification of parameters into 

the absolute or method-defined 

categories is not entirely 

straightforward. Of the parameters 

subject to this proposal, only those with 

sulfur as the analyte fall into the 

absolute category. Sulfur is a single 

element rather than a compound (or, 

worse, a class of compounds with 

numerous members) and thus lends 

itself to the construction of gravimetric 

standards. The methods that are 

currently used to measure sulfur in 

gasoline and diesel fuel have been 

subject to intensive recent development 

work and are largely free of matrix 

effects. Sulfur in butane is even more 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29956 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

421The intent behind the qualification process is 

to demonstrate the facility’s capability with the 

method. Accordingly we are not proposing that 

each instrument used to implement a particular 

method be required to qualify (some labs may have 

several instruments implementing a single method) 

or that each operator be so required. We 

recommend, but are not proposing to require, that 

a laboratory rotate operators during the testing 

required for qualification, thereby both improving 

and testing the skills of all operators for a given 

method and strengthening its quality program. 

422Where the standard deviation is estimated 

from a sample of the population (formula uses ‘‘N– 

1’’ in the denominator). 

amenable to the absolute approach, 

since butane is a single compound 

rather than a constantly varying mixture 

of many compounds. We also note, as 

mentioned before, that the diesel sulfur 

rule used the absolute approach. For 

these reasons we are proposing to treat 

gasoline sulfur and sulfur in butane as 

absolute parameters. 

Beyond these two sulfur parameters, 

classification becomes more difficult. 

Where the analyte is a class of 

compounds, like aromatics, the 

construction of a gravimetric standard 

would have to be done by use of an 

agreed-upon conventional recipe that 

includes some group of the compounds 

in the class in proportions that 

approximate to what is found in the 

actual fuels that a method will measure. 

If the class has relatively few 

compounds and they are all available in 

reasonably pure form, then they could 

all be included in the standard, leaving 

only the issues of their respective 

concentrations (likely to vary among 

real fuels) and the question of ‘‘matrix 

effects’’ as discussed above. Where the 

class of compounds has many members 

and not all could be included in an 

artificially constructed standard, we are 

left with the question of which ones can 

be omitted on grounds that they are 

likely to occur only in very small 

concentrations and/or are not 

particularly important in emission 

formation. The result of these 

exclusions, for certain parameters, 

would likely be a directional bias 

toward underestimating the prevalence 

of the target class of compounds. The 

likely size of the bias will vary among 

parameters and among fuels on which 

measurements are made. Use of a 

complex recipe for such standards, 

where possible, may minimize the bias, 

but may add to the costs and difficulty 

of formulating a standard representative 

of all fuels. 

The distillation parameters (T50 and 

T90) seem to be largely resistant to a 

gravimetric approach that relies on pure 

compounds instead of the smooth curve 

that results from simple distillation of 

complex mixtures like gasoline and 

diesel fuel. Such gravimetric standards, 

incorporating only a very limited 

number of compounds out of practical 

necessity, would be likely to yield a 

kind of stair-step curve. 

Given these logical and practical 

difficulties with using a gravimetric 

approach to qualifying methods for 

parameters other than sulfur, EPA is 

today proposing that the methoddefined or correlative approach be used 

for all parameters other than sulfur. We 

are especially interested in receiving 

comment on our categorization of fuel 

parameters as either absolute or method 

defined. 

d. How would analytic methods be 

evaluated for qualification? 

i. General provisions: To which 

methods and which parties do the 

proposed requirements apply? 

As discussed above, EPA believes that 

the interests of measurement quality are 

best served by evaluating most method 

installations for qualification at the level 

of individual laboratories instead of 

individual instruments. This approach 

was used in regulating diesel sulfur. We 

are proposing to require laboratories to 

qualify all methods that will be used to 

make measurements for regulatory 

purposes. EPA does not believe that a 

relatively simple qualification test will 

ensure continued measurement quality, 

but rather that this will greatly reduce 

the likelihood of a laboratory 

undertaking important measurements 

without some assurance that the 

instrument is in working order, that at 

least one operator 421 in the laboratory 

understands the method for its use, and 

that it can be made to perform to meet 

acceptable criteria. We seek comment 

on requiring laboratories to qualify all 

methods used to take measurements for 

regulatory purposes. 

ii. How would laboratories demonstrate 

the precision and accuracy of methods 

for measuring ‘‘absolute’’ parameters 

and thus qualify the methods for use? 

We are proposing to require a separate 

qualification for test methods used to 

measure gasoline sulfur. As mentioned 

previously, the Agency has successfully 

implemented performance based 

requirements for sulfur in diesel fuel. 

The test methods typically used for 

gasoline sulfur (one of the two 

parameters we are proposing to consider 

absolute, as discussed above) are also 

frequently used for diesel sulfur and the 

ASTM test method designations for both 

are the same. However, examination of 

test method descriptions points toward 

substantial differences in how the test 

methods are used in the different 

matrices. One example is a requirement 

for recalibration when matrices shift. 

While we considered the possibility of 

allowing the diesel sulfur qualifications 

to be used also for gasoline sulfur, we 

believe the differences between a diesel 

fuel matrix and gasoline fuel matrix may 

be too great to permit such a sweeping 

exemption from qualification 

requirements. The process of reworking 

the test methods to measure gasoline 

sulfur will, in many cases, generate 

most of the data needed for 

qualification, and thus will not 

represent a major additional effort. So, 

despite the fact that ASTM test methods 

are the same for gasoline and diesel, we 

are proposing to require separate 

qualification for test methods used in 

measuring gasoline sulfur. 

Operational Description. We are 

proposing to require applications for 

qualification to include a complete 

operational description of the test 

method in question. A VCSB 

publication would satisfy this 

requirement for methods published by 

such organizations as ASTM. The 

description must include the scope of 

the test method, a summary, discussion 

of any interferences that are expected, 

apparatus needed, reagents, sampling 

and specimen preparation, calibration, 

test method procedure, calculations, 

and any test method-specific quality 

control. 

Precision Qualification. We are 

proposing requirements for precision 

qualification that are similar to 

requirements set forth in the nonroad 

diesel sulfur rule. That rule imposed a 

maximum value for the standard 

deviation 422 of a series of at least 20 

measurements over at least 20 days on 

a single fuel under site precision 

conditions. Specifically, the diesel rule 

used 1.5 times the repeatability standard 

deviation (ASTM ‘‘r’’/2.77) of what was 

the least precise of the then-allowed 

methods. The factor of 1.5, expands the 

allowable variability from that of backto-back tests (as in ASTM’s definition of 

repeatability) to account for the sources 

of greater variability that find their way 

into a longer series of tests on the same 

material. In the qualification process for 

ultra-low sulfur diesel testing, the factor 

of 1.5 proved to be neither so tight that 

most laboratories were unable to meet it, 

nor so loose as to not be challenging at 

all. Thus we consider it to be reasonable 

on its face, as well as having proven to 

be workable in practice, and we have 

therefore retained it in this proposal. We 

request comments on the selection of a 

test method’s repeatability to use as the 

basis of the qualification. 

Gasoline Sulfur Criterion. We are 

proposing to use the ASTM repeatability 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29957 

423This number was determined by using the 

repeatability equation for ‘‘r’’ from ASTM D7039– 

07 for a 10 ppm sulfur gasoline to get 1.76 ppm, 

dividing the ‘‘r’’ in ppm by 2.77 to obtain the 

underlying standard deviation of 1.39 ppm, and 

multiplying the result by 1.5 (criterion used in 

diesel sulfur rule) to get 0.95 ppm. 

424 71 FR 16492 (April 3, 2006). 

425See EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0048–0002. 

426 It is important to understand that the 

numerical examples presented in the text are 

entirely hypothetical, since use of precision testing 

material or gravimetric standards at levels other 

than those used in the examples would change all 

of the numbers. Use of a gasoline sulfur gravimetric 

standard at 5 ppm (instead of the 10 ppm used in 

the example) would require computing the 

repeatability of the method at 5 ppm using the 

equation given in the method description, dividing 

it by 2.77, multiplying the result by 1.5, and then 

multiplying that result by 0.75. As a short-cut, the 

accuracy criterion could be determined by 

multiplying the ASTM repeatability of the method 

at the level in question by 0.4061. 

standard deviation factor as discussed 

above from ASTM D7039–07 to set the 

precision criteria for gasoline sulfur. We 

note that there is a designated test 

method and four alternative test 

methods for gasoline sulfur. The larger 

repeatability among the test methods 

currently allowed for sulfur in gasoline 

is for ASTM D6920–07. This was 

obtained only when the substantially 

more variable of the two instrument 

models included in a small interlaboratory study was included. Since 

the most variable instrument model had 

a repeatability of nearly twice that of the 

other test methods and over four times 

that of the other instrument model for 

the same method, we believe that ASTM 

D6920–07 should be represented, for 

this purpose, by the instrument model 

yielding the better performance of the 

two. Given that decision, ASTM D7039– 

07 is left with the largest repeatability 

of these test methods. And we are 

proposing to use its repeatability (1.76 

ppm at 10 ppm) to set the precision 

criterion for this parameter. Thus the 

maximum allowable standard deviation 

of the twenty test results on a 10 ppm 

gasoline would be 0.95 ppm.423 Since 

we do not propose to prescribe the 

parameter level for the fuel used for 

these precision tests, this maximum 

limit will vary depending upon the 

repeatability number that the ASTM 

D7039–07 test method’s repeatability 

formula yields, given the parameter 

value of the test fuel chosen. If a 

laboratory selected a 5 ppm fuel to test 

instead of a 10 ppm fuel, the maximum 

limit for the standard deviation would 

be 0.67 ppm. 

Sulfur in Butane Precision Criteria. 

There are three test methods currently 

allowed for measuring the sulfur 

content of butane for blending into 

gasoline. A new designated test method 

was adopted for this parameter (ASTM 

D6667–10) 424 because the previous 

primary test method, D3246–11, had 

become somewhat obsolete. Given that 

D3246–11 is no longer widely 

available,425 though still an allowed 

alternative test method, and that the 

range of D4468–85 (reapproved 2006) 

extends only to 20 ppm, we are 

proposing a precision criterion based on 

the repeatability of D6667–10. This test 

method’s repeatability at the 10 ppm 

level is 1.15 ppm, so the calculations 

used above with gasoline sulfur yield an 

upper limit for the standard deviation of 

the 20 tests for sulfur in butane of 0.62 

ppm. 

Temporal Distribution of Precision 

Tests. With regard to spacing of the 20 

precision tests, we are proposing 7 or 

fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests 

per day. We believe this would prevent 

weekend testing while also precluding 

practices such as conducting one test on 

the first day and 19 tests on the 20th 

day. We believe that adequate spacing of 

testing is necessary if we are to have a 

meaningful standard for the longer-term 

stability of a particular test method in a 

particular laboratory installation. We are 

also taking comments on the following 

two options: (1) a requirement that 23 or 

more hours must elapse between tests 

(this option requires either testing on 

weekends or an extension of the 20 

days); and (2) tests arranged into no 

fewer than five batches of five or fewer 

tests each, with only one such batch 

allowed per day. 

Accuracy Qualification. We are 

proposing accuracy criteria for absolute 

fuel parameters that are similar to the 

criteria for sulfur in diesel fuel. 

Applicants for qualification would be 

required to select two commercially 

available gravimetric standard reference 

materials and then to show that their 

laboratory and method are capable of 

getting an average of ten consecutive 

results that are very close to the 

Accepted Reference Value or ARV for 

each. How close to the ARV these 

averages must be is the stringency part, 

and we propose to use 0.75 times the 

precision criterion described above, 

which is the same value as the diesel 

rules. In the case of gasoline sulfur, for 

a gravimetric standard with ARV = 10 

ppm, this would be 0.75 times 0.95 ppm 

or 0.71 ppm. The corresponding 

numbers for sulfur in butane at the 10 

ppm level would be 0.75 times 1.15 or 

0.47 ppm. We are proposing that for 

other parameter that might come to fall 

into the absolute category, the precision 

and accuracy criteria would be 

determined as a function of the ASTM 

repeatability of one of the methods 

(selected by EPA) available for 

measuring that parameter.426

iii. How would laboratories demonstrate 

the precision and accuracy of methods 

for measuring ‘‘Method-Defined’’ 

parameters and qualify the methods for 

use? 

Operational Description. For methoddefined parameters we are proposing 

the same operational description as that 

for absolute parameters. The operational 

description of a proposed test method 

must be very complete. We consider 

publication of a test method by a VCSB 

organization such as ASTM to meet this 

criterion. For non-VCSB test methods 

this description must meet very high 

standards for completeness and clarity. 

Since non-VCSB test methods have not 

been fully vetted by a VCSB, a nonVCSB test method would require 

additional information. In particular, 

the underlying scientific measurement 

principles must be thoroughly 

explained and the apparatus described 

well enough that a trained outsider 

could successfully implement the nonVCSB test method and replicate the 

applicant’s results. 

Precision Qualification Specifics. We 

are proposing the same precision 

qualification criteria as absolute 

parameters. For those method-defined 

parameters with alternative test 

methods that have been identified by 

regulations, preference will be given to 

the least precise of the allowed test 

methods. For reference installations we 

propose the additional requirements 

that the instrument must be shown to be 

in statistical control, as provided for in 

ASTM D6299–10e1 (and the SQC 

procedures to be discussed below); and 

that the applicant must submit control 

charts showing a record of in-control 

operation for at least five months. While 

these requirements would likely result 

in a delay between instrument setup 

and the ability to qualify it as a 

reference installation, we believe that 

the delay is necessary to demonstrate 

the stability of these critically important 

installations. Considering the number of 

long-established installations of these 

designated test methods, EPA expects 

no lack of laboratories capable of 

meeting these standards and able to 

provide this service commercially to 

any party interested in qualifying a new 

installation of an alternative test method 

for a method-defined parameter. Table 

VI–6 sets out our proposed precision 

criteria for the various method-defined 

fuel parameters with no alternative test 

method. 

Olefins in Gasoline Criterion. The 

designated method for this parameter, 

ASTM D 1319–10, is also the less 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29958 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

427Where maximum allowable standard deviation 

(SD) of 20 tests is less than or equal to 1.5 times 

the repeatability (r) of the designated test method 

divided by 2.77 (SD of 20 tests ≤ 1.5 X (r/2.77)). 

428An alternative to this measure can be to use 

the D6299–10e1 calculations. This would require 

statistical quality control (SQC) so that the 

instrument would have an acceptable quality of 

performance. This could reduce the burden of 

calculations and align this requirement better with 

the NTTAA. 

429See 142 Cong. Rec. H1264–1267 (daily ed. 

February 27, 1996) (statement Rep. Morella); 142 

Cong. Rec. S1078–1082 (daily ed. February 7, 1996) 

(statement Cong. Rockefeller); 141 Cong. Rec. 

H14333–34 (daily ed. December 12, 1995) 

(statements of Reps. Brown and Morella). 

430This use of the word ‘‘standards’’ refers to test 

methods, calibration materials, etc. 

precise of the two methods currently 

allowed. As such, its repeatability 

statistics are proposed as the basis for 

precision qualification. Thus for a test 

fuel with olefins at, say, 9 volume 

percent, the repeatability is 0.972, and 

the underlying standard deviation is 

0.972/2.77 = 0.351, and the precision 

criterion is 1.5 times that, or 0.53 

volume percent. A laboratory’s standard 

deviation for the 20 tests could not 

exceed that value and still qualify for 

precision. 

Aromatics in Gasoline Criterion. We 

are proposing to use the repeatability 

standard deviation for D1319–10 to set 

the precision criteria for aromatics in 

gasoline. (e.g., 1.3 volume percent for a 

fuel with 32 volume percent aromatics). 

The cut off point for the 20-test standard 

deviation using the test fuel would then 

be 0.70 volume percent. We note that 

D5769–10 is the current designated test 

method but that D1319–10 is still 

widely used. We also note that while 

not as precise as D5769–10, D1319–10 is 

the designated method for olefins, and 

has precision sufficiently close to that of 

the more modern designated method to 

make it still viable. 

Oxygen and Oxygenates in Gasoline 

Criterion. The two test methods allowed 

for oxygen are very close together in 

precision, at least for total oxygen 

content. The designated method, 

D5599–00(2010) is slightly less precise, 

leading us to propose that its 

repeatability be used to determine the 

criterion. So for a test gasoline with 3 

mass percent total oxygen, the 

repeatability would be 0.083 mass 

percent and the criterion for precision 

in this example comes out to 0.045 mass 

percent. 

TABLE VI–6—METHOD-DEFINED PRECISION CRITERION FOR FUEL PARAMETERS WITH NO ALTERNATIVES TO THE

DESIGNATED TEST METHOD

Fuel Parameter Example of fuel parameter level for demonstrating precision Proposed precision criterion 427

RVP in gasoline ................................................. RVP sample of gasoline equals 6.8 psi ........... 0.11 psi. 

Distillation in gasoline ........................................ Gasoline sample with initial boiling point (IBP) 

of 20 °C and 90 percent evaporated (E90) 

temperature of 110 °C.

IBP = 1.54 °C. 

E10 = 0.72 °C. 

E50 = 0.40 °C. 

E90 = 0.97 °C. 

FBP = 1.80 °C. 

Benzene in gasoline .......................................... Gasoline sample containing 1 volume percent 

benzene.

0.02 volume percent benzene. 

Aromatics in diesel fuel ...................................... Diesel sample containing 35 volume percent 

aromatics.

0.70 volume percent. 

Accuracy Qualification. Test methods 

used to measure method-defined 

parameters can be grouped into three 

types: reference installations of 

designated methods intended for use in 

qualifying alternative methods; 

designated method installations 

intended for ordinary production 

measurements; and non-designated 

methods. Since these reference 

installations will be used to evaluate the 

accuracy of other test methods and to 

evaluate whether the need for the 

establishment of a correlation equation. 

We are proposing that such reference 

instruments must be shown to be near 

the middle of the distribution of the 

industry monthly inter-laboratory 

crosscheck program for at least five 

months prior to application.428 We are 

proposing that laboratories would 

specifically compute the difference 

between either the instrument’s average 

measurement of the fuel closest to the 

applicable standards or to the average 

value for the fuel type in the complex 

model and the robust mean for that fuel 

obtained by all of the non-outlier labs in 

the program. We are proposing that the 

differences would then be standardized 

by expressing it in robust standard 

deviation units. This standardized interlaboratory cross check (ILCC) 

differences would be put into a moving 

average with a span of, for example, five 

months. We are also proposing to set the 

standard such that the instrument’s 

moving average would be within the 

central 50 percent of the distribution of 

participating designated method labs. 

Because a robust standard deviation is 

used by the ILCC program, this 

percentage will have to be approximate. 

Such lab-specific qualification would be 

outside of the normal qualification of a 

lab for making regulatory measurements 

for certifying fuel and would pertain 

only to use of the instrument in 

certifying other methods. EPA requests 

comment on the nature and stringency 

of this proposed requirement. 

Specifically, we request comment as to 

whether this is a reasonable requirement 

that is likely to be met by instruments 

in the best qualified laboratories. Could 

the ‘‘middle 50 percent’’ requirement be 

further tightened without severely 

restricting the supply of potential 

reference installations? Are there 

computationally simpler ways to 

accomplish the general purpose of this 

requirement? 

(1) Role of Voluntary Consensus Bodies 

in Qualifying Alternative Analytical 

Test Methods 

In February 1996, Section 12(d) of 

Public Law 104–113, Congress passed 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995’’ (NTTAA), in 

order to establish the policies of the 

existing OMB Circular A–119 in law.429

The purposes of Section 12(d) of Public 

Law 104–113 are: (1) To direct ‘‘federal 

agencies to focus upon increasing their 

use of [voluntary consensus] 

standards 430 whenever possible,’’ thus 

reducing federal procurement and 

operating costs; and (2) to authorize the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) as the ‘‘federal 

coordinator for government entities 

responsible for the development of 

technical standards and conformity 

assessment activities,’’ thus eliminating 

‘‘unnecessary duplication of conformity 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29959 

431See Cong. Rec. H1262 (daily ed. February 27, 

1996) (statements of Rep. Morella). 

432 63 FR 8546 (February 19, 1998). 

assessment activities.’’ 431 Section 21(d) 

of Public Law 104–113 also gives 

agencies the discretion to use other 

standards in lieu of voluntary consensus 

standards where use of the latter would 

be ‘‘inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical.’’ However, in 

such cases, the head of an agency or 

department must send to OMB, through 

NIST, ‘‘an explanation of the reasons for 

using such standards.’’ 

The final revision of Circular A–119 

defines Voluntary Consensus Standards 

as ‘‘standards developed or adopted by 

voluntary consensus bodies, both 

domestic and international’’, and 

defines VCSB as ‘‘domestic or 

international organizations which plan, 

develop, establish, or coordinate 

voluntary consensus standards using 

agreed-upon procedures and which 

possess the attributes of openness, 

balance of interest, due process, an 

appeals process, and consensus.’’ 

Finally, Circular A–119 indicates that 

consensus means ‘‘general agreement, 

but not necessarily unanimity, and 

includes a process for attempting to 

resolve objections by interested parties, 

as long as all comments have been fairly 

considered, each objector is advised of 

the disposition of his or her objection(s) 

and the reasons why, and the consensus 

body members are given an opportunity 

to change their votes after reviewing the 

comments.’’ 432

The Agency believes that VCSBs can 

play a valuable role in developing 

statistical tools for analytical test 

methodology description and 

evaluation, developing and describing 

new analytical test methodologies and 

organizing test programs to evaluate 

methodologies and assist laboratories to 

maintain quality measurement systems. 

EPA has frequently selected VCSBdeveloped methods as its designated 

methods for fuels programs. However, it 

has only adopted a particular version of 

each such method by incorporating it by 

reference in the Federal Register. In 

each case the Agency was endorsing and 

adopting test methods that were 

completely known and available for 

examination, rather than the unknown 

result of some future VCSB action. To 

simply say that any method approved 

by a VCSB is acceptable for all 

purposes, including compliance 

demonstrations would seem to invite 

such difficulties as: (1) multiple 

methods for a parameter, developed by 

different VCSB’s and not correlated 

adequately with each other, or (2) 

methods that change over time (by 

publication of new versions, for 

example) in such a way that the 

definition of what is being measured 

changes and no longer corresponds to 

what was used in setting compliance to 

the environmental standard(s). 

(2) Use of Reference Materials in 

Qualifying and Maintaining Alternative 

Analytical Techniques 

Depending on the qualification 

process chosen by the Agency, 

discussed in more detail below, the 

protocol proposed here for the 

qualification and maintenance of 

alternative test methods stops short of 

automatic acceptance of VCSB decisions 

and methods, but goes as far in that 

direction as we believe is consistent 

with the Agency’s mission of ensuring 

compliance with motor vehicle fuel 

programs. It gives some preference to 

VCSB-approved methods because of our 

greater confidence that such methods 

have been positively evaluated by a 

broad user community rather than by a 

narrower array of users. We are 

proposing today to also make 

substantial use of VCSB-developed 

statistical protocols for comparing 

methods and for use by particular 

laboratories in keeping analytic methods 

under adequate statistical quality 

control. 

We consider Reference materials to be 

samples of the type of material to be 

tested (gasoline or diesel fuel in this 

case) that are known or thought to have 

a particular concentration of the 

substance to be measured. Laboratories 

may use these materials to calibrate and 

evaluate the performance of 

measurement systems. EPA is proposing 

the following three types of reference 

materials that would be used in 

establishing and maintaining the 

accuracy of both designated and 

alternative analytical test methods: (1) 

Gravimetric standards, (2) consensusnamed fuels (gasoline or diesel fuel), 

and (3) locally-named standards. 

Additionally, some combinations of 

parameters and test methods limit the 

availability of some kinds of reference 

materials. This complicates the task of 

developing a methodology for qualifying 

alternative test methods. EPA recognizes 

the technical complexity and the 

likelihood that new analytical testing 

methods may emerge. Therefore, the 

Agency is also proposing to offer 

substantial flexibility in the choice of 

standard reference materials and the 

manner of their use, so long as they 

ensure accuracy and preserve the 

integrity of applicable fuel standards. 

Gravimetric Reference Standards. 

Gravimetric standards are test materials 

made by adding a carefully measured 

quantity of the analyte of interest to a 

measured quantity of another substance 

known not to contain any of the analyte. 

The result is a solution with a very 

accurately known concentration of the 

analyte. The accuracy of gravimetric 

standard reference materials can be 

closely controlled and is not dependent 

on an analytical test method. They do 

present certain practical problems in 

use. First, gravimetric reference 

materials cannot be made for all of the 

parameters under the RFG, CG and 

diesel fuel programs (e.g., distillation 

points and olefins). Second, there are 

‘‘matrix effects.’’ As earlier explained, 

matrix effects are where components in 

real-world gasoline or diesel fuel other 

than the analyte of interest confuse the 

instrument and cause it to measure the 

analyte differently than it would when 

measuring the same concentration of the 

analyte in a gravimetric standard built 

in a matrix where the instrument is not 

sensitive. Matrix effects are problematic 

for certain analytical methods, whose 

underlying scientific operating 

principles make the analytical method 

unable to utilize gravimetric standards 

for calibration when other types of 

materials (gasoline or diesel fuel) will 

have to be measured accurately. The 

approach taken in this proposal, where 

the gravimetric standard reference 

materials would be used in establishing 

the accuracy of a reference 

implementation of the designated 

method, is an approach that should 

minimize matrix effect problems. This is 

because the designated methods were 

selected, among other criteria, for their 

relative freedom from matrix effects. 

Thus, EPA believes that such materials, 

offer the best tools for establishing the 

accuracy of analytical test methods. 

When feasible, EPA believes that 

gravimetric reference standard materials 

should form the basis for establishing 

accuracy through correlation with 

designated analytical test methods 

calibrated with gravimetric standards. 

Consensus-named Fuels. These are 

homogeneous quantities of fuel that 

have been analyzed by a number of 

different laboratories (by sending 

around small samples). The average 

concentration of some parameter of 

interest across all of the different 

laboratories is then used as the 

‘‘consensus name’’ for that material. 

There are certain parameters that the 

Agency does not believe that 

gravimetric standard reference materials 

can be prepared. Aromatics are a class 

of numerous compounds that are 

produced by refinery processes in a 

mixture that is most likely impossible to 

duplicate in the laboratory with any 

consistency for all fuel because not all 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29960 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

433Where the standard deviation is estimated 

from a sample of the population (formula uses ‘‘N– 

1’’ in the denominator). 

434An alternative to this measure can be to use 

the ASTM D6299–10e1 calculations. This would 

require SQC so that the instrument would have an 

acceptable quality of performance. This could 

reduce the burden of calculations and align this 

requirement better with the NTTAA. 

refiners have the same configuration. 

For such parameters, it is therefore 

necessary to use consensus-named 

gasolines to control accuracy because 

they are the only reliable type of 

standard reference material that is 

available. The use of consensus-named 

gasolines may minimize matrix-related 

effects where they are used to establish 

the accuracy of different designated 

method implementations, though they 

may be less useful in evaluating 

alternative methods that have been 

adapted to measure a certain fuel 

matrix, but not sensitive enough to 

measure all fuel matrices the test 

method may encounter in use, 

otherwise known as ‘‘adaptive learning’’ 

technologies. The nominal 

concentrations in consensus-named 

gasolines can only be as accurate as the 

designated analytical test method used 

in the VCSB round robin study that 

named them. Consensus-named 

gasolines will also be costly and timeconsuming to produce and will need to 

be periodically replaced (i.e., when the 

supply is exhausted or the shelf life 

expires) through either a new round 

robin study or some approach using 

overlapped testing of the old standard 

reference material with a new batch 

(which will not, of course, have exactly 

the same concentration of analytes). 

Locally Named Reference Materials. 

These materials are also sometimes 

referred to as quality control samples 

(e.g., octane testing reference fuel). 

These are gasoline or diesel fuels that 

usually come from the regular 

production of the facility. These 

reference materials are used in 

laboratory quality control efforts and 

have been analyzed using the 

designated method (either by the 

facility’s lab or by a referee lab) to 

obtain an estimate of their 

concentration. The fuels are then stored 

carefully by the lab to slow their 

deterioration. The advantage to these is 

that since a refinery may already have 

such fuels on site for octane or cetane 

testing purposes, these materials may be 

relatively inexpensive. Another 

advantage is that, since a refiner would 

produce these fuels at the same site 

where the alternative method will be 

qualified, their use should minimize 

any difficulties associated with matrix 

effects. These locally named reference 

fuels are not as accurate as the VCSB 

round robin process and are not assured 

by gravimetric standard reference 

material construction. Thus, a refiner 

could only use them for relating an 

alternative method to a carefully 

calibrated installation of the designated 

method whose accuracy has been 

established and controlled by other 

means. 

We request comment on the 

appropriateness of using the three types 

of standard reference materials for 

accuracy that have been discussed and 

on their applicability in the 

qualification process and statistical 

quality control process of analytical test 

methods. 

(3) Qualification Criteria of Alternative 

Analytical Test Methods 

We are also proposing two options for 

refiners that wish to qualify an 

alternative test method as discussed in 

further detail in Sections VI.A.3.g.i and 

VI.A.3.g.ii of this proposal. For both of 

the proposed options the candidate test 

method must have precision at least 

equal to that of the designated analytical 

test method (though not defined in 

precisely the same way). And the 

alternative test method must be capable 

of correlation with the designated test 

method for the parameter such that the 

refiner may use the alternative test 

method results to produce predicted 

designated test method results that it 

can subsequently use in demonstrating 

compliance with the applicable fuel 

composition or performance standards. 

(4) Statistical Quality Control Program 

An important element of today’s 

proposed approach for the qualification 

of alternative analytical test methods is 

the description of a statistical quality 

control (SQC) program that may be 

applied to any analytical test method 

used in the regulatory programs covered 

by this proposal. We are proposing to 

require a SQC program as described 

below. EPA’s objective with statistical 

quality control is not to impose a 

complete new system of quality control 

measures, but rather to adopt a subset of 

SQC procedures that are already widely 

in use. We anticipate that the measures 

we have selected would not require the 

generation of much additional data by 

the laboratories that elect to employ 

them and that the SQC program would 

improve the quality of measurement 

among those labs that adopt such 

measures. 

e. Qualification Criteria for Designated 

Method Installations Used To Qualify 

Method-Defined Parameter Instruments 

Designated test method installations 

that will be used to qualify methoddefined parameter instruments are 

reference installations. Since reference 

installations will be used to evaluate the 

accuracy of other alternative test 

methods and to establish correlation 

equations, EPA believes that these 

reference installations should be held to 

higher standards. 

First, we are proposing that reference 

instruments meet precision qualification 

requirements that are similar to the 

criteria set forth in the nonroad diesel 

sulfur rule. As explained earlier, that 

rule imposed a maximum value for the 

standard deviation 433 of a series of at 

least 20 measurements over at least 20 

days on a single fuel under site 

precision conditions. Specifically, the 

diesel rule used 1.5 times the 

repeatability standard deviation (ASTM 

‘‘r’’/2.77) of what was the least precise 

of the then-allowed methods. For those 

‘‘method-defined’’ parameters from 

Table VI–1 above that do not currently 

have alternatives test methods the 

precision criteria is based on the fuel 

parameter’s designated test method. In 

each case the precision criterion is 

determined by (‘‘r’’/2.77) X 1.5 where 

‘‘r’’ is the ASTM repeatability 

determined for the particular fuel that is 

being used for the purpose of 

demonstrating the test method’s 

precision. 

Second, we are proposing that such 

reference instruments must be shown to 

be near the middle of the distribution of 

the industry monthly inter-laboratory 

crosscheck (ILCC) program for at least 

the five months prior to application.434

We are also proposing that laboratories 

would specifically compute the 

difference between the instrument’s 

average measurement of the fuel closest 

to the applicable standards (or to the 

average value for the fuel type in the 

complex model) and the robust mean for 

that fuel obtained by all of the nonoutlier labs in the program. And then 

standardize this difference by 

expressing it in robust standard 

deviation units. These standardized 

inter-laboratory cross check differences 

would be put into a moving average 

with a span of, for example, five 

months. We are proposing to set the 

standard such that the instrument’s 

moving average would be within the 

central 50 percent of the distribution of 

participating designated method labs. 

Because a robust standard deviation is 

used by the ILCC program, this 

percentage will have to be approximate. 

Such lab-specific qualification would be 

outside of the normal qualification of a 

lab for making regulatory measurements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29961 

435See §§ 80.580, 80.584 and 80.585. 

436This first approach assumes that a single such 

equation can be used for all labs using the method, 

an assumption that may not always hold. The more 

detailed discussion of the two approaches that 

follows this introduction explores this problem. 

437ASTM D 6708–08, entitled, Standard Practice 

for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of 

Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods 

that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a 

Material. 

for certifying fuel and would pertain 

only to use of the instrument in 

certifying other methods. In essence, 

these designated method installations 

will serve as surrogates for the 

gravimetric standards that cannot be 

used in qualifying alternative methods 

for method-defined parameters. 

Finally, for reference installations we 

propose that the reference instrument 

must be shown to be in statistical 

control, as provided for in ASTM 

D6299–10e1 (and the SQC procedures to 

be discussed below); and that the 

applicant must maintain control charts 

showing a record of in-control operation 

for at least five months. While these 

requirements would likely impose a 

delay between instrument setup and the 

ability to qualify it as a reference 

installation, we believe that the delay is 

necessary to demonstrate the stability of 

these critically important installations. 

Considering the number of longestablished installations of these 

designated methods, EPA expects no 

lack of facilities capable of meeting 

these standards and able to provide this 

service commercially to any party 

interested in qualifying a new 

installation for a method-defined 

parameter. 

f. Qualification Criteria for Designated 

Test Method Installations That Are 

‘‘Method-Defined’’ Parameters 

Instruments and Not Used To Qualify 

Other ‘‘Method-Defined’’ Methods 

Refiners, importers and oxygenate 

blenders producing gasoline and diesel 

fuel are required to test these fuels to 

determine the levels of various specified 

parameters. A designated test method is 

associated with each parameter to be 

tested (except for sulfur concentration 

in ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, which 

must meet performance-based 

requirements435) in 40 CFR Part 80. 

Table VI–5 of this preamble lists the fuel 

parameters and their corresponding 

designated test methods. 

We are proposing today that 

installations of designated methods 

must maintain records they meet 

statistical quality control requirements 

as detailed below in this preamble. 

Requiring all installations of all 

methods, including existing designated 

method installations, to implement 

statistical quality control, as we are 

proposing today, would likely suffice to 

homogenize and improve measurement 

quality in these already-stable and 

standardized methods. 

g. Qualification Criteria for Method 

Defined Parameter Instruments Other 

Than Designated Test Methods 

As discussed above, the Agency is 

also proposing to have two options for 

refiners to qualify an alternative test 

method that is a method-defined fuel 

parameter. The first option would allow 

for qualifying methods that have been 

sponsored and published by a VCSB, 

such as ASTM (the VCSB approach). 

The second way involves qualification 

for a laboratory that has developed its 

own analytical test method but has 

decided not to offer it for evaluation and 

establishment through a VCSB-based 

organizational process (the non-VCSB 

approach). Both options require the 

candidate method to have precision at 

least equal to that of the designated 

analytical test method (though not 

defined in precisely the same way). The 

alternative method must also be capable 

of close correlation with the designated 

method for the parameter such that the 

refiner may use the alternative method 

results to produce predicted designated 

method results that it can subsequently 

use in demonstrating compliance with 

the applicable fuel composition or 

performance standards. The proposed 

criteria for both the VCSB and nonVCSB approaches to qualify methoddefined instruments are discussed in 

further detail below. 

i. Qualification Criteria for VCSB 

Method-Defined Parameter Test 

Methods 

The first of these approaches to 

qualifying alternative methods applies 

only to methods that have been 

sponsored and published by a VCSB, 

such as ASTM. We are proposing that 

the VCSB must have fully described the 

analytical test method, so that it is 

replicable in different laboratories and 

understood by any technician. We 

would consider publication of a method 

by a VCSB organization such as ASTM 

to meet this criterion. The VCSB must 

have tested the candidate method in a 

round robin program against the 

designated method, must have 

published a determination that the 

method meets the criteria specified in 

the discussion below, and must have 

published the information necessary to 

correlate the alternative method to the 

designated method.436

We are also proposing that an 

alternative analytical test method need 

not be qualified separately in each 

laboratory that adopts it. This is because 

by the time such a test method has been 

through the extensive development 

process typically required by a VCSB, 

the method’s procedures would have 

been exhaustively described. At this 

point there will be little uncertainty 

about how the analytical test method is 

to be applied, and it will have been 

implemented in a variety of different 

laboratories and used on a variety of 

different types of fuels. Therefore the 

VCSB-based process gives EPA some 

confidence that the analytical test 

method is likely to be stable in use and 

can be implemented with very little 

ambiguity regarding instrumentation, 

materials, and procedures. Moreover, 

VCSB method evaluation protocols have 

been established; including a protocol 

for comparing methods provide means 

for establishing a proposed VCSB 

alternative method’s precision parity 

with the designated method for the 

parameter and for determining whether 

the alternative method can be 

adequately correlated with the 

designated method.437 EPA is also 

proposing that VCSB method-defined 

test methods utilize ASTM D6708 to 

determine if a correlation equation is 

necessary. 

ii. Qualification Criteria for Non-VCSB 

Method-Defined Parameter Test 

Methods 

The second way a candidate 

alternative method may qualify does not 

involve the process by which a VCSB 

evaluates and officially establish 

methods through publication. EPA is 

proposing that a candidate method that 

follows the non-VCSB-based route for 

qualification must be qualified 

independently by each analytical 

laboratory that wishes to adopt the 

method. This is because such a method 

has not been shown to be capable of 

accurately measuring the parameter in 

different laboratories and across a 

variety of fuel matrices. 

The following is a discussion of the 

qualification criteria for non-VCSB 

method-defined parameter test methods. 

First, the Agency proposes to require a 

complete operational description of the 

non-VCSB test method, as described 

above in Section VI.A.3.d.ii and 

VI.A.3.d.iii of this preamble. The 

operational description must be 

thorough enough that a person lacking 

expertise in the operation of the test 

instrument would be able to replicate its 

results. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29962 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

438Fuels, either consensus named fuels or locally 

named reference materials, used must be typical of 

those to be analyzed by the facility in practice and 

must meet the data requirements (variability, etc.) 

of ASTM D6708–08. 

439Cross-method reproducibility is a quantitative 

expression of the random error associated with the 

difference between two results obtained by different 

operators using different apparatus and applying 

the two methods X and Y, respectively, each 

obtaining a single result on a identical test sample, 

when the methods have been assessed and an 

appropriate bias-correction has been applied. It is 

defined as the 95 percent confidence limit for the 

difference between two such single and 

independent results. 

440Such SQC programs are already an established 

part of VCSB protocols for analytical laboratory 

operation (as indicated by such practices as ASTM’s 

D6299–10e1) and are likely to be part of most 

laboratories ’’standard operating procedures.’’ Thus, 

such a requirement very likely adds little or nothing 

in the way of burden for most laboratories. 

Laboratories that lack such programs and would 

have to expend significant effort to create them are 

those most at risk for poor measurements and for 

which the effort is most easily justified. 

Second, the Agency proposes that the 

candidate non-VCSB test method be 

tested on a range of fuels 438 and by a 

qualified reference installation of the 

applicable designated test method. 

Third, the Agency proposes that the 

specific laboratory using the candidate 

non-VCSB test method must statistically 

establish through application of ASTM 

D6708–08 that the candidate method 

measures the same aspect of samples as 

the applicable designated test method. 

Fourth, the Agency is proposing to 

disqualify non-VCSB test methods with 

important sample-specific biases (matrix 

effects) that cannot be considered as 

random as determined by ASTM 

D6708–08. It is possible a situation may 

arise where a non-VCSB test method 

suspected by the applicant of being 

highly matrix-sensitive may be qualified 

on a narrowly circumscribed range of 

fuels (which must meet the D6708–08 

statistical variability criteria). In this 

situation, the types of fuels on which 

qualification was achieved and for 

which the method is to be approved 

must be specified in the method 

description. Fuels outside of this scope 

would have to be analyzed for 

regulatory purposes by some other 

method that was not this limited. The 

Agency believes that any restriction on 

the scope of fuels for which the method 

is to be qualified must be accompanied 

by a discussion of how the applicant 

plans to screen samples for conformity 

to the scope. 

Fifth, the Agency proposes that 

precision qualification be conducted in 

the form of cross-method 

reproducibility 439 of the candidate and 

applicable designated test method, 

where the cross-method reproducibility 

must be equal to or less than 70 percent 

of the published reproducibility of the 

applicable designated test method. 

The Agency believes, that when 

ASTM D6708–08 is used in this manner 

(without joint round robin data) the 

cross-method reproducibility (Rcm) 

output by the program is not really a 

reproducibility in the usual sense, but 

rather indicates the expected value with 

uncertainty of the differences between 

the designated method and qualification 

candidate method. We believe that 

when used this way, Rcm from ASTM 

D6708–08 is more analogous to a site 

precision than to an inter-laboratory 

reproducibility. 

As described, this measure can 

reasonably be expected to fall between 

the published reproducibility (R) and 

repeatability (r) of the designated test 

method. Because qualified alternative 

test methods should be able to generally 

do as well as the designated test method 

Rcm be less than or equal to ‘‘R’’. Since 

‘‘R’’ is typically established when the 

test method is first developed, and 

laboratory experience with it is limited, 

the real reproducibility for a method 

long in service is likely to be smaller 

than ‘‘R.’’ Moreover, as mentioned 

above, Rcm is more like a site precision 

number, for a well-run installation, that 

must be smaller than ‘‘R’’ since the 

systematic component of the differences 

between the instruments has been 

adjusted out and the ‘‘within-methodinterlaboratory’’ component of variance 

is not present. On the other end of the 

space between ‘‘r’’ and ‘‘R,’’ the 

published repeatability has far fewer 

sources of variability than any other 

measure of its kind, suggesting that the 

cut-point should be closer to ‘‘R’’ than 

to ‘‘r’’. The proposed 70 percent fraction 

of published reproducibility was 

selected because there is some evidence 

to suggest that site precisions for various 

methods/parameters tend to average 

around that fraction of the same 

method’s published reproducibility. We 

are also requesting comment on the 

appropriate percentage of ‘‘R’’ that the 

‘‘cross-method reproducibility’’ should 

be equal to or less than. 

Sixth, the Agency proposes that the 

applicant demonstrate, through the use 

of ASTM D6708–08, whether a 

correlation to the designated test 

method is necessary. ASTM D6708–08 

can also be used to determine whether 

the candidate method’s results are null 

compared to the designated test method 

and thus needs no adjustment or 

correlation, or whether some correction 

or correlation equation is required so 

the candidate method may predict 

designated method results. We are 

proposing the use of ASTM 6708–08 for 

corrections, if it is determined through 

the use of ASTM D6708–08 that the 

candidate method requires such a 

correction to predict designated test 

method results. The Agency proposes 

that the correction would be applied to 

the candidate instruments output to 

obtain measurements results for 

regulatory purposes. 

Finally, we are proposing to require 

that applicants for non-VCSB test 

methods secure an independent third 

party oversight and audit review of the 

data generated and used to qualify nonVCSB test methods. We are proposing 

that the independent third party would 

provide an overall assessment of the 

analytical technique and methodology 

and discuss any limitations in the scope 

of the method, as well as attest that all 

the requirements for non-VCSB test 

method qualification have been 

satisfied. The Agency believes this 

requirement would provide additional 

assurance that a non-VCSB test method 

is found to be adequate in use for 

compliance. 

We seek comments on all aspects of 

today’s proposal. Additionally, the 

Agency is particularly interested in 

comments on the appropriateness of the 

qualification criteria for candidate 

method-defined parameter non-VCSB 

test methods. 

h. Statistical quality control: How can 

we ensure that test methods continue to 

deliver quality measurement in 

practice? 

As discussed previously, an important 

element of today’s proposal is a 

statistical quality control program that 

may be applied to any analytical test 

method used in the regulatory programs 

covered by this proposal. Today, the 

Agency is proposing that every 

laboratory using test instruments to 

measure fuel parameters must 

implement and maintain a basic SQC 

program in order to satisfy EPA’s 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. We are proposing that 

every laboratory have a separate SQC 

program for each instrument used to 

make measurements for reporting or 

recordkeeping purposes.440 This is 

unlike the qualification criteria 

requirements, where only one of a set of 

essentially identical instruments 

implementing the same method in a 

laboratory must qualify. 

We are proposing that 

implementation of a SQC program by a 

laboratory would be a defense in any 

subsequent enforcement actions where 

the measurements are in use. We are 

proposing to adopt a subset of SQC 

procedures that are already widely in 

use from ASTM D6299–10e1. We 

anticipate that the measures we are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29963 

441See ASTM D6299–10e1, paragraph 3.2.3 for a 

definition and Section 6 for guidance, selection, 

construction, handling, storage and use of reference 

material samples. 

442See ASTM D6299–10e1, section 7 and Section 

A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including 

criteria for deciding upon corrective action. 

443See ASTM D6299–10e1, Section A1.5.2 for 

chart construction and usage. Any exceedance of 

the control limit should be investigated. 

444See ASTM D6299–10e1, Annex A1.9 QProcedure. Procedures differ depending whether an 

I-chart, MR chart, EWMA chart, Q-chart or a 

combination of these charts are utilized by the 

laboratory. 

445See ASTM D6299–10e1, Section 8.2 

(pretreatment) and Section 8.4 (assessment). 

Procedures differ depending upon whether a single 

check standard is used for multiple testing 

occasions or multiple check standards must be 

used. 

446See ASTM D6299–10e1, Section 8.4 and 

appropriate Annex sections for chart construction 

and guidance. 

447See ASTM D6299–10e1, paragraph 3.2.3 for a 

definition and Section 6 for guidance, selection, 

construction, handling, storage and use of reference 

material samples. 

448See ASTM D6299–10e1, section 7 and Section 

A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including 

criteria for deciding upon corrective action. 

449See ASTM D6299–10e1, Section A1.5.2 for 

chart construction and usage. Any exceedance of 

the control limit should be investigated. 

450As defined in ASTM D6299–10e1, Section 

3,2,3, and further discussed in Section 6.2. 

Optimum use of materials that are consensusnamed by a number of laboratories may be possible 

only if these materials are distributed in sufficient 

quantity that they may be used as check standards 

after their consensus-determined ARV is known by 

all laboratories. As mentioned in the text, only 

measurements made on the designated method for 

the parameter in question may be used in 

determining the ARV for this purpose. 

451Following the guidelines of ASTM D6299– 

10e1, Section 6.2.2. 

452See ASTM D6299–10e1, Section 8.2 

(pretreatment) and Section 8.4 (assessment). 

Procedures differ depending upon whether a single 

check standard is used for multiple testing 

occasions or multiple check standards must be 

used. 

453See ASTM D6299–10e1, Section 8.4 and 

appropriate Annex sections for chart construction 

and guidance. 

proposing would not require the 

generation of much additional data by 

the laboratory that employs them and 

that the SQC program would improve 

the quality of measurement among those 

labs that adopt such measures. These 

SQC procedures used by laboratories 

would ensure that the test methods they 

have qualified and the instruments on 

which the methods are run are yielding 

results with appropriate accuracy and 

precision, e.g., that the results from a 

particular instrument does not ‘‘drift’’ 

over time to yield unacceptable values. 

The proposed minimum specific SQC 

requirements for laboratories that 

measures absolute parameters, and both 

VCSB and non-VCSB methods used to 

measure method-defined parameters, 

are discussed in further detail below. 

i. Statistical Quality Control for 

Absolute Parameters 

We are proposing precision and 

accuracy SQC requirements for each 

instrument used to measure absolute 

parameters in the laboratory. We are 

proposing that every instrument would 

test a quality control (‘‘QC’’) material 441

either of: once per 20 production tests 

or once per week and maintain both an 

‘‘I’’ chart 442 and an ‘‘MR’’ chart.443 We 

are proposing that any violations of the 

control limit(s) would be investigated by 

laboratory personnel, corrective action 

taken as required, and records kept of 

the incident for a period of 5 years. We 

are also proposing to follow the 

procedures of ASTM D6299–10e1 for 

making transition from one batch of QC 

material to another. We are a also 

proposing the use of Annex A1.9, 

entitled ‘‘Q-Procedure,’’ of ASTM 

D6299–10e1 for validating new QC 

material. We are proposing that when 

QC material is soon-to-be-depleted, that 

a new batch of QC material is prepared 

and its value compared to the old QC 

material on a chart. The new batch of 

QC material would be tested 

concurrently with the soon-to-bedepleted old QC material. The results 

would be plotted from the ‘‘old’’ and 

‘‘new’’ QC materials on its respective 

chart, and if no special-cause signals are 

noted, then the result for the new 

material would be considered valid.444

We are proposing to require that every 

instrument tests a commercially 

available gravimetric standard reference 

material (SRM) (‘‘check standard’’ as 

defined in ASTM D6299–10e1) on a 

quarterly basis. The absolute difference 

between the mean of multiple back-toback tests of the SRM and ARV of the 

SRM greater than 0.75 times the 

published reproducibility of the test 

method must be investigated by 

laboratory personnel, appropriate action 

taken, and records kept of the incident 

and investigation. We are proposing that 

records of the SRM measurements and 

investigations into any exceedances of 

these proposed criteria must be kept for 

a period of 5 years. Additionally, we are 

proposing to require laboratories to pretreat and assess results from the check 

standard testing after at least 15 testing 

occasions,445 construct ‘‘MR’’ and ‘‘I’’ 

charts 446 with control lines, and 

maintain control charts, logging, 

investigating, and correcting the 

underlying causes of any control limit 

violations as discussed in ASTM 

D6299–10e1. We are proposing that 

records of such incidents and the 

underlying control charts must be kept 

by the facility for a period of 5 years. 

ii. Statistical Quality Control for VCSBApproved Methods Used To Measure 

Method-Defined Parameters 

We are proposing precision and 

accuracy SQC requirements for every 

instrument used in VCSB-approved 

methods to measure method-defined 

parameters in the laboratory. With 

regard to precision, we are proposing 

the same SQC for instruments used for 

absolute parameters. We are proposing 

that every instrument test a quality 

control QC material 447 once every 20 

production tests or once per week 

whichever is more frequent. We are also 

proposing the maintenance of an ‘‘I’’ 

chart 448 and a ‘‘MR’’ chart.449 We are 

proposing that violations of the control 

limit(s) in these charts would be 

investigated, corrective action taken as 

required, and records kept of the 

incident for a period of 5 years. We are 

also proposing that laboratories follow 

the procedures of ASTM D6299–10e1 for 

making the transition from one batch of 

QC material to the next. 

With regard to accuracy we are 

proposing that each laboratory perform 

a check standard 450 for each instrument 

as defined in ASTM D6299–10e1 for 

each instrument on a quarterly basis. 

We propose that check standards for 

‘‘method-defined’’ parameters must be 

ordinary fuels with levels of the 

parameter of interest close to either 

regulatory standards or to the average 

level of use. We also propose that ARVs 

of such standards must be determined 

through consensus methods 451 on 

designated method instruments. The 

absolute difference between the mean of 

multiple back-to-back tests of the SRM 

and ARV of the SRM greater than 0.75 

times the published reproducibility of 

the test method must be investigated, 

appropriate action taken by laboratory 

personnel, and records kept of the 

incident and investigation. We are 

proposing that records of the SRM 

measurements and investigations into 

any exceedance of the criteria must be 

kept for a period of 5 years. 

Additionally, we are proposing that 

laboratories must pre-treat and assess 

results from the check standard testing 

after at least 15 testing occasions,452

construct ‘‘MR’’ and ‘‘I’’ charts 453 with 

control lines, and maintain control 

charts, logging, investigating, and 

correcting the underlying causes of any 

control limit violations as discussed in 

ASTM D6299–10e1. We are proposing 

that records of such incidents and the 

underlying control charts must be kept 

by the laboratory for a period of 5 years. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29964 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

454See ASTM D6299–10e1, paragraph 3.2.3 for a 

definition and Section 6.1 for guidance, selection, 

construction, handling, storage and use of quality 

control samples. 

455See ASTM D6299–10e1, section 7 and Section 

A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including 

criteria for deciding upon corrective action. 

456See ASTM D6299–10e1, Section A1.5.2 for 

chart construction and usage. Any exceedance of 

the control limit should be investigated. 

457Reasons for not submitting a local method for 

VCSB evaluation may include the proprietary 

nature of software or apparatus or the fact that the 

method is highly matrix-sensitive and not likely to 

perform consistently when used to analyze fuels 

with widely varying properties. EPA recognizes that 

matrix sensitivities may be subtle and methods with 

such characteristics may have been sponsored and 

published by VCSB’s. 

iii. Statistical Quality Control for NonVCSB Methods Used To Measure 

Method-Defined Parameters 

We are also proposing precision and 

accuracy SQC requirements for 

instruments used in non-VCSB methods 

to measure method-defined parameters 

in the laboratory. We are proposing 

precision requirements for instruments 

used in these types of test methods that 

are the same as those proposed for 

absolute parameters. We are proposing 

that every instrument be tested on a 

quality control ‘‘QC’’ material 454 once 

per 20 production tests or once per 

week, whichever is more frequent. We 

are also proposing the maintenance of 

an ‘‘I’’ chart 455 and a ‘‘MR’’ chart.456 We 

are proposing that violations of the 

control limit(s) in these charts should be 

investigated, corrective action taken as 

required, and that records of the 

incident must be kept for a period of 5 

years. We are proposing that 

laboratories follow the procedures of 

ASTM D6299–10e1 for transitioning 

from one batch of QC material to the 

next. 

The proposed accuracy requirement 

depends on whether the methoddefined parameter test method has 

minimal matrix interferences or whether 

the method-defined parameter test 

method is highly sensitive to matrix 

composition. The Agency believes that 

non-VCSB test methods are expected to 

vary considerably to the extent that their 

results are sensitive to fuel 

characteristics other than the level of 

the analyte of interest. For methods 

judged by their operators to be relatively 

insensitive to such matrix effects, EPA 

believes that the same SQC accuracy 

approach used with VCSB-approved 

methods measuring ‘‘method-defined’’ 

parameters is appropriate. Where this is 

the case, a statement to this effect must 

be included in the application for 

qualification. Any decision to abandon 

this approach to SQC accuracy must be 

reported to EPA along with the data and 

reasoning that led to the conclusion. 

For non-VCSB methods used to 

measure method-defined parameters 

that are highly sensitive to matrix 

composition, we are proposing the same 

accuracy requirements that must be 

maintained as for other methods for 

method-defined parameters, except that 

the check standards will consist of 

production fuels, representative of those 

production fuels routinely analyzed by 

the laboratory, that have been submitted 

to a reference installation of the 

designated test method. We are 

proposing that the designated test 

method measurements should be 

replicated and the average of these 

results used as the ARV for the check 

standard. Additionally, we are 

proposing that the laboratory operating 

the alternative method is responsible for 

the qualification status and current 

stability of the reference method 

installation (for example, 

documentation on the identity of the 

reference installation and its control 

status must be maintained on the 

premises of the laboratory that is using 

the alternative test method). 

Also for non-VCSB methods, the 

Agency is proposing external checks on 

the accuracy of matrix-sensitive 

methods. Laboratories that have 

qualified such a method would be 

required to send a sample of each 20th 

production batch of gasoline or diesel 

fuel to EPA’s Ann Arbor laboratory, 

along with the lab’s measurement 

results using the alternative method (the 

result used to certify the batch). The 

EPA lab may return such a sample on 

a blind basis for a required reanalysis by 

the originating laboratory at any time up 

to two months from EPA’s receipt of the 

sample. This external control is an 

additional check on both the site 

precision of the alternative method and 

its accuracy. We request comments on 

all aspects of our proposal. 

i. Agency Approval Options 

We are proposing to require 

qualification of only non-VCSB test 

methods for fuel parameters. We are 

also seeking comment on whether we 

should require qualification of all test 

methods for fuel parameters. We are 

also proposing a requirement for 

regulated parties to identify the test 

method used for each compliance 

measurement as part of the applicable 

record keeping and reporting. The 

following section contains a discussion 

of our proposal. 

We believe that the proposed 

approach to performance-based 

qualification of test methods goes 

considerably beyond the minimum 

requirements of the NTTAA in 

providing flexibility of method choice, 

and accomplish performance-based 

qualification without compromising 

measurement quality. We also believe 

that the primary tools for achieving the 

latter objective are lab-specific 

qualification of method installations 

and a requirement for across-the-board 

SQC. While EPA would benefit from 

finalizing today’s proposal by no longer 

having to evaluate new alternative 

measurement methodologies, this 

benefit is not likely to offset the 

substantial and unpredictable resource 

costs involved in administering a 

qualification process and providing 

infrastructural support for laboratories’ 

SQC programs. 

i. Agency Approval of Only Non-VCSB 

Methods 

We are proposing that only non-VCSB 

test methods for fuel parameters would 

need to be qualified. We are proposing 

to exclude designated test methods that 

have been in operation 6 months prior 

to finalizing this rule, as discussed 

below, as well as test methods that are 

developed by VCSBs, like ASTM 

International or the International 

Organization for Standards (ISO). A 

laboratory that has developed a test 

method but has decided not to offer it 

for evaluation and establishment 

through a VCSB-based organizational 

process would be required to qualify the 

test methods using the process 

discussed earlier.457 We are proposing 

that such test methods must be qualified 

independently by each analytical 

laboratory that wishes to adopt the test 

method. This is because such a test 

method has not been shown to be 

capable of accurately measuring the 

parameter in different laboratories and 

across a variety of fuel matrices. The 

precision for the candidate analytical 

test method must be established by a 

medium-term series of measurements on 

production fuels, the workability of the 

test method must be verified by at least 

one other laboratory, and its accuracy 

must be demonstrated by direct 

correlation to the designated analytical 

test method for the particular fuel 

parameter. 

We are proposing the following 

requirements for test methods that have 

been sponsored and published by a 

VCSB such as ASTM or ISO. The test 

method must be fully described so that 

it is replicable in many different 

laboratories and so that its operation 

may be understood by a technician. The 

VCSB must have tested the candidate 

test method in a round robin program 

against the designated test method, must 

have published a determination that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29965 

458This first approach assumes that a single such 

equation can be used for all labs using the method, 

an assumption that may not always hold. The more 

detailed discussion of the two approaches that 

follows this introduction explores this problem. 

459ASTM D 6708–08, entitled, Standard Practice 

for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of 

Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods 

that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a 

Material. 

460ASTM D 6708–08, entitled, Standard Practice 

for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of 

Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods 

that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a 

Material. 

test method meets the performance 

criteria as discussed, and must have 

published the information necessary to 

correlate the alternative test method to 

the designated test method.458

We are proposing a system of selfqualification for VCSB-based alternative 

test methods. Thus, we are also 

proposing that a VCSB-based candidate 

alternative test method need not be 

qualified separately in each laboratory 

that adopts it. This is because by the 

time a VCSB-based candidate alternative 

test method has been through the 

extensive development process typically 

required by a VCSB, the test method’s 

procedures will have been exhaustively 

described. At this point there will be 

little uncertainty about how the 

analytical test method is to be applied, 

and it will have been implemented in a 

variety of different laboratories and used 

on a variety of different types of fuels. 

Therefore, the VCSB-based process gives 

EPA some confidence that the analytical 

test method is likely to be stable in use 

and can be implemented with very little 

ambiguity regarding instrumentation, 

materials, and procedures. 

VCSB method evaluation protocols 

have been established, including a 

recently developed protocol for 

comparing methods, which provide 

means for establishing a proposed VCSB 

alternative method’s precision parity 

with the designated method for the 

parameter 459 and for determining 

whether the alternative test method can 

be adequately correlated with the 

designated test method.460

We also recognize that imposing this 

qualification requirement on existing 

test methods developed by a VCSB 

without adequate lead time may be 

problematic. We are thus proposing to 

give methods published and in 

operation when this proposal is 

published a grace period of one year 

from the effective date of a final rule 

before they meet these proposed 

requirements. 

We are also proposing to exempt 

existing (i.e., in use for six months prior 

to publication of this proposal) 

installations of designated test methods 

that are method-defined parameters 

from the qualification requirement. We 

presume these to be stable and capable 

methods in relatively experienced 

hands. Because they are already being 

used to certify fuels, requiring their 

qualification could be disruptive and 

burdensome to both their operators and 

to whoever manages the qualification 

process. Such installations would not 

benefit tangibly from this rule (as by 

obtaining access to a desired new 

method), but would nevertheless bear a 

newly-imposed burden. 

We are also proposing to require 

record keeping and retention 

requirements for both VCSB alternative 

and non-VCSB test methods. Parties 

would need to maintain qualification 

records for demonstrating compliance 

for a period of 5 years after they cease 

use of the particular test method. Parties 

must also maintain a complete 

description of the test method and data 

with statistical analysis that supports its 

qualification. 

We are also seeking comment on 

whether the Agency should require 

qualification of all analytical test 

methods for the fuel parameters at 40 

CFR 80. This would include each 

designated test method, all alternative 

test methods currently allowed by our 

regulations, as well as any other 

analytical test method regardless of 

whether the test method was developed 

by a voluntary consensus standards 

based organization, like ASTM, or if it 

is a proprietary analytical test method, 

that is, non-VCSB test method. 

We recognize that imposing the 

qualification requirement on existing 

and operational installations of all 

methods without adequate lead time 

may be problematic. We are thus 

proposing to give such laboratories (i.e., 

those in operation when this proposal is 

published) a grace period of one year 

from the effective date of the final rule 

before they must have qualified if they 

wish to continue in operation. We 

believe that a year should be enough 

time to determine whether an existing 

test method is likely to qualify or to 

adopt and qualify a replacement test 

method if it should fall short. New 

installations of previously accepted 

methods, including alternatives, would 

be required to qualify their laboratory 

before being put into service just like all 

other installations of new test methods 

in a laboratory. 

4. Downstream Pentane Blending 

The current regulations at 40 CFR 

80.82 reduce the burden of compliance 

with EPA gasoline quality requirements 

for parties that blend butane into 

conventional gasoline, reformulated 

gasoline (RFG), or reformulated 

blendstock for oxygenate blending 

(RBOB) downstream of a crude oil 

refinery. Parties that conduct such 

butane blending are considered a 

refiner, however, they are not subject to 

sampling testing requirements that 

would otherwise apply to a refiner 

provided they use butane of known 

quality and meet certain other 

requirements. Butane blending is not 

allowed into RFG or RBOB from April 

1 through September 30 or into any RFG 

or RBOB that is designated as VOCcontrolled. Butane blenders must test to 

ensure that the volatility requirements 

of the final gasoline blend are met. 

Testing to demonstrate compliance with 

other gasoline compositional 

requirements is not required provided 

that the blender has documents from the 

supplier demonstrating the butane is 

‘‘commercial grade.’’ Commercial grade 

butane is currently defined as butane for 

which test results demonstrate that it is 

95 percent pure and has the following 

properties: sulfur <= 30 ppm, benzene 

<= 0.03 volume percent, olefins <= 1.0 

volume percent, and aromatics <= 2.0 

volume percent. Documents from the 

supplier demonstrating the butane is 

‘‘non-commercial grade’’ may also be 

used to demonstrate compliance with 

gasoline quality requirements other than 

volatility provided the blender conducts 

a quality assurance program on the 

butane they blend. Non-commercial 

grade butane is currently defined as 

follows: sulfur <= 30 ppm, benzene <= 

0.03 volume percent, olefins <= 10.0 

volume percent, and aromatics <= 2.0 

volume percent. Today’s action is 

proposing to amend these butane 

specifications to replace the current 30 

ppm sulfur cap with a 10 ppm cap 

consistent with today’s proposed 10 

ppm refinery average sulfur standard. 

Butane blenders stated that 

broadening the downstream butane 

blending provisions to include pentane 

would help to increase the domestic 

supply of gasoline by providing a 

market for the pentane fraction of 

natural gasoline liquids. A substantial 

increase in the production of natural 

gasoline liquids is occurring as a byproduct of increased domestic natural 

gas and crude oil production in the U.S. 

Given the lower volatility of pentane 

compared to butane, a greater volume of 

such domestically-available feedstocks 

could be blended into gasoline 

downstream of the refinery while still 

maintaining the gasoline quality 

specifications including RVP. We 

request comment on whether the 

provisions for butane blending might 

also be applied to pentane blending, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29966 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

461 76 FR 39478 (July 6, 2011). 

462http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/zev2012/ 

fro2rev.pdf. 

including the specifications for the fuel 

qualities noted above. Specific comment 

is requested on the potential vehicle 

emissions and operability effects from 

such pentane blending. To the extent 

that pentane blending might displace 

butane blending, there may be some 

decrease in evaporative emissions due 

to pentane’s lower boiling point 

compared to butane. Therefore, we 

anticipate that allowing downstream 

blending of pentane would have a 

neutral or marginally beneficial effect 

on vehicle emissions. If we were to 

extend the downstream butane blending 

provisions to pentane, we also seek 

comment on whether any additional 

pentane quality specifications or 

blending requirements would be 

necessary to protect vehicle emissions 

and operability performance. 

B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment 

Programs 

We are proposing several technical 

amendments to existing regulatory 

requirements for motor vehicles and 

other types of vehicles and engines. 

These changes are intended to align 

with the Tier 3 standards proposed in 

this rule and to make various 

adjustments and corrections to the 

regulations. We are also proposing to 

remove large portions of obsolete 

regulatory text and update cross 

references accordingly. We request 

comment on all these amendments. 

However, we are not requesting 

comment on the underlying regulatory 

requirements except as specifically 

described in this section. 

1. Fuel Economy Labeling 

EPA adopted updated fuel economy 

labeling requirements in 40 CFR part 

600 on July 6, 2011.461 The label 

displays a smog rating based on relative 

emission rates for certified vehicles. 

With new Tier 3 standards, this rating 

scale becomes less useful, since the Tier 

3 standards would disallow certification 

to half of the existing smog ratings. We 

are therefore proposing a new smog 

rating scale starting in model year 2018. 

Manufacturers choosing to transition to 

the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards based 

on a percentage phase-in could continue 

to meet Tier 2 standards for the ‘‘phaseout’’ fraction of the fleet through model 

year 2020, but would use a new smog 

rating scale that lines up, to the extent 

possible, the Tier 2 standards with the 

new Tier 3 scale. We believe it is 

appropriate to shift to the new scale in 

model year 2018 to reflect the start of 

Tier 3 program for the majority of 

vehicles. 

The smog rating scale ranges from 1 

to 10. The federal Tier 3 program 

comprises seven different NMOG+NOX

emission certification levels. In 

addition, the California ZEV program for 

2018 and later model years includes a 

unique TZEV category, which falls 

between a ZEV (Bin 0) and a SULEV20 

(Bin 20), resulting in a total of eight 

emission standards.462 We propose to 

omit rankings 2 and 4, ranking the eight 

emission levels in order over the 

remaining ratings. Omitting ratings 2 

and 4 helps convey the larger absolute 

differences in the g/mile standards 

between Bins 70 and 125 and Bins 125 

and 160. 

We also propose to adjust the scale 

again in model year 2025 so that, 

consistent with the fuel economy and 

greenhouse gas rating, the middle of the 

scale (a smog rating of 5 or 6) is 

equivalent to the fleet average standard 

of 0.030 g/mile for NMOG+NOX. Using 

this approach, we would apply a smog 

rating of 8 for TZEVs and omit 9 from 

the smog ratings. We request comment 

on applying smog ratings to TZEV 

vehicles; in particular, we request 

comment on any appropriate 

differentiation of TZEV vehicles, such 

as assigning different smog ratings based 

on the particular SULEV exhaust 

emission standards or the allowance 

value for different all-electric range 

values. 

We request comment on these and 

other alternative approaches to revising 

the specifications for the smog rating on 

the fuel economy label. We also request 

comment on whether one or more 

transition rating scales would be 

appropriate to gradually adjust the smog 

rating scale as the fleet average 

standards become more stringent. 

2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text 

EPA regulations for highway and 

nonroad engines, vehicles, and 

equipment in many cases apply for a 

range of model years before being 

replaced by a new set of standards, 

requirements, and other provisions for 

implementing a program that changes to 

reflect technological innovation, 

changing environmental needs, new 

business dynamics, and other factors. 

We are proposing to take steps in this 

rulemaking to remove substantial 

portions of regulatory text that no longer 

have any regulatory significance, 

generally because they have been 

superseded by newer provisions. In 

many cases, this simply involves 

removing paragraphs or sections related 

to certifying products that no longer 

apply to 2004 or newer model years. In 

other cases, we can remove whole 

subparts that apply only to engines and 

vehicles that have reached the end of 

their useful lives for the purpose of 

regulation. For example, the in-use 

regulations from 40 CFR part 86, subpart 

H, applied only for 1993 through 2003 

model year light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles. Also, the National 

LEV standards in 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart R (and in Appendix XIII 

through XVIII of part 86), applied only 

for 1999 through 2003 model years. 

These subparts, and references to that 

content, can be removed from the CFR. 

Similarly, the provisions of 40 CFR 

part 86, subpart A, applied to light-duty 

vehicles only through model year 2000 

for light-duty vehicles and model year 

2004 for light-duty trucks and chassiscertified heavy-duty vehicles. Much of 

that subpart continues to apply for 

heavy-duty engines, so the obsolete 

portions must be removed more 

selectively. The proposal includes 

removal of substantial portions of 40 

CFR part 86, subpart A, to omit text that 

applies only for light-duty vehicles or 

light-duty trucks, and additional 

portions that do not apply for any 2004 

or newer model years. 

There are also instances where we are 

proposing to streamline the organization 

of regulatory sections in 40 CFR part 86. 

For those places where there is a new 

section for a given model year where all 

the old provisions continue to apply, 

and the new section introduces a 

narrow additional provision, we are 

proposing to copy the new paragraph 

into the section for the older model-year 

provisions, with descriptive language in 

place to say when the new provision 

applies. This consolidation would allow 

us to take out numerous sections that 

can lead to confusion for the reader. 

The following sections describe 

additional changes to remove material. 

a. Certification Short Test and I/M 

Provisions 

Inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

programs have been implemented by 

state and local governments for many 

years. These programs have been 

effective at identifying vehicles that 

need some kind of repair to restore 

vehicles’ emission control systems. In 

that context, they have also provided 

useful information to facilitate warranty 

coverage where defective components or 

systems were still covered by the 

manufacturer’s warranty, as required by 

section 207 of the Clean Air Act. In 

1993, EPA adopted a requirement for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29967 

463 58 FR 58382 (November 1, 1993) 

the certification short test (‘‘CST’’ or 

‘‘cert short test’’).463 The purpose of the 

cert short test was to correlate the 

vehicle manufacturer’s certification and 

I/M testing. Under this approach, the 

vehicle manufacturer certifies that a 

properly maintained and operated 

vehicle will pass I/M testing. When 

such a vehicle fails I/M during the 

warranty period, the manufacturer is 

responsible for the cost of repairs 

necessary to correct the problem so the 

vehicle can pass the I/M test. 

EPA adopted requirements in 1993 for 

manufacturers to design and build their 

vehicles with OBD, which provides 

performance feedback for evaluating 

whether emission control systems are 

functioning properly. This rule, 

combined with fleet turnover, has 

resulted in vehicles subject to I/M being 

equipped with OBD. The standard 

protocol for I/M programs now depends 

on the OBD system instead of tailpipe 

tests to determine which vehicles need 

maintenance. Since vehicle 

manufacturers have to certify the 

performance of OBD systems as part of 

the certification process, the use of OBD 

for I/M testing also provides a basis for 

determining that emission repairs are 

covered by the manufacturer’s warranty, 

when necessary. For many years, 

manufacturers have submitted a 

compliance statement for certification 

instead of submitting data to 

demonstrate that they meet the 

standards associated with the cert short 

test. Since emission measurements are 

no longer part of any standardized I/M 

testing, it has become clear that OBD 

systems have completely replaced the 

cert short test as the means of making 

warranty determinations for I/M testing. 

We are therefore proposing in this rule 

to entirely remove the cert short test 

standards and test procedures from 40 

CFR part 86, subparts O and S, and to 

similarly remove the emission 

measurement procedures from 40 CFR 

part 85, subpart W. 

The remaining regulatory text in 40 

CFR part 85, subpart W, relates only to 

the role of OBD testing in the 

determination of manufacturers’ 

warranty obligations resulting from I/M 

testing. In addition to removing material 

that no longer applies based on model 

years, we are proposing to update this 

remaining text in two ways. First, we 

are expanding the scope to include 

medium-duty passenger vehicles since 

these vehicles are now subject to both 

OBD certification requirements and I/M 

testing. Second, we are replacing all 

citations to SAE reference procedures 

with a cross-reference to 40 CFR 

86.1806, where we already specify all 

the relevant OBD reference procedures. 

This avoids the possibility of changing 

the certification procedures in a way 

that departs from the I/M and warranty 

provisions. Since these programs are 

paired, there would never be a need to 

specify different reference procedures 

for the two programs. 

b. Testing for Heavy-Duty Highway 

Engines 

We recently completed the migration 

of test procedures for heavy-duty 

highway engines from 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart N, to 40 CFR part 1065. Now 

that these manufacturers are all relying 

the new test procedures, we are 

proposing to eliminate the regulatory 

provisions that no longer apply. This 

involves large portions of text in 40 CFR 

part 86, subpart N, that have been 

superseded by analogous material in 40 

CFR part 1065, such as analyzer 

specifications, calibration procedures, 

calculation methods, and fuel 

specifications. The obsolete text also 

included several references to 40 CFR 

part 86, subpart D, which we are also 

proposing to no longer print in the CFR. 

We are keeping regulatory provisions 

in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, that serve 

as the ‘‘standard-setting part’’ for 

matters related to testing, such as the 

duty cycles and not-to-exceed test 

procedures. These provisions are unique 

to heavy-duty highway engines and are 

therefore not suitable for the general test 

specifications in 40 CFR part 1065. 

In the case of testing in-use engines 

that were originally certified using the 

procedures in 40 CFR part 86, subpart 

N, we are including a regulatory 

provision that would allow EPA and 

manufacturers to continue to use the 

original certification procedures as a 

pre-approved alternate procedure. 

c. Testing for Heavy-Duty Highway 

Vehicles 

The regulations at 40 CFR part 85, 

subpart M, describe how to test heavyduty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to 

demonstrate compliance with 

evaporative emission standards. Most of 

these provisions are identical to those 

that apply under 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart B. This can better be 

accomplished with appropriate 

references to the procedures in subpart 

B instead of repeating text. Relying on 

references to subpart B would eliminate 

many pages of unnecessary printing, but 

it would also make it easier for us to 

maintain a consistent set of 

requirements. Changing a provision in 

subpart B would automatically apply for 

evaporative testing of heavy-duty 

vehicles without making that duplicate 

change in subpart M. In addition, as 

noted in Section IV.C, we are proposing 

to allow manufacturers of these vehicles 

to rely on an engineering analysis 

instead of performing new tests. This 

would further reduce the need to have 

separate requirements spelled out for 

these vehicles. The revised regulations 

preserve provisions that are specific to 

heavy-duty vehicle testing. In particular, 

the heavy-duty procedure involves 

testing with a different driving schedule 

and wider speed tolerances, testing does 

not involve ethanol-blended test fuel, 

and exhaust emissions are not measured 

during the drive preceding the two-day 

diurnal emission test. 

In some cases, the current regulations 

in subparts B and M include differences 

in test provisions that we are not 

preserving. Some of these differences 

arose from changes to subpart B that 

were inadvertently not carried over to 

subpart M. In other cases, there may 

have been an intentional distinction that 

no longer applies (such as provisions 

related to slippage on twin-roll 

dynamometers. Perhaps the most 

important of these include procedures 

for determining road load settings and 

for operating manual or automatic 

transmissions. Additional differences 

we are not preserving include gas 

divider specifications, SHED and 

dynamometer calibration procedures, 

and some provisions for alternative 

canister loading and vehicle 

preconditioning. We are also restoring 

paragraphs § 86.1235(b) through (i) 

related to dynamometer operating 

procedures, which were inadvertently 

removed in an earlier rulemaking. This 

leaner approach for vehicles above 

14,000 lbs GVWR is also consistent with 

our proposed change to waive 

evaporative testing requirements for 

certifying these vehicles. 

d. Service Information Requirements for 

Light-Duty Vehicles 

The service information regulations 

were originally adopted for light-duty 

motor vehicles 40 CFR 86.038–96. These 

requirements applied for 1996 and later 

model year vehicles. Starting with the 

2001 model year, these same 

requirements were copied into 

§ 86.1808–01. These two sets of 

requirements are identical except for the 

model year applicability and a variety of 

very minor stylistic differences. We are 

proposing to revise the service 

information regulations in § 86.1808–01 

to apply also to 1996 through 2000 

model year vehicles, and to correct 

several typographical and formatting 

errors. These changes should have no 

practical significance, since the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29968 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

requirements are the same in both 

regulatory sections. 

3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules 

The CFR includes two separate 

driving schedules for motorcycles. The 

first, for motorcycles at or above 170 

cubic centimeters (cc), is identical to 

that used for light-duty vehicles except 

that the speeds are converted to 

kilometers per hour. The second driving 

schedule, for smaller motorcycles, is 

also identical except for a period of 

about three minutes of reduced-speed 

operation. To simplify this arrangement, 

and to make room for the new LA–92 

driving schedule described in Section 

IV.B for heavy-duty vehicles, and also to 

allow for reference to m/s values as 

described above for light-duty vehicles, 

we are proposing to eliminate the 

identical portions of these drive 

schedules. This revised approach 

involves referencing the driving 

schedule for light-duty vehicles with 

instructions to convert to kilometers per 

hour and round the resulting speeds to 

the nearest 0.1 kilometers per hour, 

instead of repeating the driving 

schedule just to publish the same speed 

trace in different units. The unique 

portion of the driving schedule is laid 

out, with reference to the light-duty 

driving schedule for the portions that 

are unchanged. This is not intended to 

cause any change in the current 

requirements or practices for certifying 

motorcycles. 

4. Updating Reference Procedures 

The regulations in 40 CFR part 1065 

depend on a large number of reference 

procedures and technical standards 

from ASTM, SAE International, and 

ISO, among others. These reference 

procedures and technical standards are 

updated periodically to keep them 

current with ongoing developments in 

the field. Many times these changes 

include only minor corrections or 

clarifications. In other cases the updates 

incorporate new test methods, 

accommodate changing engine 

technologies, or other more substantive 

changes. Whether the updated reference 

documents involve major changes or 

not, it is important for the regulations to 

rely on documents that are readily 

available. Toward that end, we plan to 

update § 1065.1010 with the latest 

versions of all the reference procedures 

and technical standards that we 

identify. 

In areas of the regulations other than 

part 1065, we intend to rely on the latest 

reference documents where we are 

changing or adding a provision that 

depends on one of these reference 

documents, but we do not plan in this 

rulemaking to make broad or universal 

changes to these references. 

One particular area of interest relates 

to rounding. As described in Section 

IV.F.3, we are proposing to define 

‘‘round’’ for 40 CFR part 86 to have the 

meaning we give in 40 CFR 1065.20, 

which spells out a detailed rounding 

protocol that is consistent with ASTM 

E29 and NIST SP811. The proposed 

definition of ‘‘round’’ will defer to 

existing references in part 86 so that the 

part 1065 protocol will apply only 

where we do not specifically refer to 

ASTM E29. This is not intended to 

change the policy for calculating or 

reporting numerical quantities, but 

rather to clarify the protocol and avoid 

the administrative complication of 

referencing multiple versions of the 

ASTM document. 

VII. What are the cost impacts of the 

proposed rule? 

We have estimated the costs for both 

the proposed vehicle standards 

described in Section IV and the 

proposed fuel standards described in 

Section V. This section summarizes 

these costs, while further information 

on the methodology we used to develop 

these costs can be found in Chapters 2 

and 5 of the draft RIA. 

Section VII.C provides a summary of 

total costs for the proposed vehicle and 

fuel programs together. We have also 

compared the proposed program costs to 

the projected emission reductions in 

Section VII.D and compared these costeffectiveness estimates to those for other 

programs. For a comparison of the 

program costs to the monetized health 

and welfare benefits, see Section VIII. 

A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle 

Standards 

To determine the cost for vehicles, we 

first determined which technologies 

were most likely to be applied by 

vehicle manufacturers to meet the 

proposed standards assuming gasoline 

sulfur levels were reduced to a 10 ppm 

average. These technologies were then 

combined into technology packages 

which reflected vehicle design attributes 

that directly contribute to a vehicle’s 

emissions performance. The attributes 

considered included vehicle type (car or 

truck), number of cylinders, engine 

displacement, and the type of fuel used 

(gasoline or diesel). We also created 

separate packages for light-duty and 

heavy-duty trucks and vans. In 

estimating both cost and technology 

application, we have relied on publicly 

available information (such as that 

developed by California), confidential 

information supplied by individual 

manufacturers and suppliers, and the 

results of our own in-house testing. The 

technology packages that we developed 

represent what we consider to be the 

most likely average emissions control 

solution for each vehicle type. 

In general, we expect that the majority 

of vehicles would be able to comply 

with the Tier 3 standards which we are 

proposing through refinements of 

current emissions control components 

and systems. Some vehicles may require 

additional emission controls, such as 

large trucks with large displacement 

engines (in particular, LDT3s and 

LDT4s). Overall, smaller, lighter-weight 

vehicles will require less extensive 

improvements than larger vehicles and 

trucks. Specifically, we anticipate a 

combination of technology upgrades 

including: 

• Catalyst Platinum Group Metal 

(PGM) Loading. Increased catalyst 

application of precious metals. 

• Optimized Close-coupled catalyst: 

Improvements to the catalyst system 

design, structure, and packaging to 

reduce light-off time. 

• Optimized Thermal Management: 

Overall thermal management of the 

emissions control system to improve to 

shorten the time it takes for the catalyst 

to light-off. 

• Secondary Air Injection: Increased 

application of secondary air injection 

for some 6-cylinder and larger engines. 

• Engine Calibration: Engine control 

and calibration modifications to 

improve air and fuel mixtures, 

particularly at cold start and/or to 

control secondary air and hydrocarbon 

adsorbers. 

• Hydrocarbon Adsorber: Limited 

application of hydrocarbon adsorbers to 

trap hydrocarbons during cold start and 

release the hydrocarbons after the 

catalyst lights off. 

• Evaporative Emissions Controls: 

Improved evaporative emissions 

systems, including canister scrubbers, 

more permeation-resistant materials, 

and improved system integration. 

As stated above, we have developed 

our costs with respect to a given vehicle 

type and the type of engine with which 

it is equipped. Although the cost of 

achieving the proposed Tier 3 standards 

will increase with the size of the vehicle 

and the displacement of the engine, we 

have concluded that the cost for each 

engine type is independent of the type 

of vehicle in which it is equipped. For 

example, we estimate that the cost of 

catalyst loading for an in-line 4-cylinder 

(I4) engine will be the same whether the 

engine is in a car or a truck. The final 

cost per vehicle is the result of not only 

the cost per technology, but also the 

application rate of that technology for 

each vehicle type. For example, while 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29969 

the $199 (2010$) cost of secondary air 

injection is the same for both a 6- 

cylinder (V6) and 8-cylinder (V8) 

application, we anticipate that only 25 

percent of the V6 applications will 

require this technology, while 75 

percent of the V8 applications will 

require it. Table VII–1 below shows our 

estimate of the cost of each of the 

emission control technologies for the 

gasoline vehicles affected by this 

proposed rule. Table VII–2 provides the 

anticipated application rate of the 

technology by vehicle type. Note that all 

of the costs shown in this section are in 

2010 dollars, are applicable for the 2017 

MY and are marked-up by an Indirect 

Cost Multiplier (ICM) so they include 

both direct and indirect costs. (For 

details of regarding ICMs and their 

application refer to Chapter 2 of the 

draft RIA.) 

TABLE VII–1—2017MY TECHNOLOGY COSTS BY GASOLINE ENGINE TYPE (2010$) 

Technology 

Gasoline Engine Type a

I4 V6 V8 HD c V8 

Catalyst Loading .............................................................................................. $72 $95 $119 $60 

Optimized Close-coupled Catalyst .................................................................. 24 48 72 72 

Optimized Thermal Management .................................................................... 36 36 36 36 

Secondary Air Injection .................................................................................... N/R b 119 119 N/R 

Engine Calibration ........................................................................................... 2 2 2 2 

Hydrocarbon Adsorber ..................................................................................... N/R N/R 201 N/R 

Evaporative Emissions Controls ...................................................................... 20 20 20 20 

a I4—In-line 4-cylinder, V6: 6-cylinder, V8: 8-cylinder. 

b N/R—Not Required. 

c Heavy-duty. 

TABLE VII–2—TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION RATES FOR GASOLINE VEHICLES

Technology 

Technology application rate by vehicle type 

I4 LDV 

(percent) 

V6 LDV 

(percent) 

V8 LDV 

(percent) 

I4 LDT 

(percent) 

V6 LDT 

(percent) 

V8 LDT 

(percent) 

HD V8 

(percent) 

Catalyst Loading ...................................... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Optimized Close-coupled Catalyst ........... 50 60 75 50 60 75 0 

Optimized Thermal Management ............ 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 

Secondary Air Injection ............................ N/R 25 75 0 25 75 N/R 

Engine Calibration .................................... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Hydrocarbon Adsorber ............................. N/R N/R 15 0 0 15 N/R 

Evaporative Emissions Controls .............. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles 

(MDPVs) were included in the lightduty fleet as part of Tier 2. Given their 

current certification requirements for 

criteria pollutants, we have included the 

costs for MDPVs to meet the Tier 3 

standards with the LDT4 cost estimates. 

We do not expect that the technologies 

required to meet the Tier 3 standards for 

MDPVs will be different from those 

applied to LDT4s, as in many cases 

identical powertrains and chassis exist 

between the LDT4 and MDPV platforms. 

We also expect that manufacturers 

will continue to build and sell lightduty diesel vehicles and certify those 

vehicles to Tier 3. All light-duty diesel 

vehicles currently being sold in the 

federal fleet are equipped with some 

means of controlling NOX emissions, 

either a Lean NOX Trap (LNT) or SCR 

system. As these systems are already 

very effective in controlling NOX

emissions, we expect that they will 

remain the primary emissions control 

systems to meet Tier 3. Similar to 

gasoline engines, diesel powertrains 

may be required to improve the 

effectiveness of their emission control 

systems during cold start. Therefore, we 

have developed our costs for diesels 

with the expectation that the 

incremental costs will be realized to 

improve LNT and SCR systems during 

cold start. The improvements have been 

categorized as general SCR 

optimization, which include packaging 

changes to the SCR system to allow 

faster light off; Optimized Thermal 

Management, to reduce the thermal 

mass of the system and allow more of 

the combustion heat to reach the SCR 

system sooner; and the calibration work 

associated with both of these changes. 

Table VII–3 below describes both the 

cost of the technologies as well as their 

anticipated application rates. 

TABLE VII–3—2017MYTECHNOLOGY COSTS AND APPLICATION RATES FOR DIESEL ENGINES

[2010$] 

Technology Diesel engine costs 

(all types) 

Light-duty and 

heavy-duty application rate 

(percent) 

Optimized Thermal Management ............................................................................................................ $36 25 

Engine Calibration ................................................................................................................................... 2 100 

SCR Optimization .................................................................................................................................... 60 100 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29970 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Costs have also been estimated for 

HDVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs 

GVWR. Vehicles in this range are often 

referred to as Class 2b (8,5001–10,000 

lbs) and Class 3 (10,001–14,000 lbs) 

vehicles and are typically full-size 

pickup truck and work vans. We 

applied the same process to the heavyduty vehicles as we did to the light-duty 

vehicles. Heavy-duty costs and 

application rates may be found in Table 

VII–1, Table VII–2, and Table VII–3 

above. 

We have also considered the impacts 

of manufacturer learning on the 

technology cost estimates. We reflect the 

phenomenon of volume-based learning 

curve cost reductions in our modeling 

using two algorithms, depending on 

where in the learning cycle (i.e., on 

what portion of the learning curve) we 

consider a technology to be: the ‘‘steep’’ 

portion of the curve for newer 

technologies and ‘‘flat’’ portion of the 

curve for more mature technologies. The 

observed phenomenon in the economic 

literature which supports manufacturer 

learning cost reductions are based on 

reductions in costs as production 

volumes increase with the highest 

absolute cost reduction occurring with 

the first doubling of production. For 

additional information on technology 

learning refer to Chapter 2 of the draft 

RIA. Learning impacts have been 

considered on all of the technologies 

expected to be used with the 

assumption that all technologies are on 

the flat portion of the learning curve. 

We did not consider any of the 

technologies to be on the steep portion 

of the learning curve because none are 

being used for the first time in the 2017– 

2025 timeframe. 

Finally, we have prepared our cost 

estimates for meeting the Tier 3 

standards using a baseline of Tier 2 Bin 

5 technologies for all LDVs, LDTs, and 

MDPVs. The baseline fleet used for 

these cost estimates is the MY 2016 

light-duty fleet predicted by the 2012– 

2016 GHG Rule. The 2012 GHG Rule 

provides us with the clearest picture of 

what the light-duty fleet may look like 

in MY 2017. Additional details on how 

the 2017 MY fleet (i.e., the reference 

case fleet for this proposal) was 

developed can be found in Chapter 2 of 

the draft RIA. In short, the 2012–2016 

GHG final rule is expected to result in 

considerable downsize of engines along 

with turbocharging to maintain 

performance. Since engines are 

expected to be downsized, the estimated 

Tier 3 costs are impacted since smaller 

engines are expected to incur lower 

costs as shown in Table VII–1. 

Since GHG standards for the 2017– 

2025 fleet have just recently been 

finalized, we were not able to reflect 

their potential impacts on the baseline 

fleet in this proposal. We do not expect 

the MYs 2017–2025 GHG standards will 

change the technologies that we project 

will be used to comply with the 

proposed Tier 3 standards. However, 

some of the changes to the vehicle fleet 

expected to result from the MYs 2017– 

2025 GHG standards, such as a greater 

penetration of downsized engines, could 

lower the cost of complying with Tier 3 

standards. The final Tier 3 rule will 

include the changes to the fleet 

associated with the GHG standards and 

the resulting impacts on cost. 

The evaporative emissions standards 

that we are proposing for LDVs, LDTs, 

MDPVs, and HDVs are feasible with 

relatively small cost impacts. We 

estimate the cost of system 

improvements, including indirect cost 

markups, to be about $20 (2010$) per 

vehicle, for all car classes. This 

incremental cost reflects the cost of 

moving to low permeability materials, 

reduced number of fuel-system 

connections, longer contiguous lengths 

of plumbing, and low-permeation 

connectors. We believe that learning is 

also appropriate for evaporative 

emissions control systems as described 

above and in more detail in Chapter 2 

of the draft RIA. We request comment 

on this detailed analysis. In particular, 

we request comment on the 

completeness of the list of emission 

control components needed for meeting 

the Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards, especially regarding purge 

and purge-assist technologies. 

We have used the individual 

technology costs discussed briefly here 

and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the 

draft RIA to estimate package costs for 

each of the different gasoline and diesel 

engine types in the fleet (i.e., I4 

passenger car, V6 passenger car, etc.). 

We have then multiplied these package 

costs by the project sales estimates for 

the years 2017 and later. The projected 

sales estimates used, as noted earlier, 

represent the reference case fleet mix 

rather than today’s fleet mix. That fleet 

mix is discussed in more detail in 

Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. With these 

total annual costs, we then determined 

the sales weighted average cost increase 

for all passenger cars, light trucks and 

heavy-duty vehicles. Table VII–4 below 

provides our estimates of the 

incremental cost per vehicle (both lightduty and class 2b and 3 vehicles) by 

model year for both tailpipe and 

evaporative emissions standards. These 

values reflect the total direct and 

indirect manufacturing costs as well as 

the appropriate learning rates. As stated 

above, a large portion of the cost is 

incurred in the initial model years due 

to the adoption of the LEV III declining 

fleet average. Costs then continue to rise 

as the percentage of vehicles complying 

with the proposed standards increases 

through the 2025 MY. 

We have estimated costs consistent 

with the fact that manufacturers would 

be required to start the phase-in of Tier 

3 standards in MY 2017 for vehicles 

under 6,000 lbs GVWR and MY 2018 for 

vehicles greater than 6,000 lbs GVWR. 

Based on the declining fleet averages for 

cars and trucks, we have apportioned 

our estimates for full compliance across 

the phase-in years as a percentage of the 

final standard. Manufacturers would be 

required to move from a Tier 2 Bin 5 

fleet average in the 2017 MY (for 

vehicles <6,000 lbs GVW). This results 

in a significant step in stringency. As a 

result, a large portion of the costs are 

expected to be incurred in the initial 

model years. It is also important to note 

that while we are aligned with CARB on 

the individual cost of each technology 

and their application rates, our costs are 

different from California’s LEV III costs 

due to the fact that the California fleet 

is currently meeting slightly more 

stringent standards than the federal 

fleet. Thus, the incremental cost for 

California is less. Finally, manufacturers 

would have the opportunity in 2015 and 

2016 MY to earn Tier 3 credits by 

producing a fleet that is cleaner than the 

current Tier 2 requirements. While we 

expect that most manufacturers would 

earn credits, either by selling California 

vehicles as 50 state vehicles or by 

certifying existing vehicles to lower Tier 

2 bins, we have not reflected these 

credits in our cost analysis. In that way, 

we believe that our cost estimates are 

conservative. 

TABLE VII–4—PER VEHICLE COSTS BY MODEL YEAR A

Model Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 

$/car ............................................. $78 $87 $92 $99 $103 $112 $111 $115 $118 

$/truck .......................................... 0 105 114 127 136 150 151 159 165 

Light-duty Combined .................... 50 94 100 109 115 125 124 130 134 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29971 

TABLE VII–4—PER VEHICLE COSTS BY MODEL YEAR A—Continued 

Model Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 

$/2b (Truck or Van) ...................... 0 43 50 58 64 73 69 68 66 

$/3 (Truck or Van) ........................ 0 38 46 55 63 73 69 68 66 

a Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California. 

Total annual costs are shown below in 

Table VII–5. This table includes all costs 

associated with the proposed Tier 3 

vehicle standards, i.e., both exhaust and 

evaporative emission standards, for both 

light-duty vehicles and 2b and 3 heavyduty pickup trucks and vans. Also 

included are facility related costs 

associated with the proposed 

requirements to conduct more PM 

testing on gasoline vehicles. (Additional 

detail regarding the PM facility costs are 

described below.) We show the facility 

costs in the year 2016 even though the 

program does not begin until 2017. 

These costs represent the construction 

cost that would have to be done in 

advance of the first year of the standards 

in preparation for the testing efforts that 

would be required. The annual costs 

shown for each cost element are 

undiscounted annual costs for the years 

2016 through 2025, then 2030, 2040 and 

2050. The present values shown are for 

the years 2012–2050 at both the 3 

percent and 7 percent discount rates. 

We have shown present values in 2012 

for comparison to EPA’s 2012–2016 

GHG final rule and the recent MYs 

2017–2025 GHG rule and to more 

closely estimate the costs of the program 

today. 

TABLE VII–5—UNDISCOUNTED ANNUAL COSTS & COSTS OF THE VEHICLE PROGRAM DISCOUNTED BACK TO 2012 AT 3% 

AND 7% DISCOUNT RATES

[Millions of 2010 Dollars] a

Year 

Exhaust Evap Facilities 

Total 

Light-duty 2b/3 All Light-duty 2b/3 All All 

2016 ................................................................. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22.5 $22.5 

2017 ................................................................. 634 0 634 71.4 0 71.4 3.75 709 

2018 ................................................................. 1,150 23.1 1,170 167 3.86 171 3.75 1,340 

2019 ................................................................. 1,240 28.6 1,270 159 3.76 162 3.75 1,440 

2020 ................................................................. 1,350 34.2 1,380 216 5.22 221 3.75 1,600 

2021 ................................................................. 1,470 40.0 1,510 208 5.09 213 3.75 1,730 

2022 ................................................................. 1,580 46.5 1,630 264 6.52 271 3.75 1,900 

2023 ................................................................. 1,610 44.8 1,660 253 6.27 259 3.75 1,920 

2024 ................................................................. 1,720 44.8 1,770 257 6.38 263 3.75 2,040 

2025 ................................................................. 1,830 44.9 1,870 246 6.12 253 3.75 2,130 

2030 ................................................................. 1,750 46.5 1,790 246 6.74 253 3.75 2,050 

2040 ................................................................. 1,750 51.9 1,800 246 7.52 254 3.75 2,060 

2050 ................................................................. 1,750 58.6 1,810 246 8.49 255 3.75 2,070 

NPV, 3% .......................................................... 29,900 814 30,700 4,250 116 4,360 89.1 35,100 

NPV, 7% .......................................................... 14,700 384 15,100 2,090 55.0 2,150 52.2 17,300 

a Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California. 

In addition to considering the costs 

associated with improving the emission 

control systems on vehicles, we also 

expect that manufacturers may need to 

improve their capability to measure PM 

at the levels we are proposing. For 

additional information on the test 

procedure changes we are proposing, 

reference Section IV.F. 

We have used two sources of 

information to determine the 

appropriate costs for upgrading test 

facilities for PM measurement. The first 

was EPA’s own cost to upgrade its PM 

measurement equipment; the second 

was information provided by vehicle 

manufacturers. The cost estimates 

ranged from $250,000 to $500,000 per 

PM test site. 

We recognize that the number of sites 

that a manufacturer would require is 

dependent on the number of vehicle 

models it expects to develop and certify 

in a given model year. As stated in 

Section IV.A, we have limited the 

number of certifications required per 

model year to 25 percent of the 

represented durability groups, thereby 

potentially reducing the number of test 

sites that require upgrade. We believe 

that manufacturers with annual sales of 

one million units or less would require 

two facility upgrades at an average cost 

of $375,000. For manufacturers with 

greater than one million units per year 

annual sales we believe that four facility 

upgrades may be required to meet the 

Tier 3 requirements. In addition to 

facility upgrades some manufacturers 

may require an additional employee for 

PM weigh room operation and/or PM 

data management. Therefore we have 

added the cost of 1 additional full time 

employee for all manufacturers. Our 

estimated costs for each manufacturer 

are shown below in Table VII–6. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29972 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VII–6—PM FACILITY COSTS

[2010 dollars] 

Annual Volume 

Number of PM 

Sites to be upgraded Cost per site 

Total facility cost 

(one-time, upfront cost) 

Additional FTE 

(annual, ongoing cost) 

≤1 million ...................................................

> 1 million .................................................

2 

4 

$375,000 $750,000 

1,500,000 

1 @ $150,000 per year. 

Total ................................................... ............................ ............................ 22,500,000 $3,750,000. 

aFTE—Full Time Employee. 

B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program 

1. Overview 

The sulfur control program we are 

proposing today is expected to result in 

many refiners further investing in sulfur 

control hardware and changing the 

operations in their refineries to reduce 

their gasoline sulfur levels. The 

proposed sulfur control program 

requires refiners and importers to 

reduce their gasoline sulfur levels on 

average down to 10 ppm. The ABT 

provisions being proposed along with 

the 10-ppm average sulfur control 

standard would allow refiners that 

reduce their gasoline sulfur levels below 

10 ppm to earn credits and transfer 

those credits to other refiners who 

would find it more expensive to reduce 

their sulfur levels down to the average 

standard. The ABT program would 

allow refiners to optimize their 

investments, which we believe would 

result in achieving the average sulfur 

control standard nationwide at lower 

costs. We are also proposing to either 

maintain the current 80-ppm sulfur cap 

at the refinery gate, or to lower it only 

as far as 50 ppm. We have modeled the 

impacts of the 80-ppm cap, but believe 

that the results for a 50-ppm cap would 

be comparable due to the limits on 

credits resulting from the 10-ppm 

average. We estimate that the national 

average refinery costs incurred to 

comply with the fully phased-in Tier 3 

sulfur control program with ABT 

program would be 0.89 cents per gallon, 

averaged over all gasoline. This estimate 

includes the capital costs, which are 

amortized over the volume of gasoline 

produced. 

In this section we summarize the 

methodology used to estimate the costs 

of Tier 3 sulfur control and our 

estimated costs for the program. A 

detailed discussion of all of these 

analyses is found in Chapter 5 of the 

draft RIA. We request comment on all 

aspects of the methodology described in 

Chapter 5 of the draft RIA used for 

estimating the cost of the program using 

the refinery-by-refinery cost model. In 

particular, we request comment on: the 

methodology for estimating the sulfur 

content of the FCC naphtha; how FCC 

naphtha sulfur levels are impacted by 

both an FCC pretreater and an FCC unit; 

to what extent desulfurization costs for 

complying with Tier 3 vary due to the 

sulfur level entering the existing FCC 

postreaters installed for Tier 2; the 

estimated level of hydrotreating of light 

straight run (LSR) naphtha and natural 

gas liquids (NGL) occurring today; the 

level of hydrotreating of LSR and NGLs 

expected to occur under this program 

and the magnitude of permitting-related 

costs in comparison to the overall 

project costs. 

2. Methodology 

a. Overview of the Sulfur Program Cost 

Methodology 

The basic methodology we used to 

estimate the cost of sulfur control for the 

proposed rule is similar to that for other 

rulemakings. Using a refinery-byrefinery cost model that we developed 

for this rulemaking, we projected the 

sulfur control technology expected to be 

used by each refinery, and the cost of 

each refinery’s sulfur control step, to 

estimate compliance with the proposed 

sulfur control program. We aggregated 

the individual refinery costs to develop 

a national average cost estimate for the 

proposed sulfur control program. Based 

on the flexibilities offered by the ABT 

program, refiners are expected to come 

very close to achieving the 10-ppm 

sulfur standard on average. 

Linear Programming Cost Model 

We considered performing our cost 

assessments using a linear programming 

(LP) cost model. LP cost models are 

based on a set of complex mathematical 

representations of refineries which, for 

national analyses, are usually conducted 

on a regional basis. This type of refining 

cost model has been used by the 

government and the refining industry 

for many years for estimating the cost 

and other implications of changes to 

fuel quality. 

The design of LP models lends itself 

to modeling situations where every 

refinery in a region is expected to use 

the same control strategy and/or has the 

same process capabilities. As we began 

to develop a gasoline sulfur control 

program with an ABT program, it 

became clear that LP modeling was not 

well suited for evaluating such a 

program. Because refineries have 

different equipment, process different 

crude oils and produce different 

products, refiners will choose different 

technologies and run those technologies 

differently for controlling gasoline 

sulfur. In addition, because of the 

flexibility afforded by the nationwide 

ABT program, we initiated development 

of a more appropriate refinery-byrefinery cost model, as described below. 

However, the LP model remained 

important for providing many of the 

inputs into the refinery-by-refinery cost 

model developed for this rulemaking. 

b. Refinery-by-Refinery Cost Model 

In contrast to LP models, refinery-byrefinery cost models are useful when 

individual refineries are expected to 

respond to program requirements in 

different ways and/or have significantly 

different process capabilities. 

Furthermore, as is the case with sulfur 

control, such approaches are possible 

when the refinery changes required are 

primarily ‘‘add on’’ not impacting the 

fundamental operation at the refinery. 

Thus, in the case of modeling potential 

gasoline sulfur control programs, we 

needed a model that could accurately 

simulate the variety of decisions refiners 

will make at different refineries, 

especially in the context of a nationwide 

ABT program. For this and other related 

reasons, we developed a refinery-byrefinery cost model, built off the model 

developed for the MSAT2 rulemaking 

by Mathpro, specifically to evaluate the 

costs and other impacts of the proposed 

sulfur control program. 

Our refinery-by-refinery sulfur cost 

model incorporates the capacities of all 

the major units in each refinery in the 

country, as reported by the Energy 

Information Administration and in the 

Oil and Gas Journal. Regarding 

operational information, we know less 

about how specific refineries use the 

various units to produce gasoline and 

about such factors as octane and 

hydrogen costs for individual refineries. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29973 

464Our refinery-by-refinery analysis is better able 

to model the impacts of gasoline sulfur control than 

the refinery LP, yet, it is still limited by the lack 

of specific information on each refinery. Despite our 

commitment to accurately model the baseline 

operations of each refinery, we recognize that 

without detailed refinery-specific operations 

information at our disposal, actual individual 

refinery changes will vary from our predictions. 

Particular refineries may choose a different sulfur 

control path than that estimated by our analysis for 

a number of reasons, including differences in the 

baseline and our lack of knowledge for investment 

and ABT program use preferences for each refiner. 

We believe, though, that overall our refinery cost 

model captures the strategies and costs for 

complying with the sulfur control program. 

465Our review of most of the suggested changes 

recommended by the peer reviewers suggested that 

there would be little to no change in our 

desulfurization cost estimate (some of the changes 

would increase the estimated costs, while others 

would reduce the estimated costs). Also, we 

anticipate making other improvements to the cost 

analysis conducted for the final rule, which would 

necessitate a second round of peer review. 

466A hydrocarbon stream which contains large 

amounts of sulfur is also referred to as being sour. 

In general, the heavier the hydrocarbon portion of 

crude oil, the higher the natural sulfur content. 

467On average, the fluidized catalytic cracker 

supplies about 35 percent of a refiner’s gasoline 

output. 

We used previous LP modeling work as 

the basis for estimating these factors on 

a regional basis, and we applied the 

average regional result to each refinery 

in that region (Petroleum 

Administration for Defense District; 

PADD). We compared the gasoline 

volumes estimated by the model for 

each individual refinery to the 2009 

gasoline volumes from the RFG data 

base, which was the most recent year for 

which data was available, and we were 

satisfied with the model’s volumetric 

estimates.464

Refinery-by-refinery cost models have 

been used in the past by both EPA and 

the oil industry for such programs as the 

MSAT2 gasoline benzene control, 

highway and nonroad diesel fuel sulfur 

standards, and they are a proven means 

for estimating the cost of compliance for 

fuel control programs. While they will 

never precisely model and predict 

individual refinery operations and 

impacts, they provide both a better 

assessment of the overall market 

impacts than the LP model and of the 

variation of impacts across the 

refineries. For this refinery-by-refinery 

sulfur cost model, we conducted a peer 

review process, and have received some 

comments on the design of our model. 

These comments are contained in the 

peer review reports placed in the 

docket. We intend on addressing the 

peer review comments, as well as any 

public comments that we receive on our 

cost analysis for the proposal, when we 

conduct the cost analysis for the final 

rule.465 The oil industry has also 

conducted a similar analysis using a 

refinery-by-refinery cost model, and we 

discuss the results of their analysis at 

the end of this chapter. 

The refinery unit responsible for the 

greatest contribution of sulfur to 

gasoline is the fluidized catalytic 

cracker unit (FCC). The FCC processes 

a very heavy feedstock which contains 

high levels of sulfur.466 When the FCC 

cracks this heavy, sour feedstock, a 

portion of the sulfur in the feed to the 

FCC ends up in the FCC naphtha, an 

important gasoline blendstock 

stream.467 Before the Tier 2 sulfur 

control program was implemented, FCC 

naphtha contributed over 95 percent of 

the sulfur to a refinery’s gasoline, and 

now that Tier 2 has been fully 

implemented it still contributes roughly 

80 to 90 percent for those refineries with 

FCC units. To comply with the Tier 2 

sulfur control program, most refiners 

installed FCC naphtha hydrotreaters 

(FCC postreaters) and some refiners 

installed FCC feed hydrotreaters (FCC 

pretreater) to reduce that unit’s sulfur 

contribution to their gasoline pool. The 

technologies installed include Axxens 

Prime G+, Exxon-Mobil Scanfining, 

CDTech’s CDHydro and CDHDS, 

Phillips S-Zorb and UOP’s ISAL (UOP 

now offers a postreating technology 

named Selectfining). Despite the much 

lower sulfur contribution to the gasoline 

pool by the FCC after complying with 

Tier 2, the vendors which supplied 

sulfur control technology for complying 

with Tier 2 sulfur control program have 

informed us that to comply with a more 

stringent sulfur standard refiners are 

expected to further reduce the sulfur in 

the FCC naphtha. We contacted each of 

those technology vendors and some of 

them provided information that we used 

to estimate the cost of lowering the 

sulfur in the FCC naphtha to allow each 

refinery to reduce the sulfur in its 

gasoline to 10 ppm. We also reviewed 

literature that is available on the Web to 

further educate ourselves of what would 

be involved to achieve a 10-ppm sulfur 

standard using postreating. 

Gasoline desulfurization vendors 

were pessimistic that the operations of 

FCC pretreaters could be adjusted to 

enable those refineries which relied on 

those units to comply with the Tier 2 

sulfur standard to meet a 10-ppm sulfur 

standard. For the refineries solely 

relying on FCC pretreaters to comply 

with Tier 2, desulfurization vendors 

project that most refineries in this 

situation will put in grassroots FCC 

postreaters to allow those refineries to 

comply with a 10-ppm gasoline sulfur 

standard. However, since adding 

grassroots FCC postreaters is expensive 

for the amount of sulfur reduction 

obtained, the ABT analysis we 

conducted avoided many of these types 

of investments. Instead refineries with 

both pre- and postreaters today are quite 

able to achieve further gasoline sulfur 

reductions less than 10 ppm at a 

relatively low incremental cost and 

selling the credits to those refineries 

who would otherwise be faced with 

grassroots FCC postreater investments. 

In addition to addressing the sulfur in 

the FCC naphtha, we believe that some 

refineries may need to reduce the sulfur 

in at least a couple of other gasoline 

blendstocks to ensure that it would be 

able to comply with a 10-ppm sulfur 

standard. One such gasoline blendstock 

is light straight run (LSR) naphtha. Most 

refiners hydrotreat the LSR before 

sending that stream to an isomerization 

unit and therefore that stream is very 

low in sulfur. However, some refineries 

don’t have isomerization units and 

probably do not hydrotreat the LSR. If 

LSR is not hydrotreated, we estimate 

that LSR could contain anywhere 

between 25 to 500 ppm sulfur. We 

believe that refiners that do not 

currently desulfurize their LSR could do 

so by either feeding it to their FCC 

postreater or their naphtha hydrotreater 

(the hydrotreater which desulfurizes the 

feed to the isomerization and reformer 

units). Because this stream does not 

contain any olefins, it is an easy stream 

to hydrotreat and actually improves the 

hydrotreating conditions within the FCC 

naphtha hydrotreater. The second 

stream that may have to be hydrotreated 

is butane. Butane is removed from the 

incoming crude oil and FCC naphtha 

and some of it is blended back into 

gasoline in the summertime to bring the 

gasoline pool up to the RVP limit. 

However, much of the butane is 

transported to storage for subsequent 

blending into the wintertime gasoline 

pool. We estimate that butane can range 

from 1 ppm to 140 ppm sulfur, but the 

typical sulfur level for butane is likely 

around 10 ppm. Because butane can be 

high in sulfur, we project that some 

refiners may add relatively inexpensive 

caustic extraction processes which can 

remove the types of sulfur present in the 

butane pool. However, addressing 

butane sulfur may only be necessary for 

those refineries that are reducing their 

gasoline sulfur levels down to 5 ppm to 

generate credits for sale to refiners 

seeking to purchase credits. 

The nationwide ABT program is 

intended to optimize sulfur reduction 

by allowing each refinery to 

individually choose the most costeffective means of complying with the 

program. To model this phenomenon, 

we first establish an estimated cost for 

each refinery for reducing its gasoline 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29974 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

sulfur down to 10 ppm and to 5 ppm. 

Next we ranked the sulfur control 

strategies for all the refineries in order 

from lowest to highest sulfur control 

cost per gallon of gasoline and estimated 

the impact of their projected sulfur 

control strategies on refinery sulfur 

levels. The model then follows this 

ranking, starting with the lowest-cost 

refineries, and adds refineries and their 

associated control technologies one-byone until the projected national average 

gasoline sulfur level reaches 10 ppm. 

This modeling strategy projects the 

sulfur control technology that will be 

used by each refinery, as well as 

identifies those refineries that are 

expected to generate credits and those 

that are expected to use credits in lieu 

of investing in sulfur control. The sum 

of the costs of the refineries expected to 

invest in further sulfur control provides 

the projected overall cost of the 

program. 

3. Summary of Costs Without ABT 

Program 

a. Nationwide Costs of the Proposed 

Sulfur Control Program 

We used a refinery-by-refinery cost 

model to estimate the costs of the sulfur 

control program being proposed today. 

In general, the cost model indicates that 

further desulfurizing the FCC naphtha 

will be the most cost-effective means for 

achieving sulfur control. We accounted 

for additional costs to refiners for 

desulfurizing their light straight run 

naphtha, in the case where we estimate 

that the light straight run naphtha is not 

being desulfurized today. 

Based on the results of our cost 

analysis, we estimate that for each 

refinery to get to a 10-ppm average level, 

(without the benefit of trading) the 

proposed sulfur control program would 

cost 0.97 cents per gallon when it is 

fully phased-in, assuming that capital 

investments are amortized at a seven 

percent return on investment before 

taxes and expressed in 2010 dollars. 

Refiners would be expected to make 

$2,527 million in capital investments to 

achieve this sulfur reduction. 

We also estimated annual aggregate 

costs, including the amortized capital 

costs, associated with the new fuel 

standard. When the 10-ppm gasoline 

sulfur standard would take effect in 

2017, we estimate that the sulfur 

standard would cost $580 million per 

year. 

b. Distribution of Refinery Costs 

The sulfur reductions estimated by 

the cost model and associated costs vary 

significantly refinery-by-refinery. Figure 

VII–1 summarizes the estimated pergallon costs for complying with the 

sulfur control standard if no ABT 

program were implemented. 

Figure VII–1 shows that the sulfur 

control costs would vary from no cost to 

almost 6.5 cents per gallon. Some 

refineries have no FCC unit and thus, 

their gasoline is naturally low in sulfur 

and these refineries will not reduce 

their gasoline sulfur levels and not incur 

a sulfur control cost. 

4. Summary of Costs With ABT Program 

The estimated costs described in 

Section VII.B.3 above assume that every 

individual refinery must achieve the 

proposed 10-ppm sulfur standard on an 

annual average basis. However, as 

described in Section V.A.4, we are also 

proposing an ABT program that is 

designed to ease the overall burden on 

the industry while still achieving the 

10-ppm annual average sulfur standard 

for the nation as a whole. Under the 

proposed ABT program, refineries that 

can reduce sulfur below 10 ppm at a 

relatively low cost can generate credits 

which can then be obtained by refiners 

for whom the cost of attaining the 10- 

ppm sulfur standard would be relatively 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29975 

high. The net effect of this credit trading 

would be to reduce the overall cost of 

the program. 

To estimate the impact that the ABT 

program could have on nationwide 

average fuel costs, we began with the 

refinery-by-refinery costs described in 

Section VII.B.2.b for sulfur reductions 

down to either 10 ppm or 5 ppm. We 

then determined the lowest cost option 

among three alternatives for each 

refinery: 

1. The refinery reduces its sulfur to 10 

ppm. 

2. The refinery reduces its sulfur to 5 

ppm and generates credits for the 

increment between 10 ppm and 5 ppm. 

3. The refinery does not lower sulfur, 

but instead relies on the purchase of 

credits to comply with the 10-ppm 

standard. 

A fourth category applied to refineries 

whose average gasoline sulfur levels are 

already below 10 ppm (there refineries 

don’t have FCC units). All such 

refineries were assumed to generate 

credits for the increment between 10 

ppm and their current sulfur level. 

To simplify the modeling of how an 

ABT program might operate, we focused 

on the circumstances that refineries 

would face in the longer term, 

specifically after 2020. This approach 

meant that the ABT program modeling 

did not consider the impact on gasoline 

sulfur levels of delayed compliance for 

small refiners and small volume 

refineries, nor did it consider the 

generation and use of any early sulfur 

credits. Moreover, our ABT modeling 

considered only gasoline sold for use 

outside of California, and only gasoline 

produced by domestic refineries (not 

importers). 

To optimize the nationwide average 

costs under an ABT program, we 

determined the credit price at which the 

total number of credits generated was 

equal to the total number of credits 

consumed. For an idealized scenario in 

which every refinery has the 

opportunity to make credit trades with 

every other refinery in the nation, we 

determined that more than 60 percent of 

refineries would be involved in either 

generating or consuming credits. The 

nationwide average cost of compliance 

with the 10-ppm sulfur standard would 

be reduced from 0.97 cents per gallon to 

0.79 cents per gallon. 

Such perfect nationwide trading, 

however, is not realistic. Under Tier 2 

today, a significant fraction of Tier 2 

sulfur credits are bought and sold 

within companies, but there is still a 

considerable amount of inter-company 

trading occurring. Under Tier 3, it 

would be more difficult to generate 

credits, and also more difficult to make 

up for deficits, consequently, we also 

investigated how more limited credit 

trading might affect the average cost of 

compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur 

standard. For instance, to address 

unplanned equipment downtime or 

other circumstances that could make 

future compliance more difficult, 

individual companies might decide to 

bank credits for their own use, declining 

to make credits that they generate at one 

of their facilities available to other 

companies. To evaluate such a scenario, 

we modeled a situation wherein credit 

trading would only occur within 

companies that own more than one 

refinery. Of the 21 refining companies 

in this position, we estimated that credit 

generation and use would reduce 

compliance costs at six of them, with 18 

refineries generating credits and 8 

consuming credits. Under this scenario, 

total capital costs would be $2,203 

million and the nationwide average cost 

of compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur 

standard would be 0.89 cents per gallon. 

We have chosen to utilize the costs from 

this intra-company trading analysis for 

the proposal. However, in reality, we 

expect that some inter-company credit 

transfers would still occur due to the 

financial incentive the highest cost 

refineries would provide. To the extent 

that some inter-company credit transfers 

do occur, our cost estimates can be 

viewed as somewhat conservative. 

A summary of the ABT results 

assuming nationwide credit transfers 

and intra-company credit transfers 

(costs used in the proposal) is shown in 

Table VII–7. 

TABLE VII–7—IMPACTS OF NATIONWIDE ABT PROGRAM

No ABT 

ABT with 

intra-company 

credit transfers 

(proposed rule 

costs) 

ABT with 

nationwide credit 

transfers 

Average fuel cost (¢/gal) ........................................................................................... 0 .97 0 .89 0 .79 

Total capital cost ($million) ........................................................................................ 2,527 2,203 1,760 

Number of refineries that generate credits ................................................................ 0 18 46 

Number of refineries that consume credits ............................................................... 0 8 25 

Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume credits ............................. 111 85 40 

The cost information available for this 

NPRM was limited to the costs of 

reducing sulfur to either 10 ppm or 5 

ppm, and thus we were not able to 

estimate refinery-specific costs of 

reducing sulfur to other levels. As a 

result, our ABT modeling could not 

account for scenarios in which a 

refinery makes some capital investments 

to lower sulfur to some interim level, 

such as 20 ppm, and then purchases 

credits in order to demonstrate 

compliance with the 10-ppm standard. 

Our ABT analysis also could not 

account for credit generation at sulfur 

levels other than 5 ppm. Our ABT 

analysis, then, most likely 

underestimates the cost savings that 

could occur due to ABT since the 

greatest efficiencies are achieved when 

every refinery has the option of using 

any combination of capital investments 

and credits generation or use. For the 

final rule, we may investigate methods 

for expanding our ABT analysis to 

examine these types of scenarios. 

a. Distribution of Refinery Costs 

The sulfur reductions estimated by 

the cost model and associated costs vary 

significantly refinery-by-refinery. Figure 

VII–2 summarizes the estimated pergallon costs for complying with the 

sulfur control standard under an ABT 

program with intra-company credit 

transfers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29976 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

While the distribution of costs shifts 

slightly under an ABT program with 

intra-company trading in comparison to 

no ABT program, Figure VII–2 shows 

that the sulfur control costs would 

continue to vary from no cost to nearly 

6.5 cents per gallon. 

b. Distribution of Refinery Sulfur Levels 

We estimate that 85 out of 111 

refineries would meet the 10-ppm sulfur 

standard without the use of credits 

under the intra-company trading 

scenario. As a result, only about 5 

percent of gasoline would continue to 

have an annual average sulfur level 

above 10 ppm. These refineries tend to 

be smaller than average. The 

distribution of sulfur levels under this 

scenario is shown in Figure VII–3. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29977 

468Mathpro (October 2011). Refining Economics 

of a National Low Sulfur, Low RVP Gasoline 

Standard, Performed for The International Council 

for Clean Transportation, Available at: http:// 

www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ 

ICCT04_Tier3_Report_Final_v4_All.pdf. Accessed 

December 12, 2011. 

469Baker and O’Brien, Addendum to Potential 

Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower 

RVP Gasoline; prepared for The American 

Petroleum Institute. March 2012. Available at: 

http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/ 

110715_LowerSulfur_LowerRVP_Final.pdf. 

5. Other Cost Estimates 

Three other cost studies were recently 

conducted to estimate the cost of 

additional reduction in gasoline sulfur. 

All of these studies show average costs 

of less than 2 cents per gallon. 

One of these studies was conducted in 

October 2011 by the International 

Council for Clean Transportation 

(ICCT).468 ICCT retained Mathpro for 

this analysis. ICCT had Mathpro analyze 

a 10-ppm average gasoline sulfur 

standard in PADDs 1–4 (generally 

speaking, PADDs 1–4 represents the part 

of the U.S. east of, and including, the 

Rocky Mountain states). The cost 

presented by ICCT is that complying 

with a 10-ppm average sulfur standard 

would cost refiners on average 0.8 cents 

per gallon. This cost was calculated 

based on a before-tax 7 percent return 

on investment, the same capital 

amortization basis that we use for our 

cost analysis. The cost of a 10-ppm 

average gasoline sulfur control standard 

estimated by ICCT is very close to our 

cost estimate. 

API retained Baker and O’Brien to 

study the cost of additional sulfur 

control using a refinery-by-refinery cost 

approach with Baker and O’Brien’s 

Prism model. 469 API studied a 10 ppm 

average gasoline sulfur standard, 

however, API included a very stringent 

20 ppm cap standard which did not 

allow for an ABT program to optimize 

refinery investments and minimize 

overall costs. 

API made a series of conclusions 

based on the study. Perhaps the most 

important conclusion is that no refinery 

would shut down as a result of the 

proposed 10 ppm gasoline sulfur control 

standard, even though API did not study 

the flexibilities of an ABT program and 

used excessively high capital costs for a 

grassroots FCC postreater (see below). 

API did not report average costs, but 

reported the marginal costs for the cost 

study. Marginal costs reflect the cost of 

the program to the refinery or refineries 

which would incur the highest costs, 

assuming that the highest cost refineries 

would set the price (or in this case, the 

price increase) of gasoline. The report 

concluded that marginal costs after the 

imposition of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur 

program would increase the price of 

gasoline by 6 to 9 cents per gallon in 

most markets. API did not define how 

its statement ‘‘in most markets’’ would 

apply to the U.S. gasoline supply. API 

also did not provide any justification 

why it assumed that the refineries that 

would experience the highest 

desulfurization cost under Tier 3 would 

also be the same refineries which sets 

the gasoline price in the gasoline market 

today. 

Although API did not provide an 

average gasoline desulfurization cost in 

its report, we could calculate an average 

cost based on the gasoline volume and 

total annual costs provided. The total 

cost reported in the report for the 10 

ppm average gasoline sulfur standard is 

$2390MM/yr and the non-California 

gasoline volume is 7343 thousand 

barrels per day. This results in an 

average per-gallon desulfurization cost 

of $0.89/bbl or 2.12 c/gal. The difference 

between the average cost and marginal 

cost (price increase) that API is 

projecting is profit. Thus, API’s analysis 

would suggest that the oil industry 

would profit from 10 ppm low sulfur 

standard by roughly 4 to 7 cents per 

gallon, or roughly $4 to $8 billion 

dollars per year as a result of gasoline 

sulfur control. 

The average cost of the 10 ppm 

average gasoline sulfur standard 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.005</GPH>
29978 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

470The installed capital cost for an FCC postreater 

from the Jacobs data base was adjusted to current 

year dollars. This estimated installed capital cost is 

several years old and may not represent Jacobs 

current cost estimate for a FCC postreater. 

471Schink, George R., Singer, Hal J., Economic 

Analysis of the Implications of Implementing EPA’s 

Tier 3 Rules, prepared for the Emissions Control 

Technology Association, June 14, 2012. 

described above was calculated using 

API’s methodology for amortizing 

capital investments. To assess the costs 

consistent with OMB’s guidance for our 

rulemakings and to allow a direct 

comparison between the API cost study 

and our cost study, we adjusted the API 

costs to be on a similar basis as our 

costs. We adjusted the API costs to 

reflect a before-tax 7 percent return on 

investment (ROI) for capital invested for 

the hydrotreaters and hydrogen plants 

instead of the after-tax 10 percent ROI 

used by API. This lowered the API 

estimated costs from 2.12 c/gal to 1.58 

c/gal. API’s 1.58 cents per gallon cost is 

still higher than our 0.89 c/gal cost with 

an ABT program that assumes 

intercompany trading of credits, and 

higher than our 0.97 c/gal for the case 

which assumes no ABT program. The 

remaining difference between our 

estimated costs and those by API are 

driven by API’s assumptions for the 

capital costs that would be incurred for 

adding grassroots FCC postreaters, or 

revamping existing ones. 

While little detail is provided by API 

about what hardware comprises their 

desulfurization units, the inside battery 

limits (ISBL) and total capital costs for 

the FCC postreaters and FCC pretreaters 

are provided in API’s report. API’s FCC 

pretreaters capital costs are consistent 

with the capital costs that we have used 

for this unit. However, the FCC 

postreater costs used by API are much 

higher than what we used and have 

been used in the past by others. API’s 

capital cost for a grassroots FCC 

postreater is $228 million for a 35,000 

bbl/day unit, or $6540 per/bbl per day. 

API’s capital cost includes the outside 

battery limit (OSBL) costs. In contrast, 

the ISBL capital cost that we used for a 

grassroots FCC postreater is $1500/bblday for a 30,000 bbl/day grassroots unit, 

which increases to $1875/bbl/day when 

the offsite costs are added on. Thus, the 

API capital costs are about 31⁄2 times 

higher than the capital costs that we are 

using for a grassroots FCC postreater. To 

check our capital costs, we found other 

capital cost estimates to which we could 

compare our costs, including the capital 

costs used by the National Petroleum 

Council when it studied the cost of 

gasoline desulfurization prior to Tier 2. 

Compared to the average of the rest of 

the capital cost estimates, the API 

capital cost for FCC postreater is about 

four times higher. Compared to the next 

highest cost estimate, which is the FCC 

postreater capital cost from the Jacobs 

data base in the Haverly refinery cost 

model that we use,470 the API capital 

costs are almost two times higher. 

An important distinction must be 

made with respect to the severity of 

desulfurization for the capital cost 

comparison made for complying with 

Tier 2 versus Tier 3. For complying with 

the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard 

(Jacobs and NPC costs), a typical 

refinery would have installed an FCC 

postreater to desulfurize the FCC 

naphtha from about 800 ppm down to 

about 75 ppm, a 725 ppm, or a 91 

percent sulfur reduction. In the case of 

a grassroots postreater that would be 

installed for Tier 3, the postreater would 

treat FCC naphtha already low in sulfur 

due to the pretreater installed before the 

FCC unit (these refineries are currently 

complying with Tier 2 using an FCC 

pretreater). Thus, the new grassroots 

FCC postreater would only have to 

reduce the FCC naphtha from 100 ppm 

to 25 ppm, a much smaller 75 ppm or 

75 percent sulfur reduction. A 

grassroots FCC postreater installed for 

Tier 2 would typically remove 10 times 

more sulfur than one installed for Tier 

3. This is important because a 

significant portion of the FCC postreater 

capital cost is devoted to avoiding the 

recombination reactions which occur 

when hydrogen sulfide concentrations 

are high and react with the olefins 

contained in the FCC naphtha. Thus, a 

grassroots FCC postreater installed for 

Tier 3 would be expected to be 

significantly lower in capital cost 

compared to a Tier 2 FCC postreater. 

When API presented the costs, they 

stated that their grassroots capital costs 

were based on an actual installation for 

the Tier 2 program. This could be one 

reason why the capital costs used by 

API for its cost study of the Tier 3 

program are so high. Another way to 

assess the API capital cost for the FCC 

postreaters is to compare it to the FCC 

pretreater cost that API is using. FCC 

pretreaters are much higher pressure 

units and use more expensive 

metallurgy than FCC postreaters and, for 

these two reasons, are much more 

expensive than FCC postreaters on a 

per-barrel basis. However, API’s FCC 

postreater capital costs are about 50 

percent more expensive than its own 

FCC pretreater capital costs, which is 

inconsistent with the design 

requirements of the units. 

API’s estimated range of capital cost 

for revamping an FCC postreater is also 

higher than our range of capital cost for 

revamping an FCC postreater, when 

assessing the revamped costs as a 

percentage of the capital cost for a 

grassroots unit. API estimates that 

revamping an FCC postreater would cost 

30 to 70 percent of the capital cost for 

a grassroots FCC unit. Our capital cost 

estimate for revamping an FCC naphtha 

postreaters from 17 to 50 percent of the 

capital cost for a grassroots FCC 

postreater, however, most of the 

revamps are estimated to cost at the 

lower end of that range. Were we to 

adjust the API study capital costs, the 

projected costs would fall right in line 

with the other studies. 

Our assessment of the API study is 

supported by work performed by The 

Emissions Control Technology 

Association (ECTA) which retained 

personnel within Navigant Economics. 

That study assessed the costs of a 10 

ppm average gasoline sulfur standard 

and also evaluated the ICCT and API 

cost studies.471 The authors made a 

number of conclusions. After reviewing 

both the ICCT and API studies, the 

authors found that a primary difference 

in estimated costs between the two 

studies was the capital costs. The 

authors contacted vendor companies 

that license FCC postreater technologies 

and surveyed the companies to find out 

what the capital costs are for a FCC 

postreater. As a result of the survey, the 

report authors concluded that API’s 

capital costs were too high, and those 

used in the ICCT study were about right. 

The authors found that Baker and 

O’Brien has a history of exaggerating the 

economic impacts of EPA rules, citing 

the costs and other impacts of its 

analysis of the 2007 on-highway heavyduty proposed rulemaking. The authors 

concluded that the impact of a 10 ppm 

gasoline sulfur standard on the average 

refining cost would likely be closer to 

the 1 cent per gallon estimate by the 

ICCT study. Furthermore, the report’s 

authors also pointed out that the 

marginal cost analysis conducted by API 

did not consider the proposed averaging 

banking and trading (ABT) program that 

we were expected to propose, which 

would reduce the marginal costs of the 

Tier 3 proposed rule. 

C. Summary of Proposed Program Costs 

While the estimated costs for the 

separate proposed vehicle and proposed 

fuel programs are presented in Sections 

VII.A and VII.B, respectively, it is useful 

to present the combined cost estimates 

representing our full proposal. Such 

combined costs are also necessary in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29979 

calculating the cost-effectiveness of the 

standards in today’s proposal as 

described more fully in Section VII.D 

below. 

We have chosen to use an annual, 

nationwide cost format to represent the 

combined vehicle and program costs 

because this approach provides the most 

straightforward means for comparing 

vehicle costs to fuel costs, and for 

demonstrating the total cost impact of 

our proposed program. This approach to 

combined costs also provides a basis for 

comparing the program costs to the 

projected benefits as described more 

fully in Section VIII. 

Table VII–8 below shows our 

estimated program costs by year. 

Complete details of this analysis can be 

found in the draft RIA. 

TABLE VII–8—TOTAL ANNUAL VEHICLE AND CONTROL COSTS, 2010$ a

Year 

Vehicle exhaust 

emission control 

costs 

($Million) 

Vehicle 

evaporative 

emission control 

costs 

($Million) 

Facility costs 

($Million) 

Fuel sulfur 

control costs 

($Million) 

Total proposed 

program costs 

($Million) 

2016 ............................................................. $0 $0 $22 .5 $322 $345 

2017 ............................................................. 634 71 .4 3 .75 1,289 1,998 

2018 ............................................................. 1,170 171 3 .75 1,288 2,628 

2019 ............................................................. 1,270 162 3 .75 1,285 2,725 

2020 ............................................................. 1,380 221 3 .75 1,284 2,884 

2021 ............................................................. 1,510 213 3 .75 1,287 3,017 

2022 ............................................................. 1,630 271 3 .75 1,289 3,189 

2023 ............................................................. 1,660 259 3 .75 1,288 3,208 

2024 ............................................................. 1,770 263 3 .75 1,289 3,329 

2025 ............................................................. 1,870 253 3 .75 1,291 3,421 

2030 ............................................................. 1,790 253 3 .75 1,320 3,370 

a Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California. 

D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced 

This section summarizes the cost per 

ton analysis conducted by EPA and its 

results. The emission reductions used to 

calculate the costs per ton reported here 

are consistent with those reductions 

presented as part of our inventory 

impacts analysis as described in Section 

III.B. The costs used to calculate the 

costs per ton are consistent with the 

vehicle and fuel control costs presented 

in Sections VII.A and VII.B, 

respectively. We have calculated the 

aggregate costs per ton which uses the 

costs and emission reductions for 

calendar years 2017 and 2030, 

consistent with the years that we 

evaluated for air quality analysis. For 

more information on how the cost per 

ton was calculated please refer to 

Section 8.2 of the draft RIA. 

Note that, even though we are setting 

new standards for PM, we believe that 

those standards would be met in 

complying with the NMOG+NOX

standards with additional care being 

given to proper engineering/calibration, 

so there is no cost associated with the 

new PM standard and therefore no 

separate cost per ton analysis for PM. 

Likewise, as described more fully in 

Sections IV.A and IV.B, while we are 

also proposing new standards for CO 

and formaldehyde, we are not 

attributing any of the control costs to 

these pollutants since the technologies 

employed to meet the NOX+NMOG 

standards would also allow the CO and 

formaldehyde standards to be met. 

The total program costs, the 

NOX+VOC reductions, and results of our 

cost per ton analysis are provided in 

Table VII–9. The costs of the proposed 

program would be higher immediately 

after it is implemented than they would 

be after several years, since both vehicle 

manufacturers and refiners can take 

advantage of decreasing capital and 

operating costs over time. In addition, 

the reductions in NOX and VOC 

emissions would become greater as a 

larger percentage of the fleet contains 

the technologies required to meet the 

proposed standards. 

TABLE VII–9—COSTS PER TON OF EMISSIONS REDUCED IN 2017 AND 2030 a

Total proposed 

program cost 

($Million, 2010$) 

Total NOX + VOC 

reductions 

(tons) 

Cost effectiveness 

($/ton) 

2017 ..................................................................................................................... $1,999 329,162 $6,072 

2030 ..................................................................................................................... 3,367 750,818 4,484 

a Costs shown include costs associated with the proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel in all states except California. 

VIII. What are the estimated benefits of 

the proposed rule? 

This section presents EPA’s analysis 

of the criteria pollutant-related health 

and environmental impacts that would 

occur as a result of the proposed Tier 3 

standards. The vehicles and fuels 

subject to the proposed standards are 

significant sources of mobile source air 

pollution such as direct PM, NOX, SOX, 

VOCs and air toxics. The standards 

would affect exhaust and evaporative 

emissions of these pollutants from 

vehicles. Emissions of NOX (a precursor 

to ozone formation and secondarilyformed PM2.5), SOX (a precursor to 

secondarily-formed PM2.5), VOCs (a 

precursor to ozone formation and, to a 

lesser degree, secondarily-formed PM2.5) 

and directly-emitted PM2.5 contribute to 

ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and 

ozone. Exposure to ozone, PM2.5, and air 

toxics is linked to adverse human health 

impacts such as premature deaths as 

well as other important public health 

and environmental effects. 

For the proposal, we have estimated 

the health and environmental impacts 

in 2030, representing impacts associated 

with a year when the program is fully 

implemented and when most of the fleet 

is turned over. Overall, we estimate that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29980 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

472Note that the national, population-weighted 

PM2.5 and ozone air quality metrics presented in 

this Section represent an average for the entire, 

gridded U.S. CMAQ domain. These are different 

than the population-weighted PM2.5 and ozone 

design value metrics presented in Chapter 7, which 

represent the average for areas with a current air 

quality monitor. 473Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. 

Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. (2002). 

Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and 

Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution. Journal of the American Medical 

Association, 287, 1132–1141. 

474Bell, M.L., et al. (2004). Ozone and short-term 

mortality in 95 U.S. urban communities, 1987– 

2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 

292(19), 2372–2378. 

475Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. 

Dockery. (2006). Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of 

Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173, 667– 

672. 

476Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. 

(2005). Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric 

bayes metaregression analysis. Epidemiology. 16(4), 

458–68. 

477To conduct this sensitivity analysis, we 

simply assumed no air quality change in the 

California portion of the CMAQ domain. We then 

exported the reference and control air quality 

surfaces to be used as inputs to BenMAP. Note that 

this simple approach is unable to account for 

legitimate emissions impacts related to cross-state 

transport of pollution. 

478U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 

Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 

and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. 

479U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). 

Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved 

March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/

ria.html. 

480U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). 

Final Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards: Regulatory 

Impact Analysis, Assessment and Standards 

Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

EPA–420–R–10–009, April 2010. Available on the 

internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/

regulations/420r10009.pdf. 

481U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). (2010). Regulatory Impact Analysis: National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. Augues. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/

regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf >. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0472–0241 

482U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). 

Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards 

for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Assessment and 

Standards Division, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, EPA–420–R–11–901, August, 2011. 

Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/

oms/climate/documents/420r11901.pdf. 

the proposed standards would lead to a 

net decrease in PM2.5- and ozone-related 

health impacts. The decrease in 

population-weighted national average 

PM2.5 exposure results in a net decrease 

in adverse PM-related human health 

impacts (the decrease in national 

population-weighted annual average 

PM2.5 is 0.05 mg/m3 in 2030). The 

decrease in population-weighted 

national average ozone exposure results 

in a net decrease in ozone-related health 

impacts (population-weighted 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

decreases by 0.52 ppb in 2030).472

Using the lower end of EPA’s range of 

preferred premature mortality estimates 

(Pope et al., 2002 for PM2.5 and Bell et 

al., 2004 for ozone),473 474 we estimate 

that by 2030, implementation of the 

proposed standards would reduce 

approximately 970 premature 

mortalities annually and yield 

approximately $9.5 billion in total 

annual benefits. The upper end of the 

range of avoided premature mortality 

estimates associated with the proposed 

standards (based on Laden et al., 2006 

for PM2.5 and Levy et al., 2005 for 

ozone) 475 476 results in approximately 

2,800 premature mortalities avoided in 

2030 and yields approximately $27 

billion in total benefits. Thus, even 

using the lower end of the range of 

premature mortality estimates, the 

health impacts of the proposed 

standards presented in this rule would 

clearly be substantial. 

We note that of necessity decisions on 

the emissions and other elements used 

in the air quality modeling were made 

early in the analytical process for this 

proposal. For this reason, the Tier 3 

emission control scenario used in the air 

quality and benefits modeling includes 

emission reductions from Tier 3 across 

the nation, assuming no reductions 

associated with California’s LEV III 

program (as opposed to including 

California’s LEV III program and its 

associated emission reductions in the 

baseline scenario). This was because 

EPA had not granted California a waiver 

of preemption under CAA section 209 

for the LEV III program at the time EPA 

conducted the air quality modeling. 

EPA did include California’s fuel 

program, which independent of LEV III 

was already resulting in average 

gasoline sulfur levels of 10 ppm, in the 

baseline scenario. Since then, EPA 

granted a waiver for California’s LEV III 

program (78 FR 2112, January 9, 2013) 

and ten states have adopted the LEV III 

program under Section 177 of the Clean 

Air Act. Based on this change in 

circumstances, we will conduct new air 

quality modeling for the final rule that 

will include emission reductions from 

California’s LEV III program, both in 

California and in states that by that time 

have adopted the LEV III program, in 

the baseline scenario. 

Had we modeled the California LEV 

III emission impacts in the Tier 3 air 

quality baseline, we estimate that 

benefits would decrease by 

approximately 12–16 percent, 

depending on the particular health 

impact functions used to characterize 

both PM- and ozone-related premature 

mortality.477 As a result, we estimate 

that in 2030, using the lower end of 

EPA’s range of preferred premature 

mortality estimates (Pope et al., 2002 for 

PM2.5 and Bell et al., 2004 for ozone), 

the proposed standards would reduce 

approximately 820 premature 

mortalities annually and yield 

approximately $8.0 billion in total 

annual benefits. The upper end of the 

range of avoided premature mortality 

estimates associated with the proposed 

standards (based on Laden et al., 2006 

for PM2.5 and Levy et al., 2005 for 

ozone) results in approximately 2,400 

premature mortalities avoided in 2030 

and yields approximately $23 billion in 

total benefits. These are rough estimates 

since, without new photochemical air 

quality modeling to reflect the revised 

baseline and control scenarios, we are 

unable to account for cross-state 

transport of pollution into or out of 

California or Section 177 states. 

However, we believe this is a reasonable 

characterization of the small reduction 

in benefits had we modeled the 

emission reductions of the LEV III 

program in California and other state 

that adopt the LEV III program in the 

baseline. We believe our overall costbenefit conclusions do not materially 

change with or without the inclusion of 

emission reductions from California and 

in other states that adopt the LEV III 

program in our analysis. We will 

conduct new air quality modeling for 

the final rule that will include emission 

reductions from the LEV III program in 

California, and in states that have 

adopted the program, in the baseline 

scenario. The rest of this section 

presents benefits that include emission 

reductions from the LEV III program. 

A. Overview 

We base our analysis of the program’s 

impact on human health on peerreviewed studies of air quality and 

human health effects.478 479 These 

methods are described in more detail in 

the draft RIA that accompanies this 

action. Our benefits methods are also 

consistent with rulemaking analyses 

such as the final 2012–2016 MY LightDuty Vehicle Rule,480 the final Portland 

Cement National Emissions Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

RIA,481 the final 2014–2018 MY HeavyDuty Vehicle Rule,482 and the final 

2017–2025 MY Light-Duty Vehicle 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29981 

483U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). 

Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 

2017–2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Assessment and Standards 

Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

EPA–420–R–12–016, August 2012. Available on the 

internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/

documents/420r12016.pdf. 

484 Information on BenMAP, including 

downloads of the software, can be found at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html. 

485U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. http://

www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf. 

Rule.483 To model the ozone and PM air 

quality impacts of the proposed 

standards, we used the Community 

Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model 

(see Chapter 7.2.2 of the draft RIA that 

accompanies this preamble). The 

modeled ambient air quality data serves 

as an input to the Environmental 

Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program 

version 4.0 (BenMAP).484 BenMAP is a 

computer program developed by the 

U.S. EPA that integrates a number of the 

modeling elements used in previous 

analyses (e.g., interpolation functions, 

population projections, health impact 

functions, valuation functions, analysis 

and pooling methods) to translate 

modeled air concentration estimates 

into health effects incidence estimates 

and monetized benefits estimates. 

The range of total monetized ozoneand PM-related health impacts in 2030 

is presented in Table VIII–1. We present 

total benefits based on the PM- and 

ozone-related premature mortality 

function used. The benefits ranges 

therefore reflect the addition of each 

estimate of ozone-related premature 

mortality (each with its own row in 

Table VIII–1) to estimates of PM-related 

premature mortality. The analysis of the 

proposed standards reflects EPA’s work 

to characterize benefits prior to the most 

recent PM NAAQS.485 EPA will update 

its benefits analysis, and related 

uncertainty analysis, to be consistent 

with the final PM NAAQS for the final 

Tier 3 regulatory impact analysis. 

TABLE VIII–1—ESTIMATED 2030 MONETIZED PM- AND OZONE-RELATED HEALTH BENEFITS a b

Premature ozone mortality function Reference Total benefits 

(billions, 2010$, 3% discount rate) c d

Total benefits 

(billions, 2010$, 7% 

discount rate) c d

2030 Total Ozone and PM Benefits—PM Mortality Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis and Six-Cities Analysis b

Multi-city analyses ............................... Bell et al., 2004 ................................... Total: $9.5–$21 ................................... Total: $8.7–$19. 

PM: $7.7–$19 PM: $7.0–$17. 

Ozone: $1.8 Ozone: $1.8. 

Huang et al., 2005 ............................... Total: $10–$21 .................................... Total: $9.5–$20. 

PM: $7.7–$19 PM: $7.0–$17. 

Ozone: $2.6 Ozone: $2.6. 

Schwartz, 2005 .................................... Total: $10–$22 .................................... Total: $9.6–$20. 

PM: $7.7–$19 PM: $7.0–$17. 

Ozone: $2.7 Ozone: $2.7. 

Meta-analyses ...................................... Bell et al., 2005 ................................... Total: $13–$24 .................................... Total: $12–$23. 

PM: $7.7–$19 PM: $7.0–$17. 

Ozone: $5.5 Ozone: $5.5. 

Ito et al., 2005 ..................................... Total: $15–$26 .................................... Total: $15–$25. 

PM: $7.7–$19 PM: $7.0–$17. 

Ozone: $7.5 Ozone: $7.5. 

Levy et al., 2005 .................................. Total: $15–$27 .................................... Total: $15–$25. 

PM: $7.7–$19 PM: $7.0–$17. 

Ozone: $7.7 Ozone: $7.7. 

aBenefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. Had we modeled the California LEV III emission impacts in the Tier 3 air quality baseline, we estimate that benefits would decrease by approximately 12–16 percent, depending on the particular health impact functions used to characterize both PM- and ozone-related premature mortality. We will account for emissions in states that 

have adopted California’s LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule. bTotal includes premature mortality-related and morbidity-related ozone and PM2.5 benefits. Range was developed by adding the estimate 

from the ozone premature mortality function to the estimate of PM2.5-related premature mortality derived from either the ACS study (Pope et al., 

2002) or the Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006). c Note that total benefits presented here do not include a number of unquantified benefits categories. A detailed listing of unquantified health 

and welfare effects is provided in Table VIII–2. d Results reflect the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, as recommended by EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses and 

OMB Circular A–4. Results are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

The benefits in Table VIII–1 include 

all of the human health impacts we are 

able to quantify and monetize at this 

time. However, the full complement of 

human health and welfare effects 

associated with PM and ozone remain 

unquantified because of current 

limitations in methods and/or available 

data. We have not quantified a number 

of known or suspected health effects 

linked with ozone and PM for which 

appropriate health impact functions are 

not available or which do not provide 

easily interpretable outcomes (e.g., 

changes in heart rate variability). 

Additionally, we are unable to quantify 

a number of known welfare effects, 

including reduced acid and particulate 

deposition damage to cultural 

monuments and other materials, and 

environmental benefits due to 

reductions of impacts of eutrophication 

in coastal areas. These are listed in 

Table VIII–2. As a result, the health 

benefits quantified in this section are 

likely underestimates of the total 

benefits attributable to the proposed 

standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29982 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII–2—UNQUANTIFIED AND NON-MONETIZED POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Pollutant/effects Effects not included in analysis—changes in: 

Ozone Health a .......................................................................................... Chronic respiratory damage b. 

Premature aging of the lungs b. 

Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits. 

Exposure to UVb (+/¥) e. 

Ozone Welfare .......................................................................................... Yields for: 

—commercial forests. 

—some fruits and vegetables. 

—non-commercial crops. 

Damage to urban ornamental plants. 

Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics. 

Ecosystem functions. 

Exposure to UVb (+/¥) e. 

PM Health c ............................................................................................... Premature mortality—short term exposures d. 

Low birth weight. 

Pulmonary function. 

Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis. 

Non-asthma respiratory emergency room visits. 

Exposure to UVb (+/¥) e. 

PM Welfare ............................................................................................... Residential and recreational visibility in non-Class I areas. 

Soiling and materials damage. 

Damage to ecosystem functions. 

Exposure to UVb (+/¥) e. 

Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare ................................................. Commercial forests due to acidic sulfate and nitrate deposition. 

Commercial freshwater fishing due to acidic deposition. 

Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems due to acidic deposition. 

Existence values for currently healthy ecosystems. 

Commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests due to nitrogen deposition. 

Recreation in estuarine ecosystems due to nitrogen deposition. 

Ecosystem functions. 

Passive fertilization. 

CO Health ................................................................................................. Behavioral effects. 

HC/Toxics Health f .................................................................................... Cancer (benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde). 

Anemia (benzene). 

Disruption of production of blood components (benzene). 

Reduction in the number of blood platelets (benzene). 

Excessive bone marrow formation (benzene). 

Depression of lymphocyte counts (benzene). 

Reproductive and developmental effects (1,3-butadiene). 

Irritation of eyes and mucus membranes (formaldehyde). 

Respiratory irritation (formaldehyde). 

Asthma attacks in asthmatics (formaldehyde). 

Asthma-like symptoms in non-asthmatics (formaldehyde). 

Irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract (acetaldehyde). 

Upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion (acrolein). 

HC/Toxics Welfare .................................................................................... Direct toxic effects to animals. 

Bioaccumulation in the food chain. 

Damage to ecosystem function. 

Odor. 

aThe public health impact of biological responses such as increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection are likely partially represented by our quantified 

endpoints. bThe public health impact of effects such as chronic respiratory damage and premature aging of the lungs may be partially represented by 

quantified endpoints such as hospital admissions or premature mortality, but a number of other related health impacts, such as doctor visits and 

decreased athletic performance, remain unquantified. c In addition to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly represented by our quantified endpoints. dWhile some of the effects of short-term exposures are likely to be captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to shortterm exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in this analysis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the expert 

elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of short term exposures. e May result in benefits or disbenefits. 

f Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this action are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the CAA. 

While there would be impacts 

associated with air toxic pollutant 

emission changes that result from the 

proposed standards, we do not attempt 

to monetize those impacts (Section III 

presents the estimated emission 

reductions associated with the 

proposal). This is primarily because 

currently available tools and methods to 

assess air toxics risk from mobile 

sources at the national scale are not 

adequate for extrapolation to incidence 

estimations or benefits assessment. The 

best suite of tools and methods 

currently available for assessment at the 

national scale are those used in the 

National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA). The EPA Science Advisory 

Board specifically commented in their 

review of the 1996 NATA that these 

tools were not yet ready for use in a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29983 

486Science Advisory Board. (2001). NATA— 

Evaluating the National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996—an SAB Advisory. http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html. 

487U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA). (2011). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and 

Radiation, Washington, DC. March. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/ 

feb11/fullreport.pdf>. 

488U.S. Environmental Protection Agency— 

Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA–SAB). (2008). 

Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in 

Houston, 1990–2020. EPA–COUNCIL–08–001. July. 

Available at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/

sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A5485257486007

28A83/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf>. 

489 In April, 2009, EPA hosted a workshop on 

estimating the benefits or reducing hazardous air 

pollutants. This workshop built upon the work 

accomplished in the June 2000 Science Advisory 

Board/EPA Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions 

in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, which 

generated thoughtful discussion on approaches to 

estimating human health benefits from reductions 

in air toxics exposure, but no consensus was 

reached on methods that could be implemented in 

the near term for a broad selection of air toxics. 

Please visit http://epa.gov/air/toxicair/ 

2009workshop.html for more information about the 

workshop and its associated materials. 

490Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. 

(1997). The Relationship Between Selected Causes 

of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air 

Pollution in the United States. Environmental 

Health Perspectives 105(6):608–612. 

national-scale benefits analysis, because 

they did not consider the full 

distribution of exposure and risk, or 

address sub-chronic health effects.486

While EPA has since improved these 

tools, there remain critical limitations 

for estimating incidence and assessing 

benefits of reducing mobile source air 

toxics. 

As part of the second prospective 

analysis of the benefits and costs of the 

Clean Air Act,487 EPA conducted a case 

study analysis of the health effects 

associated with reducing exposure to 

benzene in Houston from 

implementation of the Clean Air Act. 

While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s 

Advisory Council on Clean Air 

Compliance Analysis concluded that 

‘‘the challenges for assessing progress in 

health improvement as a result of 

reductions in emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs) are daunting . . . due 

to a lack of exposure-response 

functions, uncertainties in emissions 

inventories and background levels, the 

difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates 

to low doses and the challenges of 

tracking health progress for diseases, 

such as cancer, that have long latency 

periods.’’ 488 EPA continues to work to 

address these limitations; however, we 

did not have the methods and tools 

available for national-scale application 

in time for the analysis of the proposed 

standards.489

B. Quantified Human Health Impacts 

Table VIII–3 and Table VIII–4 present 

the core estimates of annual PM2.5 and 

ozone health impacts, respectively, in 

the 48 contiguous U.S. states associated 

with the proposed standards for 2030. 

For each endpoint presented in Table 

VIII–3 and Table VIII–4, we provide 

both the mean estimate and the 90 

percent confidence interval. 

Using EPA’s preferred estimates, 

based on the American Cancer Society 

(ACS) and Six-Cities studies and no 

threshold assumption in the model of 

mortality, we estimate that the proposed 

standards would result in between 800 

and 2,100 cases of avoided PM2.5-related 

premature mortalities annually in 2030. 

A sensitivity analysis was also 

conducted to understand the impact of 

alternative concentration response 

functions suggested by experts in the 

field. When the range of expert opinion 

is used, we estimate between 270 and 

2,700 fewer premature mortalities in 

2030 (see Table 8.8 in the RIA that 

accompanies this action). For ozonerelated premature mortality in 2030, we 

estimate a range of between 170 to 770 

fewer premature mortalities. 

TABLE VIII–3—ESTIMATED PM2.5-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a b

Health effect 2030 Annual reduction in incidence 

(5th%–95th%ile) 

Premature Mortality—Derived from epidemiology literature: c

Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) ........................................................................... 800 (310–1,300) 

Adult, age 25+, Six-Cities Study (Laden et al., 2006) ............................................................................. 2,100 (1,100–3,000) 

Infant, age <1 year (Woodruff et al., 1997) ............................................................................................. 3 (0–8) 

Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) .................................................................................................... 560 (100–1,000) 

Non-fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and over) ................................................................................ 980 (360–1,600) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) d .................................................................................................. 160 (77–230) 

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (adults, age >18) e ............................................................................... 380 (270–440) 

Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) .................................................................... 600 (350–850) 

Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8–12) ............................................................................................................. 1,300 (0–2,500) 

Lower respiratory symptoms (children, age 7–14) .......................................................................................... 16,000 (7,700–24,000) 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9–18) ......................................................................... 12,000 (3,800–20,000) 

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6–18) ..................................................................................... 27,000 (3,000–74,000) 

Work loss days ................................................................................................................................................ 100,000 (88,000–110,000) 

Minor restricted activity days (adults age 18–65) ........................................................................................... 600,000 (500,000–690,000) 

aBenefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in states that 

have adopted California’s LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule. b Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 48 contiguous United States. 

cPM-related adult mortality based upon the American Cancer Society (ACS) Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) and the Six-Cities Study (Laden 

et al., 2006). Note that these are two alternative estimates of adult mortality and should not be summed. PM-related infant mortality based upon 

a study by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, (1997).490

d Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma. e Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and 

heart failure. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29984 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII–4—ESTIMATED OZONE-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS a b

Health effect 2030 Annual reduction in incidence 

(5th%–95th%ile) 

Premature Mortality, All ages c

Multi-City Analyses: 

Bell et al. (2004)—Non-accidental ........................................................................................................... 170 (73–260) 

Huang et al. (2005)—Cardiopulmonary ................................................................................................... 250 (120–380) 

Schwartz (2005)—Non-accidental ............................................................................................................ 260 (110–410) 

Meta-analyses: 

Bell et al. (2005)—All cause ..................................................................................................................... 540 (300–780) 

Ito et al. (2005)—Non-accidental ............................................................................................................. 750 (500–1,000) 

Levy et al. (2005)—All cause ................................................................................................................... 770 (560–970) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) d ................................................................... 1,200 (160–2,200) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (children, under 2) ......................................................................... 550 (290–810) 

Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) ................................................................................................... 580 (0–1,500) 

Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18–65) .......................................................................................... 970,000 (490,000–1,500,000) 

School absence days ...................................................................................................................................... 350,000 (150,000–490,000) 

aBenefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in states that 

have adopted California’s LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule. b Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 48 contiguous U.S. 

cEstimates of ozone-related premature mortality are based upon incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et al. 

(2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Bell et al. (2005); Ito et al. (2005); Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone-related premature 

mortality should therefore not be summed. d Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all respiratory causes and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia. 

C. Monetized Benefits 

Table VIII–5 presents the estimated 

monetary value of changes in the 

incidence of ozone and PM2.5-related 

health effects. All monetized estimates 

are stated in 2010$. These estimates 

account for growth in real gross 

domestic product (GDP) per capita 

between the present and 2030. Our 

estimate of total monetized benefits in 

2030 for the program, using the ACS 

and Six-Cities PM mortality studies and 

the range of ozone mortality 

assumptions, is $9.5 and $27 billion, 

assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or 

between $8.7 and $25 billion, assuming 

a 7 percent discount rate. This 

represents the health benefits of the Tier 

3 program anticipated to occur annually 

when the program is fully implemented 

and most of the fleet turned over. 

TABLE VIII–5—ESTIMATED MONETARY VALUE OF CHANGES IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS IN 2030 

[Millions of 2010$] a b

Health endpoints 2030 

(5th and 95th percentile) 

PM2.5-Related Health Effects 

Premature Mortality—Derived from Epidemiology Studies: c d

Adult, age 30+—ACS study (Pope et al., 2002): 

3% discount rate ............................................................................................................................... $7,200 ($920–$18,000) 

7% discount rate ............................................................................................................................... $6,500 ($830—$17,000) 

Adult, age 25+—Six-Cities study (Laden et al., 2006): 

3% discount rate ............................................................................................................................... $18,000 ($2,600–$45,000) 

7% discount rate ............................................................................................................................... $17,000 ($2,300–$41,000) 

Infant Mortality, <1 year—(Woodruff et al. 1997) .................................................................................... $27 ($0–$100) 

Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) ......................................................................................................... $310 ($25–$1,000) 

Non-fatal acute myocardial infarctions: 

3% discount rate ................................................................................................................................... $110 ($24–$260) 

7% discount rate ................................................................................................................................... $90 ($19–$210) 

Hospital admissions for respiratory causes ..................................................................................................... $2.5 ($1.2–$3.6) 

Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes .............................................................................................. $5.5 ($1.2–$10) 

Emergency room visits for asthma .................................................................................................................. $0.24 ($0.13–$0.36) 

Acute bronchitis (children, age 8–12) .............................................................................................................. $0.61 ($0.00–$1.5) 

Lower respiratory symptoms (children, 7–14) ................................................................................................. $0.34 ($0.13–$0.63) 

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, 9–11) .................................................................................................. $0.40 ($0.12–$0.89) 

Asthma exacerbations ..................................................................................................................................... $1.6 ($0.17–$4.4) 

Work loss days ................................................................................................................................................ $16 ($14–$19) 

Minor restricted-activity days (MRADs) ........................................................................................................... $41 ($24–$59) 

Ozone-Related Health Effects 

Premature Mortality, All ages—Derived from Multi-city analyses: 

Bell et al., 2004 ........................................................................................................................................ $1,700 ($220–$4,200) 

Huang et al., 2005 .................................................................................................................................... $2,500 ($340–$6,200) 

Schwartz, 2005 ......................................................................................................................................... $2,600 ($330–$6,500) 

Premature Mortality, All ages—Derived from Meta-analyses: 

Bell et al., 2005 ........................................................................................................................................ $5,400 ($760–$13,000) 

Ito et al., 2005 .......................................................................................................................................... $7,400 ($1,100–$18,000) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29985 

491U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 

Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 

and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html 

492National Research Council (NRC), (2008). 

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic 

Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The 

National Academies Press: Washington, DC. 

TABLE VIII–5—ESTIMATED MONETARY VALUE OF CHANGES IN INCIDENCE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS IN 2030— 

Continued 

[Millions of 2010$] a b

Health endpoints 2030 

(5th and 95th percentile) 

Levy et al., 2005 ....................................................................................................................................... $7,600 ($1,100–$18,000) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) ...................................................................... $32 ($4.2–$56) 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (children, under 2) ......................................................................... $6.0 ($3.1–$8.9) 

Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) ................................................................................................... $0.23 ($0.0–$0.57) 

Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18–65) .......................................................................................... $67 ($31–$110) 

School absence days ...................................................................................................................................... $34 ($15–$48) 

aBenefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in states that 

have adopted California’s LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule. b Monetary benefits are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. PM and ozone benefits are nationwide. c Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2030). 

dValuation assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year segmented lag structure. Results reflect the use of 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses. 

D. What are the limitations of the 

benefits analysis? 

Every benefit-cost analysis examining 

the potential effects of a change in 

environmental protection requirements 

is limited to some extent by data gaps, 

limitations in model capabilities (such 

as geographic coverage), and 

uncertainties in the underlying 

scientific and economic studies used to 

configure the benefit and cost models. 

Limitations of the scientific literature 

often result in the inability to estimate 

quantitative changes in health and 

environmental effects, such as potential 

decreases in premature mortality 

associated with decreased exposure to 

carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the 

economics literature often result in the 

inability to assign economic values even 

to those health and environmental 

outcomes which can be quantified. 

These general uncertainties in the 

underlying scientific and economics 

literature, which can lead to valuations 

that are higher or lower, are discussed 

in detail in the draft RIA and its 

supporting references. Key uncertainties 

that have a bearing on the results of the 

benefit-cost analysis of the proposed 

standards include the following: 

• The exclusion of potentially 

significant and unquantified benefit 

categories (such as health, odor, and 

ecological benefits of reduction in air 

toxics, ozone, and PM); 

• Errors in measurement and 

projection for variables such as 

population growth; 

• Uncertainties in the estimation of 

future year emissions inventories and 

air quality (including future year 

climate uncertainty); 

• Uncertainty in the estimated 

relationships of health and welfare 

effects to changes in pollutant 

concentrations including the shape of 

the concentration-response function, the 

size of the effect estimates, and the 

relative toxicity of the many 

components of the PM mixture; 

• Uncertainties in exposure 

estimation; and 

• Uncertainties associated with the 

effect of potential future actions to limit 

emissions. 

As Table VIII–5 indicates, total 

benefits are driven primarily by the 

reduction in premature mortalities each 

year. Some key assumptions underlying 

the premature mortality estimates 

include the following, which may also 

contribute to uncertainty: 

• Inhalation of fine particles is 

causally associated with premature 

death at concentrations near those 

experienced by most Americans on a 

daily basis. Although biological 

mechanisms for this effect have not yet 

been completely established, the weight 

of the available epidemiological, 

toxicological, and experimental 

evidence supports an assumption of 

causality. The impacts of including a 

probabilistic representation of causality 

were explored in the expert elicitationbased results of the PM NAAQS RIA.491

• All fine particles, regardless of their 

chemical composition, are equally 

potent in causing premature mortality. 

This is an important assumption, 

because PM produced via transported 

precursors emitted from vehicle engines 

may differ significantly from PM 

precursors released from electric 

generating units and other industrial 

sources. However, no clear scientific 

grounds exist for supporting differential 

effects estimates by particle type. 

• The C–R function for fine particles 

is approximately linear within the range 

of ambient concentrations under 

consideration. Thus, the estimates 

include health benefits from reducing 

fine particles in areas with varied 

concentrations of PM, including both 

regions that may be in attainment with 

PM2.5 standards and those that are at 

risk of not meeting the standards. 

• There is uncertainty in the 

magnitude of the association between 

ozone and premature mortality. The 

range of ozone benefits associated with 

the coordinated strategy is estimated 

based on the risk of several sources of 

ozone-related mortality effect estimates. 

In a report on the estimation of ozonerelated premature mortality published 

by the National Research Council, a 

panel of experts and reviewers 

concluded that short-term exposure to 

ambient ozone is likely to contribute to 

premature deaths and that ozone-related 

mortality should be included in 

estimates of the health benefits of 

reducing ozone exposure.492 EPA has 

requested advice from the National 

Academy of Sciences on how best to 

quantify uncertainty in the relationship 

between ozone exposure and premature 

mortality in the context of quantifying 

benefits. 

Despite the uncertainties described 

above, we believe this analysis provides 

a conservative estimate of the estimated 

criteria pollutant-related health and 

environmental benefits of the standards 

in future years because of the exclusion 

of potentially significant benefit 

categories that are not quantifiable at 

this time. Acknowledging benefits 

omissions and uncertainties, we present 

a best estimate of the total benefits 

based on our interpretation of the best 

available scientific literature and 

methods supported by EPA’s technical 

peer review panel, the Science Advisory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29986 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

493National Research Council (NRC). (2002). 

Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed 

Air Pollution Regulations. The National Academies 

Press: Washington, DC. 494U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the 

Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 

and Radiation. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

ecas/ria.html. 

495The PM2.5-related benefit-per-ton estimates 

provide the total monetized human health benefits 

(the sum of premature mortality and premature 

morbidity) of reducing one ton of directly emitted 

PM2.5. The benefit per-ton technique has been used 

in previous analyses, including the 2012–2016 

Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (U.S. EPA, 2010. 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Final Rulemaking to 

Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 

Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards. Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality. April. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf. EPA–420- 

R-10-009). The benefits-per-ton values are available 

at http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/benmap/bpt.html. 

Note that the values on the Web site are presented 

in year 2006$; the values underlying the estimates 

here have been adjusted to 2010$ using the CPI–U 

‘‘all’’ index. 

Board’s Health Effects Subcommittee 

(SAB–HES). The National Academies of 

Science (NRC, 2002) has also reviewed 

EPA’s methodology for analyzing the 

health benefits of measures taken to 

reduce air pollution. EPA addressed 

many of these comments in the analysis 

of the final PM NAAQS.493 494 This 

analysis incorporates this work to the 

extent possible. 

E. Illustrative Analysis of Monetized 

Impacts Associated With the Proposal in 

2017 

For illustrative purposes, this section 

presents the total estimated monetized 

benefits associated with the proposed 

standards in 2017. As presented in 

Section III.B, the emissions impacts of 

the proposed standards in 2017 are 

primarily due to the effects of sulfur on 

the existing (pre-Tier 3) fleet. For 

reasons explained in Chapter 7.1.3.2.2 

of the draft RIA, our analysis of the air 

quality impacts in 2017 reflects an 

increase in direct PM emissions from 

vehicles (along with reductions in NOX, 

VOCs and other pollutants). This 

emissions increase results from a series 

of conservative assumptions and 

uncertainties related to fuel parameters 

in 2017, and is not expected to occur in 

reality. Because our air quality modeling 

assumes this increase, as well as 

increased direct PM emissions due to an 

emissions processing error (see Chapter 

7.2.1.1.2 of the draft RIA), our 

illustrative benefits analysis in 2017 

overestimates ambient concentrations of 

PM2.5 and underestimates the benefits of 

the proposed Tier 3 standards. 

Table VIII–6 presents total aggregate 

monetized benefits of the program in 

2017, which includes the modeled 

direct PM increase described above. 

Monetized estimates are presented in 

2010$. Our estimate of total monetized 

benefits associated with the proposed 

standards in 2017, using the ACS and 

Six-Cities PM mortality studies and the 

range of ozone mortality assumptions, is 

between $1.0 and $3.4 billion, assuming 

a 3 percent discount rate, or between 

$1.0 and $3.3 billion, assuming a 7 

percent discount rate. Had our ambient 

air quality modeling of PM2.5 not 

included the increase in direct PM 

emissions, we estimate that benefits 

would increase by a range of $400 to 

$970 million (assuming a 3 percent 

discount rate) or increase by a range of 

$360 to $880 million (assuming a 7 

percent discount rate), using current 

EPA benefit-per-ton estimates for direct 

PM.495

For a more detailed presentation of 

the quantified and monetized impacts of 

the proposal in 2017, please refer to 

Chapter 8 of the RIA that accompanies 

this preamble. 

TABLE VIII–6—TOTAL MONETIZED OZONE AND PM-RELATED BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROGRAM IN

2017 

Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)—PM mortality derived from the ACS and six-cities studies 

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Ozone mortality function Reference Mean total 

benefits Ozone mortality function Reference Mean total benefits 

Multi-city ........................... Bell et al., 2004 .............. $1.0–$1.8 Multi-city .......................... Bell et al., 2004 .............. $0.96–$1.7 

Huang et al., 2005 .......... 1.2–1.9 ......................................... Huang et al., 2005 .......... 1.2–1.9 

Schwartz, 2005 ............... 1.3–2.0 ......................................... Schwartz, 2005 ............... 1.2–1.9 

Meta-analysis ................... Bell et al., 2005 .............. 2.1–2.8 Meta-analysis .................. Bell et al., 2005 .............. 2.0–2.7 

Ito et al., 2005 ................ 2.6–3.4 ......................................... Ito et al., 2005 ................ 2.6–3.3 

Levy et al., 2005 ............. 2.7–3.4 ......................................... Levy et al., 2005 ............. 2.6–3.3 

Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)—PM mortality derived from expert elicitation (lowest and highest estimate) 

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Ozone mortality function Reference Mean total 

benefits Ozone mortality function Reference Mean total benefits 

Multi-city ........................... Bell et al., 2004 .............. $0.68–$3.8 Multi-city .......................... Bell et al., 2004 .............. $0.67–$2.0 

Huang et al., 2005 .......... 0.89–2.4 ......................................... Huang et al., 2005 .......... 0.87–2.2 

Schwartz, 2005 ............... 0.93–2.4 ......................................... Schwartz, 2005 ............... 0.91–2.3 

Meta-analysis ................... Bell et al., 2005 .............. 1.7–3.2 Meta-analysis .................. Bell et al., 2005 .............. 1.7–3.1 

Ito et al., 2005 ................ 2.3–3.8 ......................................... Ito et al., 2005 ................ 2.3–3.6 

Levy et al., 2005 ............. 2.3–3.8 ......................................... Levy et al., 2005 ............. 2.3–3.7 

IX. Alternatives Analysis 

As described throughout this 

preamble, we have considered a number 

of regulatory alternatives in the 

development of this proposal, including 

alternatives related to timing and 

stringency of the proposed standards, as 

well as program design (e.g., averaging, 

banking, and trading). This section 

summarizes the alternatives considered 

for both vehicle emission and fuel 

standards. 

A. Vehicle Emission Standards 

The federal vehicle emission 

standards we are proposing are the most 

stringent feasible considering 

anticipated developments in motor 

vehicle emissions control technology. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29987 

496A light-duty vehicle product design cycle is 

the number of years between major redesigns of a 

vehicle. Typically, major redesigns are completed 

every 5 to 6 years. 

497California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial 

Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider 

LEV III, December 7, 2011. 

As we considered options for these 

vehicle standards, one of the important 

factors we considered was 

harmonization with the CARB LEV III 

program. As a result, consideration of 

alternatives focused less on the level of 

the per-vehicle standards themselves 

and more on the phase-in schedule for 

the standards, which can have an 

important influence on the cost of the 

standards. Phase-in schedules directly 

impact costs depending on how they are 

aligned with other light-duty rules and 

product design cycles. In addition, 

phase-in schedules can impact the cost 

of available resources, specifically 

design, development and testing 

resources within vehicle manufacturers 

and emission control suppliers. 

1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phasein 

We originally considered requiring 

full implementation of the final 

NMOG+NOX final fleet average standard 

by MY 2022. However, we determined 

that this would have disrupted the 

manufacturer’s normal product design 

cycles,496 and it would not have 

allowed manufacturers to use a 

consistent product design cycle for both 

the Tier 3 standards and the 2017 LD 

GHG standards, which reach full 

implementation in MY 2025. We are 

proposing to extend the phase-in 

schedule to MY 2025 in order to allow 

vehicle manufacturers to better integrate 

the compliance with Tier 3 into their 

product design cycles, as well as take 

advantage of additional learning to 

reduce costs. We believe this 

implementation schedule for the Tier 3 

NMOG+NOX standards would allow us 

to achieve the environmental objectives 

without imposing unnecessary cost and 

burden on the industry. 

2. Longer NMOG+NOX Standards PhaseIn Due to Early Credits 

In an effort to facilitate the step-down 

in fleet average stringency in the initial 

model years of the Tier 3 program, we 

considered allowing manufacturers to 

earn credits against the current Tier 2 

Bin 5 fleet average and use earned early 

credits without any limits for the first 

five years of the Tier 3 program. CARB, 

along with some vehicle manufacturers, 

noted that if a manufacturer were to 

substantially over comply with the Tier 

2 Bin 5 fleet average, these early credits 

might not only delay achievement of the 

Tier 3 emission levels, but also delay 

harmonization between the Tier 3 and 

LEV III programs for many years. To 

address this potential misalignment, we 

are proposing that the application of the 

early credits be capped starting in MY 

2018 at a manufacturer’s LEV III credits 

adjusted by the ratio of California and 

Section 177 state sales to federal sales. 

(See Section IV.A.7.a for more details.) 

This proposed approach would balance 

the need for some transition flexibility 

to avoid unnecessary costs, while still 

ensuring expeditious harmonization 

with LEV III and achievement of the 

environmental benefits of the Tier 3 

standards. 

3. Shorter PM Standards Phase-In 

As we considered potential PM phasein schedules, we gave strong 

consideration to manufacturers’ PM 

testing capabilities and product design 

cycles. We considered requiring 

manufacturers to certify 25 percent of 

their fleet to the Tier 3 p.m. standards 

in MY 2017, ramping up to 100 percent 

by MY 2020. We initially believed that 

this schedule would allow 

manufacturers to focus engineering 

resources on ensuring their new 

products meet the proposed Tier 3 

standards while other product lines, 

which we expect would be phased out 

due to the 2017 LD GHG standards, 

expire. However, based on further 

discussions with the vehicle 

manufacturers, we recognized that they 

need time to improve and expand their 

facilities to measure PM, not only for 

compliance determination but also for 

product development work prior to 

production. As a result, we are 

proposing a phase-in schedule for 

meeting the proposed Tier 3 p.m. 

standards that starts with 20 percent of 

the vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR 

in MY 2017 and ramps up to 100 

percent of the light-duty fleet in MY 

2021. As with the NMOG+NOX phasein discussed above, we believe this 

proposed phase-in schedule for the Tier 

3 p.m. standards would allow us to 

achieve the environmental objectives 

without imposing unnecessary cost and 

burden on the industry. 

4. NMOG+NOX Standards 

We believe that the fleet-average 

NMOG+NOX standards that we are 

proposing reflect the greatest degree of 

emission reduction achievable 

considering cost and technology, 

assuming that gasoline sulfur levels are 

reduced to the proposed 10-ppm 

average. We also believe the proposed 

implementation schedule for the 

NMOG+ NOX standards is as short as 

practicable, as explained above. As a 

result, we believe more stringent 

standards would not be justified based 

on the information currently available to 

EPA. Therefore, given our goal to 

harmonize our program with CARB’s at 

the 30 mg/mi level, we did not conduct 

any detailed analysis of a less stringent 

fleet average standard. Based on the 

work done to quantify the impacts of the 

30 mg/mi standard, however, we can 

say that a fleet-average standard of 50 

mg/mi of NMOG+NOX would result in 

NMOG+NOX emissions in 2030 that are 

about 100,000 tons higher than the 

standards we are proposing. While costs 

would be lower because the emissions 

controls discussed in Section VII.A 

would be applied at a lower rate, such 

a standard would also not be 

harmonized with CARB LEV III 

standards. 

5. PM Standards 

The FTP PM standards that we are 

proposing are the most stringent 

technically feasible standards within the 

implementation timeframe of this 

proposal. Although CARB has finalized 

a 1 mg/mi standard which will begin 

phasing in with MY 2025, they 

acknowledge that there is a need for 

continuing PM measurement method 

development prior to implementing this 

standard.497 The EPA believes that in 

order to propose a federal PM standard 

at this level, there should be established 

methods to reliably and consistently 

measure PM at levels at and below that 

standard that would be needed for 

ensuring compliance. 

B. Fuel Sulfur Standards 

As explained in Section V.A.2., we 

believe that a 10-ppm annual average 

standard is sufficient to enable the 

vehicle fleet to meet the proposed Tier 

3 standards and appropriately balances 

feasibility with costs. Other countries 

and California have also reduced the 

sulfur content of their gasoline; 

California’s gasoline is already meeting 

our proposed 10-ppm average sulfur 

level, and Europe and Japan have a cap 

on the sulfur content of gasoline at 10 

ppm. Because vehicle emission 

performance improves as sulfur is 

reduced, we considered imposing a 10- 

ppm cap (i.e., no averaging, banking and 

trading), as well as lowering gasoline 

sulfur content below the 10-ppm 

average (see Section V.A.6). 

We considered expressing the 

standard as a cap similar to the standard 

in Europe and Japan. However, by 

allowing averaging to meet 10-ppm, we 

believe that the most challenged refiners 

would be able to avoid what could be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29988 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

498See, for instance, Gron, A., and Swenson, D. 

(2000). Cost Pass-Through in the U.S. Automobile 

Market. Review of Economics and Statistics 82, 

316–324 () who found significantly less than fullcost pass-through using data from 1984–1994. Using 

full-cost pass-through overstates costs and thus 

contributes to lower vehicle sales than using a 

lower estimate. To the extent that the auto industry 

has become more competitive over time, full-cost 

pass-through may be more appropriate than a result 

based on this older study. 

cost-prohibitive investments, while still 

meeting 10 ppm across the fuel pool. As 

discussed in Section VII.B., we estimate 

that allowing averaging would reduce 

nationwide control costs by nearly 10 

percent, and would still be sufficient to 

enable vehicles to meet the proposed 

Tier 3 standards. 

We also considered an even lower 

sulfur standard of 5 ppm. Based upon 

the results of our test programs and 

associated modeling, a sulfur standard 

of 5 ppm could reduce VOC+NOX

emissions from the existing fleet by an 

additional 80,000 tons in 2017. 

However, we believe a 5 ppm 

standard would significantly increase 

both capital and operating costs. Such a 

standard would require: (1) More severe 

treatment of FCC gasoline; (2) more 

overcapacity and storage for 

reprocessing of off-specification 

product; (3) treatment of additional 

(non-FCC) gasoline blendstocks; (4) 

essentially all refineries to reduce sulfur 

to 5 ppm, thereby eliminating much of 

the benefit of the ABT provisions, and 

(5) controlling the contribution to 

gasoline sulfur from gasoline additives, 

transmix, ethanol denaturants, and 

contamination in the distribution 

system. 

In our analysis of the 10-ppm average 

standard and refineries that might 

reduce sulfur to 5 ppm in order to 

generate credits, we estimated that the 

sulfur control costs to achieve 5 ppm 

would be more than 50 percent greater 

than for our proposed 10-ppm standard. 

This is more than twice as high on a cost 

per ppm-gallon basis. Additionally, as 

explained earlier, a 5 ppm standard 

would likely result in the elimination of 

the ability for refineries to trade credits. 

Without a viable trading program it 

could become prohibitively expensive 

for the more challenged refineries to 

comply, creating a financial hardship 

situation. Because the costs and other 

economic impacts rise dramatically as 

sulfur is reduced below 10 ppm, we 

believe that a 10-ppm sulfur standard is 

the most stringent feasible standard 

considering technology and cost. 

In addition to lower average sulfur 

standards, we are also considering lower 

per-gallon cap standards, which are 

currently set under the Tier 2 program 

at 80 ppm sulfur at the refinery gate and 

95 ppm sulfur downstream. As 

discussed in Section V.A.3., in addition 

to proposing that these cap standards be 

maintained, we are co-proposing 

lowering them to 50 ppm and 65 ppm 

respectively. Given the stringency of the 

10-ppm average standard, we do not 

anticipate that this would have a 

meaningful impact on either program 

costs or emission reductions. However, 

it would provide added assurance that 

individual vehicles would not be 

exposed to higher sulfur levels and the 

resulting impacts on emissions. Vehicle 

manufacturers have expressed concern 

that such exposure could impact not 

only individual vehicle emissions, but 

also vehicle operation, due to 

interference with sensors and feedback 

controls. To further address concerns of 

vehicle manufacturers, we are also 

requesting comment on the potential 

implementation of a refinery gate sulfur 

cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream 

sulfur cap as low as 25 ppm. This would 

further constrain downstream 

contamination and limit the temporary 

exposure of vehicles in-use to sulfur 

levels that would significantly degrade 

their emission performance. 

X. Economic Impact Analysis 

A. Introduction 

The proposed rule would affect two 

sectors directly: Vehicle manufacturing 

and petroleum refining. For these two 

regulated sectors, the economic impact 

analysis discusses the market impacts 

from the proposed rule, the changes in 

price and quantity sold. In addition, 

although analysis of employment 

impacts is not part of a benefit-cost 

analysis (except to the extent that labor 

costs contribute to costs), employment 

impacts of federal rules are of particular 

concern in the current economic climate 

of sizeable unemployment. The recently 

issued Executive Order 13563, 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (January 18, 2011), states, ‘‘Our 

regulatory system must protect public 

health, welfare, safety, and our 

environment while promoting economic 

growth, innovation, competitiveness, 

and job creation’’ (emphasis added). For 

this reason, we are examining the effects 

of this proposal on employment in the 

regulated sectors. 

B. Vehicle Sales Impacts 

This rule takes effect from MY 2017– 

2025. In the intervening years, it is 

possible that the assumptions 

underlying a quantitative analysis, as 

well as market conditions, might 

change. For this reason, we present a 

qualitative discussion of the effects on 

vehicle sales of the proposed standards 

at the aggregate market level. Vehicle 

manufacturers are expected to comply 

with the proposed standards primarily 

through technological changes to 

vehicles. These changes to vehicle 

design and manufacturing are expected 

to increase manufacturers’ costs of 

vehicle production. 

Section VII.A estimates the increase 

in vehicle costs due to the proposed 

standards. These costs differ across 

years and range from $71 to $102 for 

cars, $93 to $150 for trucks and $36 to 

$59 for Class 2b/3 vehicles (see Section 

VII.A). These costs are small relative to 

the cost of a vehicle. In a fully 

competitive industry, these costs would 

be entirely passed through to 

consumers. However in an oligopolistic 

industry such as the automotive sector, 

these increases in cost may not fully 

pass through to the purchase price, and 

the consumers may face an increase in 

price that is less than the increased 

manufacturers’ costs of vehicle 

production.498 We do not quantify the 

expected level of cost pass-through or 

the ultimate vehicle price increase 

consumers are expected to face, apart 

from noting that prices are expected to 

increase by an amount up to the 

increased manufacturers’ costs. 

This increase in price is expected to 

lower the quantity of vehicles sold. 

Given that we expect that vehicle prices 

will not change by more than the cost 

increase, we expect that the decrease in 

vehicle sales will be negligible. 

The effect of this rule on the use and 

scrappage of older vehicles would be 

related to its effects on new vehicle 

prices and the total sales of new 

vehicles. The increase in price is likely 

to cause the ‘‘turnover’’ of the vehicle 

fleet (i.e., the retirement of used 

vehicles and their replacement by new 

models) to slow slightly, thus reducing 

the anticipated effect of the rule on 

fleet-wide emissions. Because we do not 

estimate the effect of the rule on new 

vehicle price changes nor do we have a 

good estimate of the effect of new 

vehicle price changes on vehicle 

turnover, we have not attempted to 

estimate explicitly the effects of the rule 

on scrappage of older vehicles and the 

turnover of the vehicle fleet. 

C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector 

Production 

The key change for refiners from the 

proposed standards would be more 

stringent sulfur requirements. This 

change to fuels is expected to increase 

manufacturers’ costs of gasoline 

production by about 0.9 cents per gallon 

(see Section VII.B). 

In a perfectly competitive industry, 

this cost would be passed along 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29989 

499Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of 

Economics. (2004). The Petroleum Industry: 

Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust 

Enforcement. Retrieved August 16, 2011 from 

Federal Trade Commission Web site: http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/2004/08/ 

040813mergersinpetrolberpt.pdf. 

500 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012). 

501Schmalensee, R., & Stavins, R. (2011). A Guide 

to Economic and Policy Analysis of EPA’s 

Transport Rule’’ White paper commissioned by 

Excelon Corporation (). 

502Morgenstern, R., Pizer, W., & Shih, J. (2002). 

Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-Level 

Perspective. Journal of Environmental Economics 

and Management 43, 412–436. 

completely to consumers. In an 

imperfectly competitive industry, as 

noted above, full cost pass-through is 

not necessary: Firms may choose to 

reduce impacts on sales by not passing 

along full costs. In 2004, the Federal 

Trade Commission reported that 

‘‘concentration for most levels of the 

petroleum industry has remained low to 

moderate.’’ 499 Thus the assumption of 

competitive markets has some 

foundation in this industry. We do not 

estimate the price increase that 

consumers are likely to face, though we 

note that it should be positive and up 

to the increase in manufacturers’ costs 

of gasoline production. 

The effect of higher gasoline prices on 

gasoline sales is expected to be different 

over the short and long term. In the long 

run, in response to the increase in fuel 

costs, consumers can more easily 

change their driving habits, including 

where they live or what vehicles they 

use. Because of this, we expect that 

gasoline sales will decrease more in the 

long run compared to the short run as 

a result of the price increase due to the 

proposed rule. However, because 

manufacturers’ costs are expected to 

increase less than one cent per gallon, 

we expect that the decrease in gasoline 

sales will be negligible over all time 

horizons. 

D. Employment Impacts 

This section discusses changes in 

employment due to the proposed rule. 

We focus on the auto manufacturing 

sector and the refinery sector because 

they are directly regulated, and because 

they are likely to bear a substantial 

share of changes in employment due to 

this proposed rule. We partially 

quantify impacts in the auto sector, 

providing a mix of qualitative and 

quantitative discussion, following the 

methods used in the Final Rulemaking 

for 2017–2025 Model Year Light-Duty 

Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards.500 For the refinery sector we 

provide a qualitative analysis. We also 

include discussion of effects on the 

motor vehicle parts manufacturing 

sector because the auto manufacturing 

sector can either produce parts 

internally or buy them from an external 

supplier, and we do not have estimates 

of the likely breakdown of effort 

between the two sectors. For the same 

reasons, we discuss effects on producers 

of equipment that refiners would use to 

comply with the proposed standards. 

When the economy is at full 

employment, an environmental 

regulation is unlikely to have much 

impact on net overall U.S. employment; 

instead, labor would primarily be 

shifted from one sector to another. 

These shifts in employment impose an 

opportunity cost on society, 

approximated by the wages of the 

employees, as regulation diverts 

workers from other activities in the 

economy. In this situation, any effects 

on net employment are likely to be 

transitory as workers change jobs (e.g., 

some workers may need to be retrained 

or require time to search for new jobs, 

while shortages in some sectors or 

regions could bid up wages to attract 

workers). 

On the other hand, if a regulation 

comes into effect during a period of high 

unemployment, a change in labor 

demand due to regulation may affect net 

overall U.S. employment because the 

labor market is not in equilibrium. 

Schmalansee and Stavins point out that 

net positive employment effects are 

possible in the near term when the 

economy is at less than full employment 

due to the potential hiring of idle labor 

resources by the regulated sector to meet 

new requirements (e.g., to install new 

equipment) and new economic activity 

in sectors related to the regulated 

sector.501 In the longer run, the net 

effect on employment is more difficult 

to predict and will depend on the way 

in which the related industries respond 

to the regulatory requirements. As 

Schmalansee and Stavins note, it is 

possible that the magnitude of the effect 

on employment could vary over time, 

region, and sector, and positive effects 

on employment in some regions or 

sectors could be offset by negative 

effects in other regions or sectors. For 

this reason, they urge caution in 

reporting partial employment effects 

since it can ‘‘paint an inaccurate picture 

of net employment impacts if not placed 

in the broader economic context.’’ 

We follow the theoretical structure 

proposed in a study by Morgenstern, 

Pizer, and Shih (2002) 502 of the impacts 

of regulation in employment in the 

regulated sectors. In particular, 

Morgenstern et al. (2002) identify three 

separate ways that employment levels 

may change in the regulated industry in 

response to a new or more stringent 

regulation. 

D Demand effect: Higher production 

costs due to the regulation will lead to 

higher market prices; higher prices in 

turn reduce demand for the good, 

reducing the demand for labor to make 

that good. In the authors’ words, the 

‘‘extent of this effect depends on the 

cost increase passed on to consumers as 

well as the demand elasticity of 

industry output.’’ 

D Cost effect: As costs go up, plants 

add more capital and labor (holding 

other factors constant), with potentially 

positive effects on employment; in the 

authors’ words, as ‘‘production costs 

rise, more inputs, including labor, are 

used to produce the same amount of 

output.’’ 

D Factor-shift effect: Post-regulation 

production technologies may be more or 

less labor-intensive (i.e., more/less labor 

is required per dollar of output). In the 

authors’ words, ‘‘environmental 

activities may be more labor intensive 

than conventional production,’’ 

meaning that ‘‘the amount of labor per 

dollar of output will rise,’’ though it is 

also possible that ‘‘cleaner operations 

could involve automation and less 

employment, for example.’’ 

The authors note that the demand 

effect is expected to have a negative 

effect on employment, the cost effect to 

have a positive effect on employment, 

and the factor-shift effect to have an 

ambiguous effect on employment. 

Morgenstern et al. (2002) estimated 

the effects on employment of spending 

on pollution abatement for four highly 

polluting/regulated industries (pulp and 

paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum 

refining) using data for six years 

between 1979 and 1991. They 

concluded that increased abatement 

expenditures generally have not caused 

a significant change in employment in 

those sectors. More specifically, their 

results showed that, on average across 

the industries studied, each additional 

$1 million (1987$) spent on pollution 

abatement resulted in a (statistically 

insignificant) net increase of 1.5 jobs. In 

the petroleum refining industry in 

particular, they found statistically 

significant and positive cost and factor 

shift effects and an insignificant 

demand effect, for a net (statistically 

significant) increase of 2.17 jobs per $1 

million (1987$). 

1. Employment Impacts in the Auto 

Sector 

Following the Morgenstern et al. 

(2002) framework, we consider three 

effects for the auto sector: The demand 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29990 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

503Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment 

Requirements Matrix. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ 

ep_data_emp_requirements.htm. 

504U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of 

Manufactures. http://www.census.gov/ 

manufacturing/asm/index.html. 

505To estimate the proportion of domestic 

production affected by the change in sales, we use 

data from Ward’s Automotive Group for total car 

and truck production in the U.S. compared to total 

car and truck sales in the U.S. For the period 2001– 

2010, the proportion is 66.7 percent. 

effect, the cost effect, and the factor shift 

effect. 

a. The Demand Effect 

The demand effect depends on the 

effects of this proposal on vehicle sales. 

If vehicle sales decrease, employment 

associated with these activities would 

decrease. As discussed in Section X.B, 

we do not make a quantitative estimate 

on the effect of the proposed rule on 

vehicle sales but we note that the 

decrease in vehicle sales is expected to 

be negligible. Thus we expect any 

decrease in employment in the auto 

sector through the demand effect to be 

small as well. 

b. The Cost Effect 

The demand effect, above, measures 

the effect due to new vehicle sales only. 

The cost effect measures the impacts 

due to the changes in technologies for 

vehicles that would have been sold in 

the absence of the rule. We estimate the 

cost effect by multiplying the ratio of 

workers to each $1 million of 

expenditures in the auto sector by the 

cost estimates for complying with the 

rule. 

Some of the costs of this proposal 

would be spent directly in the auto 

manufacturing sector, but it is also 

likely that some of the costs would be 

spent in the auto parts manufacturing 

sector. We separately present the ratios 

for both the auto manufacturing sector 

and the auto parts manufacturing sector. 

There are several public sources for 

estimates of employment per $1 million 

expenditures. The U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) provides its 

Employment Requirements Matrix 

(ERM),503 which provides direct 

estimates of the employment per $1 

million in sales of goods in 202 sectors. 

The values considered here are for 

Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 

3361) and Motor Vehicle Parts 

Manufacturing (NAICS 3363). 

The Census Bureau provides both the 

Annual Survey of Manufactures 504

(ASM) and the Economic Census. The 

ASM is a subset of the Economic 

Census, based on a sample of 

establishments; though the Census itself 

is more complete, it is conducted only 

every 5 years, while the ASM is annual. 

Both include more sectoral detail than 

the BLS ERM: For instance, while the 

ERM includes the Motor Vehicle 

Manufacturing sector, the ASM and 

Economic Census have detail at the 6- 

digit NAICS code level (e.g., light truck 

and utility vehicle manufacturing). 

While the ERM provides direct 

estimates of employees/$1 million in 

expenditures, the ASM and Economic 

Census separately provide number of 

employees and value of shipments; the 

direct employment estimates here are 

the ratio of those values. The values 

reported are for Motor Vehicle 

Manufacturing (NAICS 3361), 

Automobile and Light Duty Motor 

Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 33611), 

and Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 

(NAICS 3363). 

For the cost effect, we use estimates 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and 

the Census Bureau of the number of 

workers per $1 million of expenditures 

in the sectors. The use of these ratios 

has both advantages and limitations. It 

is often possible to estimate these ratios 

for quite specific sectors of the 

economy: For instance, it is possible to 

estimate the average number of workers 

in the light-duty vehicle manufacturing 

sector per $1 million spent in the sector, 

rather than use the ratio from another, 

more aggregated sector, such as motor 

vehicle manufacturing. As a result, it is 

not necessary to extrapolate 

employment ratios from possibly 

unrelated sectors. On the other hand, 

these estimates are averages for the 

sectors, covering all the activities in 

those sectors; they may not be 

representative of the labor required 

when expenditures are required on 

specific activities, as the factor-shift 

effect indicates. For instance, the ratio 

for the motor vehicle manufacturing 

sector represents the ratio for all vehicle 

manufacturing, not just for emissions 

reductions. In addition, these estimates 

do not include changes in sectors that 

supply these sectors, such as steel or 

electronics producers. They thus may 

best be viewed as the effects on 

employment in the specific sectors due 

to the changes in expenditures in those 

sectors, rather than as an assessment of 

all employment changes due to these 

changes in expenditures. 

The values used here are adjusted to 

remove the employment effects of 

imports through use of a ratio of 

domestic production to domestic sales 

of 0.667.505 As discussed in the draft 

RIA, trends in the BLS ERM are used to 

estimate productivity improvements 

over time that are used to adjust these 

ratios over time. 

Table X–1 provides estimates of the 

cost effect of this rule on employment. 

Chapter 2.1 of the draft RIA discusses 

the vehicle cost estimates developed for 

this rule, discussed in Section VII.A, 

presented in the second column. The 

maximum value for employment 

impacts per $1 million (before 

adjustments for changes in productivity, 

after accounting for the share of 

domestic production) is 1.809 if all the 

additional costs are in the parts sector; 

the minimum value is 0.402, if all the 

additional costs are in the light-duty 

vehicle manufacturing sector. Increased 

costs of vehicles and parts would, by 

itself, be expected to increase 

employment between 2017 and 2025 by 

somewhere between a few hundred to a 

few thousand jobs. 

While we estimate employment 

impacts, measured in job-years, 

beginning with program 

implementation, some of these 

employment gains may occur earlier as 

auto manufacturers and parts suppliers 

hire staff in anticipation of compliance 

with the standard. A job-year is a way 

to calculate the amount of work needed 

to complete a specific task. For example, 

a job-year is one year of work for one 

person. 

TABLE X–1—EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS DUE TO INCREASED COSTS OF VEHICLES AND PARTS, IN JOB-YEARS

Year Costs 

(millions of 2010$) 

Maximum employment effect 

(if all expenditures 

are in the parts 

sector) 

Minimum employment effect 

(if all expenditures 

are in the light duty 

vehicle mfg sector) 

2016 ..................................................................................................................... $ 23 0 0 

2017 ..................................................................................................................... 709 + 900 +200 

2018 ..................................................................................................................... 1,340 +1,700 +400 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29991 

506While refinery capacity has been increasing 

around the world in recent years, it has been 

designed primarily to supply foreign markets other 

than the U.S. (e.g., increasing demand in China and 

India). 

TABLE X–1—EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS DUE TO INCREASED COSTS OF VEHICLES AND PARTS, IN JOB-YEARS—Continued 

Year Costs 

(millions of 2010$) 

Maximum employment effect 

(if all expenditures 

are in the parts 

sector) 

Minimum employment effect 

(if all expenditures 

are in the light duty 

vehicle mfg sector) 

2019 ..................................................................................................................... 1,440 +1,800 +400 

2020 ..................................................................................................................... 1,600 +1,900 +400 

2021 ..................................................................................................................... 1,730 +2,000 +400 

2022 ..................................................................................................................... 1,900 +2,100 +400 

2023 ..................................................................................................................... 1,920 +2,000 +400 

2024 ..................................................................................................................... 2,040 +2,100 +400 

2025 ..................................................................................................................... 2,130 +2,100 +400 

c. The Factor Shift Effect 

The factor shift effect looks at the 

changes in labor intensity associated 

with a regulation. As noted above, the 

estimates of the cost effect assume 

constant labor per $1 million in 

expenditures, though the new 

technologies may be either more or less 

labor-intensive than the existing ones. 

We have no evidence on the factor shift 

effect for the compliance technologies 

and therefore do not quantify it. An 

estimate of the factor shift effect would 

either increase or decrease the estimate 

used for the cost effect. 

d. Summary of Employment Effects in 

the Auto Sector 

The overall effect of the proposed rule 

on auto sector employment depends on 

the relative magnitude of the cost effect, 

the demand effect and the factor shift 

effect. Because we do not have 

quantitative estimates of the demand 

and factor shift effects we cannot reach 

a quantitative estimate of the overall 

employment effects of the proposed rule 

on auto sector employment or even 

whether the total effect would be 

positive or negative. However, given 

that the expected increase in production 

costs to the auto manufacturers is 

relatively small, we expect that the 

magnitudes of all these effects will be 

small as well. Additionally, the cost and 

demand effects are expected to work in 

opposite directions. Thus while we do 

not have an estimate of the direction of 

the overall effect of the proposed rule on 

auto sector employment, we expect it 

will be imperceptible. 

Additionally, the proposed rule is not 

expected to provide incentives for 

manufacturers to shift employment 

between domestic and foreign 

production. This is because the 

increased standards of the proposed rule 

would apply to vehicles sold in the U.S. 

regardless of where they are produced. 

If foreign manufacturers already have 

increased expertise in satisfying the 

requirements of the proposal, there may 

be some initial incentive for foreign 

production, but the opportunity for the 

U.S. to sell in other markets might 

increase. To the extent that the 

requirements of this proposal might lead 

to installation and use of technologies 

that other countries may seek now or in 

the future, developing this capacity for 

domestic production now may provide 

some additional ability to serve those 

markets. This potential benefit would 

not apply if other countries are not 

likely to have similar standards. 

2. Refinery Employment Impacts 

The Morgenstern et al. (2002) 

framework of demand effects, cost 

effects and factor shift effects can also 

be applied to the impact of the proposed 

rule on employment in the refinery 

sector. Here we use a fully qualitative 

approach. A qualitative discussion 

allows for a wider incorporation of 

additional considerations, such as 

timing of impacts and the effects of the 

rule on imports and exports. Because 

the discussion is qualitative, we do not 

sum the net effects on employment. The 

demand effect on refining sector 

employment is expected to be negative. 

The discussion in Section X.C above 

suggested that the proposed rule would 

cause a small decrease in the quantity 

of gasoline demanded due to higher 

production costs being passed through 

to consumers. This slightly reduced 

level of sales would likely have a 

negative impact on employment in the 

refining sector. While we do not 

quantify the level of job losses that 

could be expected here, recall that the 

quantity of gasoline sold as a result of 

the standards proposed here is expected 

to decrease by only a very small amount 

over any time horizon. 

The cost effect of the proposed rule on 

employment in the refining sector is 

expected to be positive as usual in the 

Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework. In 

order to satisfy the requirements of the 

proposed rule, firms in the refining 

industry are expected to need to 

perform additional work that will 

require hiring more employees, 

especially perhaps in the short run. 

Section V.A.2.c discusses the expected 

employment needed to reduce the sulfur 

content of fuels; as noted there, to meet 

the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, 

refiners are expected to invest $2.2 

billion between 2014 and 2019 and 

utilize approximately 1,000 front-end 

design and engineering jobs and 6,000 

construction jobs. As the petroleum 

sector employed approximately 65,000 

workers in 2009, this temporary 

increase in employment would be 

comparable to an increase of over 10 

percent when compared to 2009 levels. 

As with our analysis of the vehicle 

manufacturing sector, we do not have 

information on the direction the factor 

shift effect might take. It is unclear 

whether the refining industry would 

become more or less capital intensive as 

a result of the proposed rule. Thus the 

direction of the factor shift effect is 

ambiguous. 

This rule is not expected to provide 

incentives to shift employment between 

domestic and foreign production. First, 

the proposed standards would apply to 

gasoline sold in the U.S. regardless of 

where it has been produced. U.S. 

gasoline demand is projected to 

continue to decline for the foreseeable 

future in response to higher gasoline 

prices, more stringent vehicle and 

engine greenhouse gas and fuel 

economy standards as well as increased 

use of renewable fuels. As a result, this 

analysis of incentives to shift 

employment between domestic and 

foreign production focuses on 

investments for existing capacity 

instead of expanding capacity.506 In this 

case, what is relevant is whether the 

necessary modifications to comply with 

Tier 3 would be significantly cheaper 

overseas than in the U.S. 

The main impacts on capital and 

operating costs to comply with Tier 3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29992 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

associated with adding hydrotreating 

capacity are likely to be similar overseas 

as in the U.S. This is particularly true 

when analyzing likely sources of U.S. 

imports. The majority of gasoline 

imported to the U.S. today comes into 

the East Coast and is sourced out of 

either Europe or refineries in Canada or 

the Caribbean that exist almost solely to 

supply the U.S. market. These Canadian 

and Caribbean refineries, by virtue of 

their focus on the U.S. market, are very 

similar to U.S. based refineries and 

would be expected to have to incur 

similar capital and operating costs as 

their U.S. based competitors meeting the 

10 ppm standard. Furthermore, the 

European refineries are already 

producing gasoline to a 10 ppm sulfur 

cap for Europe. To the extent they have 

refinery streams that are more difficult 

to hydrotreat, the U.S. market currently 

serves as an outlet for their higher sulfur 

gasoline streams. As a result, they may 

incur capital and operating costs on a 

per gallon basis at least as high as for 

their U.S. based competitors for these 

remaining higher sulfur gasoline 

streams. Alternatively, they may instead 

choose to find markets outside the U.S., 

opening the way for increased U.S. 

based refinery demand. 

Finally, despite refining industry 

projections that previously imposed 

diesel rules would lead to greater U.S. 

reliance on imports through major 

negative impacts on domestic refining, 

the reverse has actually occurred. Over 

the last 8 years, imports of gasoline and 

diesel fuel have continued to be the 

marginal supply, and have even 

dropped precipitously so that the U.S. is 

now a net exporter of diesel fuel and is 

importing half the gasoline that it did at 

its peak in 2006. With the projected 

decline in future gasoline demand in the 

U.S. as vehicle fuel efficiency improves, 

gasoline imports are expected to 

continue to decline. 

Thus it is expected that for the 

refining sector, the demand effect would 

lower employment, the cost effect 

would raise employment, and the factor 

shift effect would have an ambiguous 

effect on employment. As a whole then, 

it is not evident whether the proposed 

rule would increase or decrease 

employment in the refining sector. 

However, given the small anticipated 

reduction in quantity sold, it appears 

that the rule would not have major 

employment consequences for this 

sector. 

The petroleum industry is one of the 

four industries studied by Morgenstern 

et al. (2002) when they look at the effect 

of environmental expenditures on 

employment. They found a small but 

statistically significant increase in 

employment in this sector (2.17 jobs per 

million dollars of expenditures, using 

1987$). Using this factor (adjusted to 

2010$), the estimated sulfur fuel control 

costs in 2017 of $1,289 million would 

imply an increase of approximately 

1,600 jobs in the refinery sector. We 

note that the regulations that this 

estimate is derived from are not directly 

comparable to the current proposed 

rule; it is based on the costs of 

reductions in refinery emissions instead 

of changing fuel properties, and 

therefore may not be applicable for the 

standards proposed here. 

Section 5.3 of the draft RIA contains 

some historical discussion regarding the 

impact on refineries and refining 

capacity of earlier rules which resulted 

in higher costs for refiners. Over the 

period 2003–2011, when a number of 

rules were being implemented, EIA data 

show a net of two net refinery closures 

on its Web site. Meanwhile, over this 

same period the average size of U.S. 

refineries increased from 113,000 

barrels per day to 123,000 barrels per 

day, and total U.S. refining capacity 

increased by six percent. Thus, 

historically during a time when rules 

with much larger expected impacts were 

being implemented (the 2003 ultra-low 

sulfur nonroad diesel proposal alone 

was expected to have a cost impact on 

refineries more than five times greater 

than the current proposed rule), U.S. 

refining capacity increased even as the 

number of U.S. refineries slightly fell. 

While closing refineries has a negative 

effect on industry employment, it is 

likely that the increased refining 

capacity at many of the remaining 

plants had a positive effect on industry 

employment. 

The proposed rule is also likely to 

have a positive impact on employment 

among producers of equipment that 

refiners will use to comply with the 

standards. Section V.A.2.c notes that 

some refiners are expected to need to 

revamp their current treatment units, 

and others will need to add additional 

treatment units. Producers of this 

equipment would be expected to hire 

additional labor to meet this increased 

demand. We also note that the 

employment effects may be different in 

the immediate implementation phase 

than in the ongoing compliance phase. 

It is expected that the employment 

increases through the cost effect from 

revamping old equipment and installing 

additional equipment should occur in 

the near term, when current 

unemployment levels are high, and the 

opportunity cost of workers is relatively 

low. Meanwhile, the employment 

decreases in the refining sector from the 

demand effect would not start until 

2017, when compliance would be 

required, and when unemployment is 

expected to be reduced; in a time of full 

employment, any changes in 

employment levels in the regulated 

sector are mostly expected to be offset 

by changes in employment in other 

sectors. 

XI. Public Participation 

We request comment on all aspects of 

this proposal. This section describes 

how you can participate in this process. 

A. How do I submit comments? 

Public comments on this proposal 

must be received on or before June 13, 

2013. If you have an interest in the 

proposed program described in this 

document, we encourage you to 

comment on any aspect of this 

rulemaking. We also request comment 

on specific topics identified throughout 

this proposal. 

Your comments will be most useful if 

you include appropriate and detailed 

supporting rationale, data, and analysis. 

Commenters are especially encouraged 

to provide specific suggestions for any 

changes to any aspect of the regulations 

that they believe need to be modified or 

improved. You should send all 

comments, except those containing 

proprietary information, to our Air 

Docket (see ADDRESSES in the first part 

of this proposal) before the end of the 

comment period. 

You may submit comments 

electronically, by mail, or through hand 

delivery/courier. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket identification number in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

comment. Please ensure that your 

comments are submitted within the 

specified comment period. Comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not 

required to consider these late 

comments. If you wish to submit 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or information that is otherwise 

protected by statute, please follow the 

instructions in Section XI.B. 

B. How should I submit CBI to the 

agency? 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through the electronic public docket, 

www.regulations.gov, or by email. Send 

or deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Assessment and Standards 

Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann 

Arbor, MI, 48105, Attention Docket ID 

EPA–HQ– OAR–2011–0135. You may 

claim information that you submit to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29993 

507 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000; OMB Control 

Number: 2060–0437; EPA ICR 1907.05. 

508 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000; OMB Control 

Number: 2060–0437; EPA ICR 1907.05. 

EPA as CBI by marking any part or all 

of that information as CBI (if you submit 

CBI on disk or CD–ROM, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is CBI). Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comments that include any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD–ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket without 

prior notice. If you have any questions 

about CBI or the procedures for claiming 

CBI, please consult the person identified 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

• Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

• Provide any technical information 

and/or data you used that support your 

views. 

• If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at your 

estimate. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

• Offer alternatives. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

• To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate docket 

identification number in the subject line 

on the first page of your response. It 

would also be helpful if you provided 

the name, date, and Federal Register 

citation related to your comments. 

D. Will there be a public hearing? 

Public hearings for this proposal were 

held on April 24, 2013 and April 29, 

2013; EPA has announced more 

information regarding the public 

hearing locations in a supplemental 

Federal Register Notice. 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is an ‘‘economically 

significant regulatory action’’ because it 

is likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. This 

analysis is contained in Sections VII and 

VIII of this preamble and in Chapter 8 

of the draft RIA. A copy of the analysis 

is available in the docket for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

documents prepared by EPA have been 

assigned EPA ICR number 0783.63 for 

the vehicles provisions and EPA ICR 

2482.01 and ICR 2459.01 for the fuels 

provisions. 

This proposed rule also contains 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for refiners and importers 

of motor vehicle gasoline, producers of 

gasoline additives, and producers of 

denatured fuel ethanol and other 

oxygenates. The proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for refiners and importers 

of motor vehicle gasoline are the same 

requirements that exist under the Tier 2 

sulfur program.507 The recordkeeping 

and Product Transfer Document (PTD) 

requirements for gasoline additive 

producers and PTD retention 

requirements for downstream parties 

under the proposed Tier 3 program are 

new but should be minimal since we 

expect that they are already followed as 

part of normal business practices. 

Finally, there are new recordkeeping 

and PTD requirements for producers of 

denatured fuel ethanol under the 

proposed Tier 3 program. EPA estimates 

the total number of respondents to be 

2,675, the total burden hours to be 

84,000 and the total cost to respondents 

to be $6,300,000. 

This proposed rule also contains 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for refiners and importers 

of motor vehicle gasoline. The 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for these entities under the 

proposed Tier 3 program are the same 

requirements that exist under the Tier 2 

sulfur program.508 The recordkeeping 

and Product Transfer Document (PTD) 

requirements for gasoline additive 

producers and PTD requirements for 

downstream parties under the proposed 

Tier 3 program are new but should be 

minimal since we expect that they are 

already followed as part of normal 

business practices. Finally, there are 

new recordkeeping and PTD 

requirements for producers of denatured 

fuel ethanol under the proposed Tier 3 

program. EPA estimates the total 

number of respondents to be 1,500, the 

total burden hours to be 76,743 and the 

total cost to respondents to be 

$5,908,504. 

Finally, this proposed rule also 

contains provisions for qualifications of 

laboratories on test methods. We have 

proposed recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements that would apply to fuel 

testing laboratories. The collected data 

will permit EPA to: (1) Qualify 

laboratories to use test methods based 

upon accuracy and precision criteria 

supported by industry; and (2) Ensure 

that various fuels meet the standards 

required under the regulations at 40 

CFR part 80 and that the associated 

benefits to human health and the 

environment are realized. We estimate 

that 750 laboratories may be subject to 

the proposed information collection. 

This estimate is based upon our 

experience with qualification of 

laboratories under the existing diesel 

sulfur program. We estimate an annual 

reporting burden of 95 hours per 

respondent and an annual 

recordkeeping burden of 104 hours, 

yielding a total of 199 hours. For those 

laboratories that elect to be reference 

installations, the annual reporting 

burden would be 95 hours and the 

annual recordkeeping burden would be 

128 hours. 

Supporting statements for all 3 ICRs 

can be found in Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2011–0135. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to a collection of information unless it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29994 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

509 66 FR 5136 (January 18, 2001). 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes these ICR numbers, under 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0135. See the ADDRESSES section 

at the beginning of this notice for where 

to submit comments to EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 

days after May 21, 2013, a comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by June 20, 

2013. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Overview 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201 (see table below); (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

The following table provides an 

overview of the primary SBA small 

business categories potentially affected 

by this regulation: 

Industry NAICSa Code (2007) Defined as small entity by SBA if 

less than or equal to: 

Gasoline fuel refiners and importers ....................................................... 324110 ........................................... 1,500 employees. 

Ethanol producers ................................................................................... 325193 ........................................... 1,000 employees. 

Gasoline additive manufacturers ............................................................. 325199 ........................................... 1,000 employees. 

325998 ........................................... 500 employees. 

424690 ........................................... 100 employees. 

Transmix processors ............................................................................... Varied ............................................ 1,500 employees. 

Petroleum bulk stations and terminals .................................................... 424710 ........................................... 100 employees. 

Other warehousing and storage—bulk petroleum storage ..................... 493190 ........................................... $25.5 million (annual receipts). 

Light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck manufacturers ............................ 336111, 336112 ............................. 1,000 employees. 

Independent commercial importers ......................................................... 811111, 811112, 811198 .............. $7 million (annual receipts). 

Alternative fuel converters ....................................................................... 335312 ........................................... 1,000 employees. 

336312 ........................................... 750 employees. 

336322 ........................................... ′′ 

336399 ........................................... ′′ 

811198 ........................................... $7 million (annual receipts). 

On-highway heavy-duty engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) manufacturers.333618 ...........................................

336120 ...........................................

1,000 employees. 

′′ 

336211 ........................................... ′′ 

336312 ........................................... 750 employees. 

Note: 

a North American Industrial Classification System. 

2. Background 

EPA’s Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline 

Sulfur Program, which was finalized in 

February 2000, took a systems-based 

approach to motor vehicle pollution by 

setting standards for both passenger 

vehicles and their fuel (gasoline). The 

program set stricter tailpipe and 

evaporative emissions standards for 

criteria pollutants from vehicles 

beginning with model year (MY) 2004 

and phasing in through 2009. The 

program also lowered the sulfur content 

of gasoline, to a 30-ppm refinery 

average, 80-ppm per-gallon cap, and 95- 

ppm downstream cap; beginning in 

2004 and phasing in through 2008. The 

potential to extend the phase-in for 

small refiners and approved Gasoline 

Phase-In Area (GPA) refiners through 

the end of 2010 was provided in the 

Highway Diesel Rule 509 in exchange for 

early compliance with the diesel 

program. Similar to the Tier 2 rule, the 

Tier 3 rule being proposed today is a 

comprehensive, systems-based approach 

to address the impact of light-duty 

vehicles and certain heavy-duty 

vehicles on air quality and health. 

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, 

EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines 

the impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities along with regulatory 

alternatives that could reduce that 

impact. The IRFA is available for review 

in the rulemaking docket (in Chapter 10 

of the draft RIA) and is summarized 

below. 

As required by section 609(b) of the 

RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also 

conducted outreach to small entities 

and convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice 

and recommendations of representatives 

of the small entities that potentially 

would be subject to the rule’s 

requirements. 

Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA 

requirements, the Panel evaluated the 

assembled materials and small-entity 

comments on issues related to elements 

of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel Report 

is included in the docket for this 

proposed rule, and a summary of the 

Panel process, and subsequent Panel 

recommendations, is summarized 

below. 

3. Reason for Today’s Proposed Rule 

This rule proposes to establish more 

stringent vehicle emissions standards 

and reduce the sulfur content of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29995 

gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a 

systems approach in addressing the 

impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on 

air quality and public health. The 

proposed gasoline sulfur standard 

would make emission control systems 

more effective and enable more 

stringent vehicle emissions standards, 

and the proposed vehicle standards 

would reduce vehicle tailpipe and 

evaporative emissions. This would 

result in significant reductions in 

pollutants such as ozone, particulate 

matter, and air toxics. For a more 

detailed discussion of the reasoning for 

today’s proposed rule, please see 

Sections II and III of this preamble. The 

proposed vehicle and fuel programs are 

further discussed in Sections IV and V, 

respectively. 

4. Legal Basis for Agency Action 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes 

EPA to establish emissions standards for 

motor vehicles to address air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. EPA 

also has authority to establish fuel 

controls to address such air pollution. 

The authority for the proposed vehicle 

emission standards comes from CAA 

section 202(a), Section 202(k) provides 

EPA with authority to issue and revise 

regulations applicable to evaporative 

emissions of hydrocarbons from 

gasoline-fueled motor vehicles, and 

section 206(d) authorizes EPA to 

establish methods and procedures for 

testing whether a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle engine conforms with 

section 202 requirements. The authority 

for the proposed fuel standards comes 

from section 211(c). 

For more detailed information on our 

legal authority for today’s proposal, 

please see Sections II.A and V.G of this 

preamble. 

5. Summary of Potentially Affected 

Small Entities 

The table above lists industries/ 

sectors potentially affected by the 

proposed rule. For businesses 

potentially impacted by the Tier 3 

vehicle standards, this includes vehicle 

manufacturers, alternative fuel 

converters, and independent 

commercial importers. For businesses 

potentially impacted by the Tier 3 fuel 

standards, this includes gasoline 

refiners and importers, distributors, fuel 

additive manufacturers, transmix 

producers, and ethanol producers. 

EPA used a variety of sources to 

identify which entities are appropriately 

considered ‘‘small.’’ EPA used the 

criteria for small entities developed by 

the Small Business Administration 

under the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) as a 

guide. Information about these entities 

comes from sources including the 

Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) within the U.S. Department of 

Energy, oil industry literature, EPA’s 

certification data, and previous 

rulemakings that have affected these 

industries. EPA then found employment 

information for these companies using 

the business information database 

Hoover’s Online (a subsidiary of Dun 

and Bradstreet). These entities fall 

under the categories listed in the table. 

To gauge the impact of the proposed 

standards on small businesses, EPA 

employed a cost-to-sales ratio test to 

estimate the number of small businesses 

that would be impacted by less than one 

percent, between one and three percent, 

and above three percent. Overall, EPA 

projects that 13 small businesses will be 

impacted by less than one percent, 13 

small businesses will be impacted by 

one to three percent, and 5 small 

businesses will be impacted by more 

than three percent. A more detailed 

description of the inputs used for each 

affected industry sector and the 

methodology used to develop the 

estimated impact on small businesses in 

each industry sector is included in the 

IRFA as presented in Chapter 10 of the 

draft RIA for this rulemaking. 

6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Compliance 

For any emission control program, 

EPA must have assurances that the 

regulated products will meet the 

standards. The program that EPA is 

considering for manufacturers subject to 

this proposal will include testing, 

reporting, and record keeping 

requirements for manufacturers of 

vehicles covered by the proposed Tier 3 

regulations. Testing requirements for 

these manufacturers could include 

certification emission (including 

deterioration factor) testing, in-use 

testing, and production line testing. 

Reporting requirements would likely 

include emission test data and technical 

data on the vehicles. Manufacturers 

would have to keep records of this 

information. 

For any fuel control program, EPA 

must have assurance that fuel produced, 

distributed, sold and used meets the 

applicable standard. EPA expects that 

the recordkeeping, reporting, and 

compliance provisions of the proposed 

rule would be fairly consistent with 

those in place today for other fuel 

programs. Further, we expect to use 

existing registration and reporting 

systems that parties in the fuel 

production and distribution industry are 

already familiar with. 

7. Related Federal Rules 

The primary federal rules that are 

related to the proposed Tier 3 rule 

under consideration are: The Tier 2 

Vehicle/Gasoline Sulfur rulemaking (65 

FR 6698, February 10, 2000), the 2017 

Light-duty Greenhouse Gas (GHG) rule 

(77 FR 62623), and the Petroleum 

Refinery Sector Risk and Technology 

Review and New Source Performance 

Standards rule (RTR/NSPS; 77 FR 

41051). 

The 2017 LD GHG rule is a 

coordinated effort by EPA and the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) taking steps to 

enable the production of a new 

generation of clean vehicles, through 

reduced GHG emissions and improved 

fuel efficiency from on-road vehicles 

and engines. 

The rules to address Petroleum 

Refinery Sector Risk and Technology 

Review (RTR) and New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) focus on 

developing updated emissions 

standards for petroleum refineries for 

multiple pollutants, including GHGs. 

The rules are based on results of the 

RTR analyses for both Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

standards (MACT 1 and 2). The 

technology review would be conducted 

to identify any new practices, processes, 

or control technologies for the industry 

and cost-effective emission control 

options. EPA is developing uniform 

standards for some emission sources in 

the petroleum refining sector that may 

serve as the basis for these technology 

reviews. The rules also review the 

standards and rule provisions to 

determine whether other changes may 

be needed during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, and malfunction to ensure 

the standards are consistent with recent 

court opinions and other CAA 

programs. With regard to NSPS, the 

rules address remaining NSPS issues 

under reconsideration from the 

promulgation of existing NSPS and 

other NSPS rules affecting the refining 

sector, and include the regulation of 

GHGs and the development of emission 

guidelines for existing sources. 

8. Summary of SBREFA Panel Process 

and Panel Outreach 

a. Significant Panel Findings 

The Small Business Advocacy Review 

Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel) 

considered regulatory options and 

flexibilities to help mitigate potential 

adverse effects on small businesses as a 

result of this rule. During the SBREFA 

Panel process, the Panel sought out and 

received comments on the regulatory 

options and flexibilities that were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29996 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

presented to SERs and Panel members. 

The recommendations of the Panel are 

described below and are also located in 

Section 9 of the SBREFA Final Panel 

Report, which is available in the public 

docket. 

b. Panel Process 

As required by section 609(b) of the 

RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we also 

conducted outreach to small entities 

and convened an SBAR Panel to obtain 

advice and recommendations of 

representatives of the small entities that 

potentially would be subject to the 

rule’s requirements. On August 4, 2011, 

EPA’s Small Business Advocacy 

Chairperson convened a Panel under 

Section 609(b) of the RFA. In addition 

to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the 

Division Director of the Assessment and 

Standards Division of EPA’s Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

within the Office of Management and 

Budget. As part of the SBAR Panel 

process, we conducted outreach with 

representatives of small businesses that 

would potentially be affected by the 

proposed rulemaking. We met with 

these Small Entity Representatives 

(SERs) to discuss the potential 

rulemaking approaches and potential 

options to decrease the impact of the 

rulemaking on their industries. We 

distributed outreach materials to the 

SERs; these materials included 

background on the rulemaking, possible 

regulatory approaches, and possible 

rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met 

with SERs from the industries that 

would be directly affected by the Tier 3 

rule on August 18, 2011 to discuss the 

outreach materials and receive feedback 

on the approaches and alternatives 

detailed in the outreach packet (the 

Panel also met with SERs on June 28, 

2011 for an initial outreach meeting). 

The Panel received written comments 

from the SERs following the meeting in 

response to discussions had at the 

meeting and the questions posed to the 

SERs by the Agency. The SERs were 

specifically asked to provide comment 

on regulatory alternatives that could 

help to minimize the rule’s impact on 

small businesses. 

The Panel’s findings and discussions 

were based on the information that was 

available during the term of the Panel 

and issues that were raised by the SERs 

during the outreach meetings and in 

their comments. It was agreed that EPA 

should consider the issues raised by the 

SERs and discussions had by the Panel 

itself, and that EPA should consider 

comments on flexibility alternatives that 

would help to mitigate negative impacts 

on small businesses to the extent legally 

allowable by the Clean Air Act. 

Alternatives discussed throughout the 

Panel process included those offered in 

previous or current EPA rulemakings, as 

well as alternatives suggested by SERs 

and Panel members. A summary of 

these recommendations is detailed 

below, and a full discussion of the 

regulatory alternatives and hardship 

provisions discussed and recommended 

by the Panel can be found in the 

SBREFA Final Panel Report. A complete 

discussion of the provisions for which 

we are requesting comment and/or 

proposing in this action can be found in 

Sections IV.E and V.D of this preamble. 

Also, the Panel Report includes all 

comments received from SERs 

(Appendix B of the Report) and 

summaries of the two outreach meetings 

that were held with the SERs. In 

accordance with the RFA/SBREFA 

requirements, the Panel evaluated the 

aforementioned materials and SER 

comments on issues related to the IRFA. 

The Panel’s recommendations from the 

Final Panel Report are discussed below. 

It should be noted that during the 

Panel process, two additional issues 

were discussed with SERs that were 

under consideration by the Agency for 

the Tier 3 proposal. As noted in Section 

IV.D.5, EPA was considering extending 

the new certification fuel specifications 

to all regulatory categories of engines, 

vehicles, equipment, and fuel system 

components that use gasoline. This 

would have included a wide range of 

additional applications, including small 

nonroad engines used in lawn and 

garden applications, recreational 

vehicles such as ATVs and 

snowmobiles, recreational marine 

applications, on-highway motorcycles, 

and heavy-duty gasoline engines. In 

addition, EPA considered new volatility 

(Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP) standards 

for in-use gasoline. Neither of these 

issues is being proposed in today’s 

notice. Therefore, the following 

discussion of the Panel 

recommendations does not address 

these issues. The reader is directed to 

the Panel Report, located in the 

rulemaking docket, for more 

information on both of these issues. 

c. Panel Recommendations 

i. Tier 3 Fuels 

The Panel discussed several 

regulatory flexibility alternatives with 

SERs for small businesses in the 

gasoline production and distribution, 

fuel additive manufacturing, and 

ethanol production industries subject to 

the proposed fuel requirements. Panel 

recommendations on these approaches 

are discussed below. 

(1) Lead Time—Sulfur 

The Panel recommended that EPA 

propose a delay option, similar to 

previous fuels rulemakings, in the Tier 

3 proposed rule. The Panel 

recommended that EPA allow small 

refiners to postpone their compliance 

with the Tier 3 program for up to three 

years. Small refiners choosing this 

flexibility option would have from 

January 1, 2017 through December 31, 

2019 to continue production of gasoline 

with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm 

(per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). 

Compliance with the 10-ppm sulfur 

standard would begin on January 1, 

2020. Any small refiner choosing this 

proposed option would be allowed to 

continue use of their Tier 2 gasoline 

sulfur credits through December 31, 

2019 to meet the refiner average 30-ppm 

sulfur standard. 

The Panel also recommended that 

EPA request comment on case-by-case 

hardship provisions that would provide 

additional relief for any refiner 

experiencing extreme difficulty in 

compliance with the Tier 3 

requirements, as discussed below in 

Section XII.C.6.c.i.(6). 

(2) Provisions for Additive 

Manufacturers 

The Panel recommended that EPA 

provide flexibilities for gasoline 

additive manufacturers. Following 

discussion with EPA, the Panel 

suggested that EPA propose the 

following flexibilities: 

• For additives used downstream of 

the refiner: Differentiating bulk 

additives based on whether they meet a 

20- or 25-ppm sulfur standard. 

• For aftermarket consumer additives: 

Allow for aftermarket additives to meet 

either a 20-ppm or 25-ppm sulfur cap. 

• For additives not meeting a 10-, 

20-, or 25-ppm sulfur limit: Allow for 

the use of volume accounting 

reconciliation (VAR) records for 

additives that would not be able to meet 

a 25-ppm sulfur cap to show that use of 

the additive would not cause the sulfur 

level of the finished fuel to exceed 10 

ppm (similar to the Nonroad Diesel 

Rulemaking, 69 FR 39088, June 29, 

2004), and require product labeling for 

aftermarket additives. 

(3) Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps 

With regard to the 20-ppm refinery 

gate cap discussed in Section 3 of the 

Panel Report, the Panel had concerns 

that such a standard could cause 

operational problems for small refiners 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29997 

during a refinery turnaround or an 

upset, because a cap of this level could 

result in a refiner not being able to 

produce gasoline (as noted in their 

comments in Section 8 of the Panel 

Report). The Panel likewise had 

concerns that a downstream cap of 25 

ppm could cause problems for small 

downstream entities, such as transmix 

processors, because they may not be 

able to reprocess finished gasoline down 

to this level (also noted in their 

comments in Section 8 of the Panel 

Report). 

Thus, the Panel recommended that 

EPA assess and request comment on 

retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate 

and downstream caps of 80 and 95 ppm, 

respectively, to help provide maximum 

flexibility and avoid system upsets for 

the entire refining and distribution 

system. Thus, the SBA and OMB Panel 

members recommend that EPA propose 

retaining the 80-ppm and 95-ppm caps. 

The Panel also recommended that 

EPA request comment on additional 

refinery gate and downstream caps 

above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm. 

Additionally, the Panel recommended 

that EPA allow the current Tier 2 80- 

ppm sulfur refinery gate cap and 95- 

ppm sulfur downstream cap in Alaska 

to remain at these levels indefinitely. 

(4) Hardship Provisions 

During the Panel process, EPA stated 

its intent to propose hardship 

provisions (for all gasoline refiners and 

importers) similar to those in prior EPA 

fuels programs: (a) The extreme 

unforeseen circumstances hardship 

provision, and (b) the extreme hardship 

provision. A hardship based on extreme 

unforeseen circumstances is intended to 

provide short term relief due to 

unanticipated circumstances beyond the 

control of the refiner, such as a natural 

disaster or a refinery fire. An extreme 

hardship is intended to provide shortterm relief based on extreme 

circumstances (e.g., extreme financial 

problems, extreme operational or 

technical problems, etc.) that impose 

extreme hardship and thus significantly 

affect a refiner’s ability to comply with 

the program requirements by the 

applicable dates. In the context of the 

proposal, the Panel agrees that such 

relief could consider long-term relief on 

the sulfur cap (similar to that for Alaska) 

if the circumstances both warrant it and 

can be structured in a way to allow for 

it. The Panel agrees with the proposal of 

such provisions and recommended that 

EPA include them in the Tier 3 

proposed rulemaking. 

ii. Tier 3 Vehicles 

As discussed in Section 5 of the Panel 

Report, in addition to vehicle 

manufacturers, two distinct categories of 

businesses relating to highway lightduty vehicles and heavy-duty trucks 

would be covered by the new vehicle 

standards: independent commercial 

importers (ICIs), and alternative fuel 

vehicle converters. As discussed below, 

EPA’s expectation at the time of the 

Panel process was to propose a set of 

flexibilities that would be available to 

all small entities in these three business 

categories as well as any businesses in 

these categories that sell less than 5,000 

vehicles per year. The Panel identified 

a number of entities covered by the 

vehicle standards that qualify as small 

businesses under the SBA definition. 

Six of these companies participated as 

SERs. 

The Panel discussed several 

regulatory flexibility alternatives with 

SERs for small businesses that certify 

vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 

emission standards. As described in 

Appendix A (and similar to provisions 

in the Tier 2 rule), EPA sought comment 

from the SERs on allowing small entities 

to simply comply with the proposed 

emission standards with 100 percent of 

their vehicles during the last year of the 

phase-in period. In addition, EPA 

sought comment on the following 

flexibilities: (1) A hardship provision 

that would allow these businesses to 

apply for additional time to meet any of 

the 100 percent phase-in requirements, 

(2) use of assigned deterioration factors 

for certification purposes, and (3) 

reduction in the number of tests 

required in the manufacturer in-use 

verification testing program (see 40 CFR 

86.1845–04). SERs were generally 

supportive of these flexibility 

provisions. However, one SER requested 

that EPA consider providing relaxed 

standards for exhaust emissions in 

addition to the delay and another SER 

requested that we consider eliminating 

some of the evaporative emission testing 

requirements. 

Panel recommendations on these 

approaches are discussed below. 

(1) Exhaust Emission Standards and 

Lead Time 

In the types of businesses subject to 

the potential Tier 3 standards, small 

businesses have limited resources 

available for developing new designs to 

comply with new emission standards. In 

addition, it is often necessary for these 

businesses to rely on vendor companies 

for technology. Moreover, percentage 

phase-in requirements pose a dilemma 

for a small manufacturer that has a 

limited product line (e.g., the 

manufacturer certifies vehicles in only 

one or two test groups). Thus, similar to 

the flexibility provisions implemented 

in previous vehicle rules, the Panel 

recommended that EPA allow small 

businesses the following flexibility 

options for meeting the potential Tier 3 

exhaust emissions standards. 

The Panel recommended that small 

businesses be given additional lead time 

to comply with the potential Tier 3 

exhaust standards and allow small 

businesses to comply with the standards 

with 100 percent of their vehicles 

starting in model year 2022. (This is 

similar to the Tier 2 rule where EPA 

allowed small manufacturers to wait 

until the end of the phase-in to comply 

with the Tier 2 standards.) During the 

Panel process, the proposed Tier 3 rule 

was expected to have several different 

phase-in schedules; with the final dates 

varying from model year 2021 for the 

new exhaust PM standards and use of 

the new E15 certification fuel, to model 

year 2022 for the new evaporative 

emission standards, to model year 2025 

for the new exhaust gaseous pollutant 

standards. The Panel noted that 

requiring all small businesses to comply 

with the full slate of Tier 3 requirements 

in model year 2022 should provide 

sufficient lead time for manufacturers to 

plan for and implement the technology 

changes needed to comply with the Tier 

3 standards. 

One of the SERs recommended that 

EPA adopt relaxed exhaust standards for 

small manufacturers. The SER noted 

that the exhaust emission averaging 

program being proposed by EPA would 

allow large manufacturers that have 

many engine families to certify their 

small, niche products at levels 

numerically higher than the standards. 

Small manufacturers that typically do 

not have more than one or two emission 

families generally cannot use averaging 

to the same extent because of their 

limited product offerings. The SER’s 

concern was that the high-performance 

vehicles produced by large 

manufacturers which they compete 

against would be able to certify at 

numerically higher levels at less cost 

than the SER would incur. While EPA 

was planning to propose the same 

standards for all manufacturers, the 

Panel recommended that EPA request 

comment on allowing small 

manufacturers to meet relaxed exhaust 

emission standards. This could also be 

included as part of the hardship 

provision discussed below. The Panel 

recommended that EPA request 

comment on the relaxed standards 

recommended by the SER. The SERrecommended relaxed NMOG+NOX

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

29998 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

standards over the Federal Test 

Procedure (FTP) are 0.125 grams/mile in 

model year 2020 and 0.070 grams/mile 

in model year 2025. In addition, the 

Supplemental FTP standards would be 

the standards for the corresponding bins 

which the manufacturer selected for 

complying with the FTP standards. For 

example, if the manufacturer certified to 

the proposed Tier 3 Bin 125 standards 

over the FTP, the manufacturer would 

have to comply with the corresponding 

Tier 3 Bin 125 standards for the 

Supplemental FTP. 

(2) Evaporative Emission Standards and 

Lead Time 

The Panel recommended that small 

businesses comply with the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards, 

including the leak standard, with 100 

percent of their vehicles starting in 

model year 2022. For evaporative 

emissions, where the Tier 3 standards 

could begin as early as 2017 and phasein through 2022, this provision would 

allow small businesses and SVMs to 

wait until the last year of the Tier 3 

phase-in period for evaporative 

emission standards for all of their 

vehicles. This start date is consistent 

with the start date described above for 

the Tier 3 exhaust emission 

requirements being recommended by 

the Panel for small businesses. 

(3) Assigned Deterioration Factors 

Under EPA’s regulations, 

manufacturers must demonstrate that 

their vehicles comply with the emission 

standards throughout the ‘‘useful life’’ 

period. This is generally done by testing 

vehicles at low-mileage and then 

applying a deterioration factor to these 

emission levels. The deterioration 

factors are determined by aging new 

emission control systems and then 

testing the aged systems again to 

determine how much deterioration in 

emissions has occurred. In order to 

reduce the testing burden on small 

manufacturers, EPA suggested that 

small manufacturers could use 

deterioration factor values assigned by 

EPA instead of performing the extended 

testing. A manufacturer would apply the 

assigned deterioration factors to its lowmileage emission level to demonstrate 

whether it complied with the Tier 3 

emission standards. EPA currently 

allows this flexibility for small 

manufacturers. The Panel recommended 

that EPA propose that small businesses 

be allowed the option to use EPAdeveloped assigned deterioration factors 

in demonstrating compliance with the 

Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission 

standards. In the past, EPA has relied on 

deterioration factor data from large 

manufacturers to develop the assigned 

DFs for small manufacturers. EPA 

would expect to follow a similar 

procedure to determine the assigned 

DFs for the Tier 3 standards once large 

manufacturers start certifying their Tier 

3 designs. Given that larger 

manufacturers would begin phasing in 

to the Tier 3 standards in model year 

2017, EPA should have a significant set 

of emissions deterioration data upon 

which to base the assigned DFs for small 

businesses within the first few years of 

the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that 

assigned DFs need to be determined 

well in advance of model year 2022 in 

order to provide sufficient time for 

small businesses to decide whether or 

not to use the assigned DFs for 

certification purposes. 

(4) Reduced Testing Burden 

Under EPA’s regulations, 

manufacturers must perform in-use 

testing on their vehicles and 

demonstrate their in-use vehicles 

comply with the emission standards. 

The current in-use testing regulations 

provide for reduced levels of testing for 

small manufacturers, including no 

testing in some cases. EPA suggested 

that these provisions should continue 

for small manufacturers with the Tier 3 

program. The Panel recommended that 

EPA propose that small businesses be 

allowed to have reduced burden under 

the in-use testing program for Tier 3 

vehicles. 

One SER requested that EPA 

eliminate some of the evaporative 

emission testing requirements for small 

businesses based on its belief that some 

of the tests may be duplicative. While 

EPA noted (during the Panel process) 

that it understood the reasons behind 

the manufacturer’s suggestion, EPA 

believed it may be premature to 

consider such an option in the Tier 3 

rule given the impact of the CO2

emission standards on engine and fuel 

system development. Currently, it is 

generally understood that the 2-day 

diurnal test drives the purge 

characteristics of evaporative control 

systems, while the refueling test, and to 

a lesser degree the 3-day test, drive the 

capacity requirement of evaporative 

canisters. Prospectively, due to expected 

changes in engine and fuel system 

designs in response to upcoming CO2

emission standard requirements, this 

may not be the case. Therefore, at the 

time of the Panel process, EPA noted its 

belief that it is appropriate to retain all 

of the evaporative test procedures. It can 

be noted that under current regulations, 

EPA does allow manufacturers to waive 

2-day diurnal testing for certification 

purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829– 

01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2-day 

diurnal test as part of the in-use testing 

program (see 40 CFR 86.1845– 

04(c)(5)(ii)). These provisions would 

continue in the Tier 3 program. In 

general, EPA noted that it is open to 

changes that reduce test burden while 

maintaining the environmental 

effectiveness of its programs and could 

consider changes like those suggested 

by the SER in the future as the impacts 

of the future regulations on engine and 

vehicle design become clearer. EPA also 

stated that it intends to request 

comment in the Tier 3 proposal on 

streamlining the current test procedures 

for small businesses in ways that would 

still maintain the overall stringency of 

the tests. 

(5) Hardship Provisions 

The Panel recommended that 

hardship provisions be provided to 

small businesses for the Tier 3 exhaust 

and evaporative emission standards. 

Under the hardship provisions, small 

businesses would be allowed to apply 

for additional time to meet the 100 

percent phase-in requirements for 

exhaust and evaporative emissions. All 

hardship requests would be subject to 

EPA review and approval. Appeals for 

such hardship relief would be required 

to be made in writing and submitted 

well before the earliest date of 

noncompliance. The request should 

identify how much time is being 

requested. It must also include evidence 

that the noncompliance would occur 

despite the manufacturer’s best efforts to 

comply, and must contain evidence that 

severe economic hardship would be 

faced by the company if the relief is not 

granted. The above provision should 

effectively provide the opportunity for 

small businesses to obtain more time to 

comply with the new Tier 3 standards. 

(The existing hardship provisions limit 

the extra time that can be requested to 

1 year, but such a limit may or may not 

be included in the proposed Tier 3 

hardship provisions.) 

(6) Applicability 

Under EPA’s current Tier 2 

regulations, EPA provides a number of 

flexibilities for small volume 

manufacturers. The criteria for 

determining if a company is a small 

volume manufacturer is based on the 

annual production level of vehicles and 

is based on whether the company 

produces less than 15,000 vehicles per 

year. Unlike EPA’s small volume 

manufacturer criteria noted above, SBA 

defines which manufacturers are small 

businesses (and therefore should be 

considered under the SBAR Panel 

process) based on the number of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29999 

employees for vehicle manufacturers 

and annual revenues for ICIs and 

alternative fuel converters. For example, 

SBA defines small business vehicle 

manufacturers as those who have less 

than 1,000 employees. Similarly, SBA 

defines small business ICIs as those who 

have annual revenues of less than $8 

million per year. 

The Panel recommended that EPA 

propose to allow all small businesses 

that meet the SBA criteria be eligible for 

the flexibilities described above. In 

addition, in the Panel Report, EPA 

stated that it is expecting to propose that 

manufacturers that meet a specified 

sales-based criterion to be eligible for 

the flexibilities described above. It is 

relatively easy for a manufacturer to 

project and ultimately determine sales. 

Determining the annual revenues or 

number of employees is less 

straightforward. In the recent rule 

setting the first light-duty vehicle and 

truck CO2 emission standards, EPA 

adopted provisions for small 

manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 

5,000 vehicles per year as opposed to 

the 15,000 level noted earlier that is 

used in the Tier 2 program. In the Panel 

Report, EPA noted that it expects to 

propose a small volume manufacturer 

definition based on the 5,000 vehicle 

per year level for the Tier 3 program. 

EPA believes the 5,000 unit cut-off for 

small volume manufacturers would 

include all of the small business vehicle 

manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel 

converters that meet the applicable SBA 

definition as well as some additional 

companies that have similar concerns to 

small businesses. Lastly, EPA noted in 

the Panel Report that it expects to 

propose the flexibilities described above 

to be available to any manufacturer that 

meets either the SBA small business 

criteria or the sales-based criteria. 

EPA invites comment on all aspects of 

the proposal and its impacts on small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, requires Federal agencies, 

unless otherwise prohibited by law, to 

assess the effects of their regulatory 

actions on State, local, and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 

This rule contains a Federal mandate 

that may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. 

Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 

generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Accordingly, 

EPA has prepared a statement of the 

cost-benefit analysis as required by 

section 202 of the UMRA; this statement 

can be found in Sections VII and VIII of 

this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the 

draft RIA. Before promulgating an EPA 

rule for which a written statement is 

needed, section 205 of the UMRA 

generally requires EPA to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. 

Before EPA establishes any regulatory 

requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

including tribal governments, it must 

have developed under section 203 of the 

UMRA a small government agency plan. 

The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, 

enabling officials of affected small 

governments to have meaningful and 

timely input in the development of EPA 

regulatory proposals with significant 

Federal intergovernmental mandates, 

and informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Consistent with section 205, EPA has 

identified and considered a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives. These 

alternatives are described above in 

Sections IV, V, and IX of this preamble. 

This rule is not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

rule imposes no enforceable duty on any 

State, local or tribal governments. EPA 

has determined that this rule contains 

no regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. EPA has determined that 

this proposal contains a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for the private 

sector in any one year, however EPA 

believes that the proposal represents the 

least costly, and most cost-effective 

approach to achieve the statutory 

requirements of the rule. The costs and 

benefits associated with the proposal are 

discussed above in Sections VII and VIII 

of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the 

draft RIA, as required by section 202 of 

the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It would not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. Although Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this proposed rule, 

EPA did consult with representatives of 

various State and local governments in 

developing this rule. EPA has also 

consulted with representatives from the 

National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies (NACAA, representing state 

and local air pollution officials), 

Northeast States for Coordinated Air 

Use Management (NESCAUM, the Clean 

Air Association of the Northeast States), 

and the Ozone Transport Commission 

(OTC, a multi-state organization created 

under the CAA responsible for advising 

EPA on transport issues and for 

developing and implementing regional 

solutions to the ground-level ozone 

problem in the Northeast and MidAtlantic regions). 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This proposed rule would be 

implemented at the Federal level and 

would impose compliance costs only on 

those in the gasoline production, 

distribution, and additive industry and 

in the highway and nonroad engine, 

vehicle, and equipment industries. 

Tribal governments would be affected 

only to the extent they purchase and use 

regulated fuels, vehicles, and 

equipment. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this action, EPA 

specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed action from tribal 

officials. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30000 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

510U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). 

Metabolically-derived ventilation rates: A revised 

approach based upon oxygen consumption rates. 

Washington, DC: Office of Research and 

Development. EPA/600/R–06/129F. http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=202543. 

511Foos, B.; Marty, M.; Schwartz, J.; Bennet, W.; 

Moya, J.; Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2008) 

Focusing on children’s inhalation dosimetry and 

health effects for risk assessment: An introduction. 

J Toxicol Environ Health 71A: 149–165. 

512U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). 

Supplemental guidance for assessing susceptibility 

from early-life exposure to carcinogens. 

Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/ 

R–03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/ 

pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is subject to EO 13045 (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is 

an economically significant regulatory 

action as defined by EO 12866, and EPA 

believes that the environmental health 

or safety risk addressed by this action 

may have a disproportionate effect on 

children. Accordingly, we have 

evaluated the environmental health or 

safety effects of air pollutants affected 

by the proposed standards on children. 

The results of this evaluation are 

contained in Section II.B and associated 

references. 

Children are more susceptible than 

adults to many air pollutants because of 

differences in physiology, higher per 

body weight breathing rates and 

consumption, rapid development of the 

brain and bodily systems, and behaviors 

that increase chances for exposure. Even 

before birth, the developing fetus may 

be exposed to air pollutants through the 

mother that affect development and 

permanently harm the individual. 

Infants and children breathe at much 

higher rates per body weight than 

adults, with infants under one year of 

age having a breathing rate up to five 

times that of adults.510 In addition, 

children breathe through their mouths 

more than adults and their nasal 

passages are less effective at removing 

pollutants, which leads to a higher 

deposition fraction in their lungs.511

Certain motor vehicle emissions 

present greater risks to children as well. 

For example, mutagenic carcinogens 

such as benzene and 1,3-butadiene have 

a larger impact during young life stages, 

given the rapid development of the 

corporal systems.512 Exposure at a 

young age to these carcinogens could 

lead to a higher risk of developing 

cancer later in life. 

The adverse effects of individual air 

pollutants may be more severe for 

children, particularly the youngest age 

groups, than adults. The Integrated 

Science Assessments and Criteria 

Documents for a number of pollutants 

affected by this rule, including those for 

NO2, PM, ozone and CO, describe 

children as a group with greater 

susceptibility. Section II.B.5 discusses a 

number of childhood health outcomes 

associated with proximity to roadways, 

including evidence for exacerbation of 

asthma symptoms and suggestive 

evidence for new onset asthma. In 

general, these studies do not identify the 

specific contaminants associated with 

adverse effects, instead addressing the 

near-roadway environment as one 

containing numerous exposures 

potentially associated with adverse 

health effects. 

In addition to their underlying 

biological susceptibility, as discussed in 

Section II.B.1, children may be more 

vulnerable to the effects of air pollution 

because of their high levels of outdoor 

activity. As discussed in that section, 

greater impacts of ozone have been 

reported among children who are more 

active outdoors. 

Section III.C describes the ambient air 

quality changes resulting from the 

proposed standards, which represent 

levels to which the general population 

is exposed. Children are not expected to 

experience greater ambient 

concentrations of air pollutants than the 

general population. However, because of 

their greater susceptibility to air 

pollution and their increased time spent 

outdoors, it is likely that the proposed 

standards would have particular 

benefits for children’s health. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to the air pollutants 

affected by the proposed standards. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)), requires EPA to prepare and 

submit a Statement of Energy Effects to 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, for 

certain actions identified as ‘‘significant 

energy actions.’’ Section 4(b) of 

Executive Order 13211 defines 

‘‘significant energy actions’’ as ‘‘any 

action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action.’’ Given the 

flexibilities being proposed for entities 

in the gasoline production and 

distribution system, we believe that 

these mitigate any potential adverse 

effects on gasoline supply and 

distribution. Although EPA does not 

expect this rule to have significant 

adverse effects on the supply or 

distribution of gasoline, we have 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

for this action as follows. 

This proposal’s potential effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use have 

been analyzed and are further discussed 

above in: 

• Section V—fuel provisions of the 

proposed rule and flexibilities, 

including hardship provisions. 

• Section V.2.c—discussion on 

proposed refinery lead time. 

• Section X—proposed economic 

impacts (specifically, Section X.C for 

fuel economic impacts, and Section X.D 

on employment impacts). 

• Section VII.B—estimated costs of 

the proposed fuel program. 

Given the estimated costs and impacts 

of the proposed rule, as discussed in 

these areas of this preamble, we do not 

expect this rule to have any adverse 

effect on the supply or distribution of 

gasoline. Further, we do not believe that 

there are any reasonable alternatives to 

the control of sulfur in gasoline which 

would provide the level of reduction of 

emissions, considering cost-benefit 

analyses, given by the reduction in 

sulfur being proposed in this rule. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30001 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA is proposing to 

update a number of regulations which 

already contain voluntary consensus 

standards to more recent versions of 

these standards. EPA is proposing to use 

the ASTM International (ASTM) 

standards listed in Table XII–1 below. 

The standards may be obtained through 

the ASTM Web site (www.astm.org) or 

by calling ASTM at (610) 832–9585. 

This proposed rulemaking also 

involves environmental monitoring or 

measurement. Consistent with the 

Agency’s Performance Based 

Measurement System (‘‘PBMS’’), EPA 

proposes not to require the use of 

specific, prescribed analytic methods. 

Rather, the Agency plans to allow the 

use of any method that meets the 

prescribed performance criteria. The 

PBMS approach is intended to be more 

flexible and cost-effective for the 

regulated community; it is also intended 

to encourage innovation in analytical 

technology and improved data quality. 

EPA is not precluding the use of any 

method, whether it constitutes a 

voluntary consensus standard or not, as 

long as it meets the performance criteria 

specified. 

TABLE XII–1—DESIGNATED ANALYTICAL TEST METHODS FOR GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL

Fuel parameter Designated analytical method 

Sulfur in gasoline ...................................................................................... ASTM D 2622–05. 

Sulfur in butane ........................................................................................ ASTM D 6667–01. 

500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel ...................................................................... ASTM D 2622–05. 

Olefins in gasoline .................................................................................... ASTM 1319–03 e1. 

Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline ................................................... ASTM D 5191–07, with the following correlation equation: 

RVP psi = (0.956 * X) ¥ 0.347 

RVP kPa = (0.956 * X) ¥ 2.39 where: X = total measured vapor 

pressure in psi or kPa. 

Distillation in gasoline ............................................................................... ASTM D86–07b. 

Benzene in gasoline ................................................................................. ASTM D 3606–07, except that instrument parameters shall be adjusted 

to ensure complete resolution of benzene, ethanol, and methanol 

peaks. 

Aromatics in gasoline ............................................................................... ASTM D 5769–04, except that sample chilling requirements in section 

8 of this standard are optional. 

Oxygen and oxygenate content in gasoline ............................................. ASTM D 5599–00(2005). 

Aromatics in diesel fuel ............................................................................ ASTM D1319–03 e1. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially-applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule would reduce 

emissions from all vehicles across the 

nation, both new vehicles (beginning in 

model year 2017, when the vehicle 

standards start to apply) and existing 

vehicles (as soon as the lower-sulfur 

gasoline becomes available in 2017 or 

earlier). As such, this proposal would 

increase the level of environmental 

protection for all populations. As 

discussed in Section III.B.7, there is 

evidence that minority populations and 

low-income populations live 

disproportionately near high-traffic 

roadways, where concentrations of 

many air pollutants are elevated. We 

expect this proposed rule to increase the 

level of environmental protection for 

these populations. 

Thus, this proposed rule would not 

have a disproportionately high adverse 

human health or environmental effect 

on minority or low-income populations. 

XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal 

Authority 

Statutory authority for this action 

comes from sections 202, 203–209, 211, 

213, 216, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C. sections 7414, 7521, 7522– 

7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 

7550, and 7601. Additional support for 

the procedural and compliance related 

aspects of this proposal, including the 

proposed recordkeeping requirements, 

comes from sections 114, 208, and 

301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

sections 7414, 7542, and 7601(a). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 79 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Diesel fuel, 

Energy, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor 

vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 80 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Diesel fuel, Fuel 

additives, Gasoline, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, 

Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 85 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Research, 

Warranties. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30002 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

40 CFR Part 86 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Electric power, Fuel 

economy, Incorporation by reference, 

Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Confidential business information, 

Environmental protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Research. 

Dated: March 29, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 79—REGISTRATION OF FUEL 

AND FUEL ADDITIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 79 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 USC 7414, 7524, 7545, and 

7601. 

■ 2. Section 79.5 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text. 

§ 79.5 Periodic reporting requirements. 

(a) Fuel manufacturers. (1) For each 

calendar quarter (January through 

March, April through June, July through 

September, October through December) 

commencing after the date prescribed 

for a particular fuel in subpart D of this 

part, fuel manufacturers shall submit to 

the Administrator a report for each 

registered fuel showing the range of 

concentration of each additive reported 

under § 79.11(a) and the volume of such 

fuel produced in the quarter. Reports 

shall be submitted by the required 

deadline as shown in Table 1 to § 79.5 

on forms supplied by the Administrator 

upon request. 

TABLE 1 TO § 79.5—QUARTERLY REPORTING DEADLINES

Calendar quarter Time period covered Quarterly report deadline 

Quarter One ................................................................................. January 1–March 31 ................................................................... June 1. 

Quarter Two ................................................................................. April 1–June 30 ........................................................................... September 1. 

Quarter Three ............................................................................... July 1–September 30 .................................................................. December 1. 

Quarter Four ................................................................................. October 1–December 31 ............................................................. March 31. 

(2) Fuel manufacturers shall submit to 

the Administrator a report annually for 

each registered fuel providing 

additional data and information as 

specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section in the designation of the 

fuel in subpart D of this part. Reports 

shall be submitted by March 31 for the 

preceding year, or part thereof, on forms 

supplied by the Administrator upon 

request. If the date prescribed for a 

particular fuel in 40 CFR part 80 subpart 

D, or the later registration of a fuel is 

between October 1 and December 31, no 

report will be required for the period to 

the end of that year. 

(b) Additive manufacturers. Additive 

manufacturers shall submit to the 

Administrator a report annually for each 

registered additive providing additional 

data and information as specified in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section in 

the designation of the additive in 40 

CFR part 80 subpart D. Additive 

manufacturers shall also report annually 

the volume of each additive produced. 

Reports shall be submitted by March 31 

for the preceding year, or part thereof, 

on forms supplied by the Administrator 

upon request. If the date prescribed for 

a particular additive in 40 CFR part 80 

subpart D, or the later registration of an 

additive is between October 1 and 

December 31, no report will be required 

for the period to the end of that year. 

These periodic reports shall not, 

however, be required for any additive 

that is: 

* * * * * 

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUEL 

AND FUEL ADDITIVES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 80 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C., 7414, 7521(l), 7545, 

and 7601(a). 

■ 4. Section 80.2 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (w). 

■ c. Revising paragraph (z). 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (vvv), (www), 

(xxx), (yyy), (zzz), and (aaaa). 

§ 80.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Previously certified gasoline, or 

PCG, means gasoline, RBOB or CBOB 

that previously has been included in a 

batch of gasoline for purposes of 

complying with the standards of 40 CFR 

part 80 that apply to refiners and 

importers. 

* * * * * 

(w) Cetane index or ‘‘Calculated 

cetane index’’ is a number representing 

the ignition properties of diesel fuel oils 

from API gravity and mid-boiling point, 

as determined by ASTM International 

standard method D976–06(2011), 

entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate 

Fuels’’, approved October 1, 2011. 

ASTM International test method D976– 

06(2011) is incorporated by reference. 

This incorporation by reference was 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may 

be obtained from ASTM International, 

100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. Copies 

may be inspected at the Air Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC, or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

* * * * * 

(z) Aromatic content is the aromatic 

hydrocarbon content in volume percent 

as determined by ASTM International 

standard test method D1319–10, 

entitled, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30003 

Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum 

Products by Fluorescent Indicator 

Adsorption’’, approved May 1, 2010. 

ASTM International test method D1319– 

10 is incorporated by reference. This 

incorporation by reference was 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may 

be obtained from ASTM International, 

100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. Copies 

may be inspected at the Air Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC, or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

* * * * * 

(vvv) Denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) 

means an alcohol of the chemical 

formula C2H6O which contains a 

denaturant to make it unfit for human 

consumption, that is used as an additive 

in gasoline, and that meets the 

requirements of § 80.1610. 

(www) Oxygenate manufacturer 

means any person who owns, leases, 

operates, controls, or supervises an 

oxygenate production facility. 

(xxx) Oxygenate production facility 

means any facility where oxygenate is 

produced. 

(yyy) CBOB means gasoline 

blendstock that becomes conventional 

gasoline solely upon the addition of 

oxygenate. 

(zzz) Natural gas liquids (NGL) means 

the components of natural gas 

(primarily propane, butane, pentane, 

hexane, and heptane) that are separated 

from the gas state in the form of liquids 

in a natural gas production facility, in 

a gas processing plant, or in a natural 

gas pipeline. NGL is sometimes also 

referred to as ‘‘natural gasoline’’. 

(aaaa) Natural gas means a mixture of 

hydrocarbon gases that occurs with 

petroleum deposits, principally 

methane together with varying 

quantities of ethane, propane, butane, 

and other gases. 

5. Section 80.8 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.8 Sampling methods for gasoline, 

diesel fuel, fuel additives, and renewable 

fuels. 

The sampling methods specified in 

this section shall be used to collect 

samples of gasoline, diesel, fuel 

additives and renewable fuels for 

purposes of determining compliance 

with the requirements of this part. 

(a) Manual sampling. Manual 

sampling of tanks and pipelines shall be 

performed according to the applicable 

procedures specified in ASTM 

International (ASTM) standard practice 

D4057 (incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (e) of this section). 

(b) Automatic sampling. Automatic 

sampling of petroleum products in 

pipelines shall be performed according 

to the applicable procedures specified 

in ASTM International (ASTM) standard 

practice D4177 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (e) of this 

section). 

(c) Sampling and sample handling for 

volatility measurement. Samples to be 

analyzed for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 

shall be collected and handled 

according to the applicable procedures 

in ASTM standard practice D5842 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (e) of this section). 

(d) Sample compositing. Composite 

samples shall be prepared using the 

applicable procedures in ASTM 

standard practice D5854 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (e) of this 

section). 

(e) Materials incorporated by 

reference. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of the documents listed in this 

section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect 

copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Room B102, EPA West Building, 

Washington, DC 20460, under EPA 

docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0135, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

The telephone number for the Air 

Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1742. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov//federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. For further 

information on these test methods, 

please contact the Environmental 

Protection Agency at 734–214–4582. 

(1) ASTM International material. 

Anyone may purchase copies of these 

materials from the ASTM International, 

100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, or by 

contacting ASTM International 

customer service at 10–832–9585, or by 

contacting the email address of 

service@astm.org from the ASTM 

International Web site of http:// 

www.astm.org. 

(i) ASTM International standard 

practice D4057–06 (Reapproved 2011) 

(‘‘ASTM International D4057’’), 

Standard practice for Manual Sampling 

of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, 

approved June 1, 2011. 

(ii) ASTM International standard 

practice D4177–95 (Reapproved 2010) 

(‘‘ASTM International D4177’’), 

Standard Practice for Automatic 

Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum 

Products, approved May 1, 2010. 

(iii) ASTM International standard 

practice D5842–04 (Reapproved 2009) 

(‘‘ASTM International D5842’’), 

Standard Practice for Sampling and 

Handling of Fuels for Volatility 

Measurement, approved June 1, 2009. 

(iv) ASTM International standard 

practice D5854–96 (Reapproved 2010) 

(‘‘ASTM International D5854’’), 

Standard Practice for Mixing and 

Handling of Liquid Samples of 

Petroleum and Petroleum Products, 

approved May 1, 2010. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 6. A new § 80.10 is added to subpart 

A to read as follows: 

§ 80.10 Correction of batch volume 

reports. 

For purposes of compliance with the 

reporting requirements of this part, 

parties required to submit batch reports 

are not required to correct unintentional 

errors in reporting batch volume on 

previously submitted batch reports 

where all of the following circumstances 

apply: 

(a) The reporting violation pertains 

solely to the volume of the batch. 

(b) The volume of the batch is 

incorrect by no more than 500 gallons 

or by no more than 1 percent of the true 

batch volume, in gallons, whichever 

value (in gallons) is less. 

(c) Reporting the true volumes of all 

the batches for the reporting period 

would not result in a higher annual 

average sulfur or benzene value than 

reported using the incorrect values after 

rounding to the applicable digit for 

reporting. 

(d) Reporting the true value for any 

batch would not result in a reduced 

number of gallons for a violation of any 

per-gallon standard or a violation of any 

other requirement of the Clean Air Act. 

(e) The reporting party certifies that 

the conditions in paragraphs (a) through 

(d) of this section have been met. 

(f) For subpart M of this part, this 

section applies only to the volume of 

fuels produced or exported that result in 

a renewable volume obligation under 

subpart M of this part for obligated 

parties. 

■ 7a. Section 80.46 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading. 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 

(a)(3), and (a)(4). 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2)(i) introductory text. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30004 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c). 

■ e. Revising paragraph (d). 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2), 

and adding a new paragraph (e)(3). 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and 

(f)(3)(i). 

■ h. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2)(i). 

■ i. Revising paragraph (h) introductory 

text and paragraph (h)(1). 

§ 80.46 Measurement of reformulated 

gasoline and conventional gasoline fuel 

parameters. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Through November 29, 2014, the 

sulfur content of gasoline must be 

determined by ASTM International 

standard method D2622 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section) or by one of the alternative test 

methods specified in paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section. Beginning November 30, 

2014, the sulfur content of gasoline 

must be determined by a test method 

approved under § 80.47. 

(2) Through November 29, 2014, the 

sulfur content of butane must be 

determined by ASTM International 

standard method D6667 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section) or by one of the alternative test 

methods specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 

this section. 

(3) Through November 29, 2014, any 

refiner or importer may use any of the 

following methods for determining the 

sulfur content of gasoline provided the 

refiner or importer test result is 

correlated with the method specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section: 

(i) ASTM International standard test 

method D5453 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section). 

(ii) ASTM International standard test 

method D6920 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section). 

(iii) ASTM International standard test 

method D3120 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section). 

(iv) ASTM International standard test 

method D7039 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section). 

(4) Beginning November 30, 2014, the 

sulfur content of butane must be 

determined by a test method approved 

under § 80.47. Through November 29, 

2014, any refiner or importer may 

determine the sulfur content of butane 

using any one of the following methods; 

provided the refiner or importer test 

result is correlated with the method 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section: 

(i) ASTM International standard 

method D4468 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section). 

(ii) ASTM International standard 

method D3246 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section). 

(b) * * * 

(1) Through November 29, 2014, 

olefin content must be determined using 

ASTM International standard method 

D1319 (incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning 

November 30, 2014, the olefin content 

of gasoline may be determined by a test 

method approved under § 80.47. 

(2)(i) Through November 29, 2014, 

any refiner or importer may determine 

olefin content using ASTM International 

standard method ASTM D6550 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (h) of this section) for 

purposes of meeting any testing 

requirements involving olefin content, 

provided that: 

* * * * * 

(c) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). (1) 

Through November 29, 2014, Reid 

Vapor Pressure must be determined 

using ASTM International standard 

method D5191 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section), except the following correction 

equation must be used: 

RVP psi = (0.956 * X) ¥ 0.347 

RVP kPa = 0.956 * X) ¥ 2.39 

Where: 

X = Total measured vapor pressure, in psi or 

kPa. 

(2) Beginning November 30, 2014, 

RVP may be determined by a test 

method approved under § 80.47. 

(d) Distillation. Through November 

29, 2014, distillation parameters must 

be determined using ASTM 

International standard method D86 

((incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning 

November 30, 2014, the distillation 

parameters may be determined by a test 

method approved under § 80.47. 

(e) * * * 

(1) Through November 29, 2014, 

benzene content must be determined 

using ASTM International standard 

method D3606 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section), except that: 

(2) Instrument parameters shall be 

adjusted to ensure complete resolution 

of the benzene, ethanol and methanol 

peaks because ethanol and methanol 

may cause interference with ASTM 

International D3606 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section) when present. 

(3) Beginning November 30, 2014, the 

benzene content may be determined by 

a test method approved under § 80.47. 

(f)(1) Through November 29, 2014, 

aromatic content must be determined 

using ASTM International standard 

method D5769 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section), except the sample chilling 

requirements in section 8 of this 

standard method are optional. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, the 

aromatic content may be determined by 

a test method approved under § 80.47. 

(2) * * * 

(3)(i) Through November 29, 2014 any 

refiner or importer may determine 

aromatics content using ASTM 

International standard method D1319 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (h) of this section) for the 

purposes of meeting any test 

requirement involving aromatic content; 

provided that: 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Through November 29, 2014, 

oxygen and oxygenate content must be 

determined using ASTM International 

standard method D5599 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section). Beginning November 30, 2014, 

oxygen and oxygenate content may be 

determined by a test method approved 

under § 80.47. 

(2)(i) Through November 29, 2014, 

when oxygenates present are limited to 

MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiaryamyl alcohol and C1 to C4 alcohols, any 

refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender 

may determine oxygen and oxygen 

content using ASTM International 

standard method D4815 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (h) of this 

section) for purposes of meeting any 

testing requirement; provided that: 

* * * * * 

(h) Materials incorporated by 

reference. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of the documents listed in this 

section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR 51. Anyone may inspect 

copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Room B102, EPA West Building, 

Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA 

docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0135, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

The telephone number for the Air 

Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1742. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call (202) 741–6030 or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov//federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. For further 

information on these test methods, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30005 

please contact the Environmental 

Protection Agency at 734–214–4582. 

(1) ASTM International material. 

Anyone may purchase copies of these 

materials from the ASTM International, 

100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, or by 

contacting ASTM International 

customer service at 10–832–9585, or by 

contacting the email address of 

service@astm.org from the ASTM 

International Web site of http:// 

www.astm.org. 

(i) ASTM International standard 

method D3606–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D3606’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Benzene 

and Toluene in Finished Motor and 

Aviation Gasoline by Gas 

Chromatography, approved October 1, 

2010. 

(ii) ASTM International standard 

method D1319–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D1319’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 

Liquid Petroleum Products by 

Fluorescent Indicator Absorption’’, 

approved May 1, 2010. 

(iii) ASTM International standard 

method D6550–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D6550’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for the Determination of Olefin 

Content of Gasolines by SupercriticalFluid Chromatography’’, approved 

October 1, 2010. 

(iv) ASTM International standard 

method D4815–09 (‘‘ASTM 

International D4815’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of MTBE, 

ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl 

Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in 

Gasoline by Gas Chromatography’’, 

approved October 1, 2009. 

(v) ASTM International standard 

method D2622–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D2622’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 

Products by Wavelength Dispersive XRay Fluorescence Spectrometry’’, 

approved February 15, 2010. 

(vi) ASTM International standard 

method D2622–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D2622’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 

Products by Wavelength Dispersive XRay Fluorescence Spectrometry’’, 

approved February 15, 2010. 

(vii) ASTM International standard 

method D3246–11 (‘‘ASTM 

International D3246’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by 

Oxidative Microcoulometry’’, approved 

June 1, 2011. 

(viii) ASTM International standard 

method D5599–00(2010) (‘‘ASTM 

International D5599’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of 

Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas 

Chromatography and Oxygen Selective 

Flame Ionization Detection’’, approved 

October 1, 2010. 

(ix) ASTM International standard 

method D5769–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D5769’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of 

Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas 

Chromatography and Oxygen Selective 

Flame Ionization Detection’’, approved 

October 1, 2010. 

(x) ASTM International standard 

method D86–11a (‘‘ASTM International 

D86’’), ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Petroleum Products at 

Atmospheric Pressure’’, approved July 

1, 2011. 

(xi) ASTM International standard 

method D5453–09 (‘‘ASTM 

International D5453’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Total 

Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark 

Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine 

Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet 

Fluorescence’’, approved June 15, 2009. 

(xii) ASTM International standard 

method D6920–07 (‘‘ASTM D6920’’), 

Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur 

in Naphthas, Distillates, Reformulated 

Gasolines, Diesels, Biodiesels, and 

Motor Fuels by Oxidative Combustion 

and Electrochemical Detection, 

approved December 1, 2007. 

(xiii) ASTM International standard 

method D3120–08 (‘‘ASTM 

International D3120’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Trace Quantities of Sulfur in 

Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by 

Oxidative Microcoulometry’’, approved 

December 15, 2008. 

(xiv) ASTM International standard 

method D7039–07 (‘‘ASTM D7039’’), 

Standard Test Method for Sulfur in 

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by 

Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive 

X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, 

approved May 1, 2007. 

(xv) ASTM International standard 

method D6667–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D6667’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Determination of Total 

Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous 

Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum 

Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence’’, 

approved October 1, 2010. 

(xvi) ASTM International standard 

method D4468–85(2006) (‘‘ASTM 

International D4468’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous 

Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and 

Rateometric Colorimetry’’, approved 

June 1, 2006. 

* * * * * 

■ 7b. Section 80.47 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.47 Performance-based Analytical Test 

Method Approach. 

All sample handling, testing 

procedures and tests must be conducted 

using good laboratory practices. 

(a) Definitions. As used in this 

subpart: 

(1) Performance-based Analytical Test 

Method Approach means a 

measurement system based upon 

established performance criteria for 

accuracy and precision with use of 

analytical test methods. As used in this 

subpart, a measurement system used by 

laboratories to demonstrate that a 

particular analytical test method is 

acceptable for demonstrating 

compliance. 

(2) Accuracy means the closeness of 

agreement between an observed value 

from a single test measurement and an 

accepted reference value. 

(3) Precision means the degree of 

agreement in a set of measurements 

performed on the same property of 

identical test material. 

(4) Absolute fuel parameter means a 

fuel parameter for which a gravimetric 

standard is practical to construct and 

use. Sulfur content of gasoline, butane, 

or diesel fuel are examples of an 

absolute fuel parameter. 

(5) Gravimetric standard means a test 

material made by adding a carefully 

weighed quantity of the analyte to a 

measured quantity of another substance 

known not to contain any of the analyte, 

resulting in a solution with an 

accurately known concentrate of the 

analyte. 

(6) Consensus named fuels are 

homogeneous quantities of fuel that 

have been analyzed by a number of 

different laboratories (by sending 

around small samples). The average 

concentration of some parameter of 

interest across all of the different 

laboratories is then used as the 

‘‘consensus name’’ for that material. 

(7) Locally-named reference materials 

are gasoline or diesel fuels that are 

usually from the regular production of 

the facility where they are used in 

laboratory quality control efforts and 

have been analyzed using the 

designated method (either by the 

facility’s lab or by a referee lab) to 

obtain an estimate of their 

concentration. 

(8) Method-defined fuel parameter 

means a fuel parameter for which an 

EPA-prescribed primary test method or 

designated method defines the 

regulatory standard. Examples of 

method-defined fuel parameters include 

olefin content in gasoline, Reid vapor 

pressure (RVP) of gasoline, distillation 

parameters of gasoline, benzene content 

of gasoline, aromatic content of gasoline 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30006 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and diesel fuel, and oxygen/oxygenates 

content of gasoline. 

(9) Reference Installations are 

designated test method installations that 

are used to qualify the accuracy of other 

method-defined parameter instruments. 

Reference installations of the designated 

test method will be used to evaluate the 

accuracy of other method-defined 

alternative test methods and to establish 

correlation equations if necessary. 

(10) Correlation equation is a 

correction equation as determined by 

the use of ASTM International standard 

practice D6708 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section). This standard practice 

determines whether the comparison 

between the alternative test method and 

the designated test method is a null 

result. If the comparison is not null, 

then the standard practice provides for 

a correlation equation that predicts 

designated test method results from the 

applicable method-defined alternative 

test method. 

(11) Statistical quality control (SQC) 

means a planned system of activities 

whose purpose is to provide a level of 

quality that meets the needs of 

compliance with the standards of this 

part. This subpart prescribes specific 

SQC requirements for both absolute and 

method driven fuel parameters for both 

VCSB and non-VCSB regulated parties. 

(12) Voluntary consensus-based 

standards body (VCSB) means a 

domestic or international organization 

that plans, develops, establishes, or 

coordinates voluntary consensus 

standards using agreed-upon procedures 

and which possesses the attributes of 

openness, balance of interest, due 

process, and consensus, as explained in 

OMB Circular A–119 and the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995, P.L. 104–113, sec. 12(d). 

(13) Non-Voluntary consensus-based 

standards body (non-VCSB) means a 

domestic or international regulated 

party who has developed a proprietary 

analytical test method that has not been 

adopted by a VCSB organization. 

(b) Precision and accuracy criteria for 

approval for the absolute fuel parameter 

of gasoline sulfur. (1) Precision. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor 

vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel 

additives subject to the gasoline sulfur 

standard at § 80.195 and § 80.1603, the 

maximum allowable standard deviation 

computed from the results of a 

minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days 

(7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer 

tests per day) on samples using good 

laboratory practices taken from a single 

homogeneous commercially available 

gasoline must be less than or equal to 

1.5 times the repeatability ‘‘r’’ divided 

by 2.77, where ‘‘r’’ equals the ASTM 

repeatability of ASTM D7039–07 

(Example: A 10ppm sulfur gasoline 

sample: maximum allowable standard 

deviation of 20 tests ≤ 1.5*(1.75ppm/ 

2.77)=0.95 ppm). The 20 results must be 

a series of tests with a sequential record 

of analysis and no emissions. A 

laboratory facility may exclude a given 

sample or test result only if the 

exclusion is for a valid reason under 

good laboratory practices and it 

maintains records regarding the sample 

and test results and the reason for 

excluding them. 

(2) Accuracy. Beginning November 

30, 2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and 

gasoline fuel additives subject to the 

gasoline sulfur standard at §§ 80.195 

and 80.1603: 

(i) The arithmetic average of a 

continuous series of at least 10 tests 

performed using good laboratory 

practices on a commercially available 

gravimetric sulfur standard in the range 

of 1–10 ppm shall not differ from the 

accepted reference value (ARV) of the 

standard by more than 0.71 ppm sulfur; 

(ii) The arithmetic average of a 

continuous series of at least 10 tests 

performed using good laboratory 

practices on a commercially available 

gravimetric sulfur standard in the range 

of 10–20 ppm shall not differ from the 

ARV of the standard by more than 1.00 

ppm sulfur; and 

(iii) In applying the tests of 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, individual test results shall be 

compensated for any known chemical 

interferences using good laboratory 

practices. 

(3) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(a)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(c) Precision and accuracy criteria for 

approval of the absolute fuel parameter 

of sulfur in butane. (1) Precision. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, for 

butane subject to the butane sulfur 

standard at §§ 80.82, 80.195, 80.340(b), 

and 80.1603, the maximum allowable 

standard deviation computed from the 

results of a minimum of 20 tests made 

over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week 

and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples 

using good laboratory practices taken 

from a single homogeneous 

commercially available butane must be 

less than or equal to 1.5 times the 

repeatability ‘‘r’’ divided by 2.77, where 

‘‘r’’ equals the ASTM repeatability of 

ASTM D6667–10 (Example: A 10 ppm 

sulfur butane sample: maximum 

allowable standard deviation of 20 tests 

≤ 1.5*(1.15ppm/2.77) = 0.62 ppm). The 

20 results must be a series of tests with 

a sequential record of analysis and no 

emissions. A laboratory facility may 

exclude a given sample or test result 

only if the exclusion is for a valid 

reason under good laboratory practices 

and it maintains records regarding the 

sample and test results and the reason 

for excluding them. 

(2) Accuracy. Beginning November 

30, 2014, for butane subject to the 

butane sulfur standard at §§ 80.82 and 

80.1603: 

(i) The arithmetic average of a 

continuous series of at least 10 tests 

performed using good laboratory 

practices on a commercially available 

gravimetric sulfur standard in the range 

of 1–10 ppm shall not differ from the 

ARV of the standard by more than 0.47 

ppm sulfur; 

(ii) The arithmetic average of a 

continuous series of at least 10 tests 

performed using good laboratory 

practices on a commercially available 

gravimetric sulfur standard in the range 

of 10–20 ppm shall not differ from the 

ARV of the standard by more than 0.94 

ppm sulfur; and 

(iii) In applying the tests of 

paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, individual test results shall be 

compensated for any known chemical 

interferences using good laboratory 

practices. 

(3) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(a)(2) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(d) Precision criteria for approval of 

the method defined fuel parameter of 

olefins in gasoline. (1) Precision. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor 

vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel 

additives subject to the gasoline 

standards of this part, the maximum 

allowable standard deviation computed 

from the results of a minimum of 20 

tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests 

per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) 

on samples using good laboratory 

practices taken from a single 

homogeneous commercially available 

gasoline must be less than or equal to 

1.5 times the repeatability ‘‘r’’ divided 

by 2.77, where ‘‘r’’ equals the ASTM 

repeatability of ASTM D1319–10 

(Example: A gasoline containing 9Vol% 

olefins: maximum allowable standard 

deviation of 20 tests ≤ 1.5*(0.972Vol%/ 

2.77) = 0.53Vol%). The 20 results must 

be a series of tests with a sequential 

record of analysis and no emissions. A 

laboratory facility may exclude a given 

sample or test result only if the 

exclusion is for a valid reason under 

good laboratory practices and it 

maintains records regarding the sample 

and test results and the reason for 

excluding them. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30007 

(2) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(b)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(e) Precision criteria for approval of 

the method defined fuel parameter of 

aromatics in gasoline. (1) Precision. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor 

vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel 

additives subject to the gasoline 

standards of this part, the maximum 

allowable standard deviation computed 

from the results of a minimum of 20 

tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests 

per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) 

on samples using good laboratory 

practices taken from a single 

homogeneous commercially available 

gasoline must be less than or equal to 

1.5 times the repeatability ‘‘r’’ divided 

by 2.77, where ‘‘r’’ equals the ASTM 

repeatability of ASTM D1319–10 

(Example: A gasoline containing 

32Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable 

standard deviation of 20 tests ≤ 

1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77) = 0.70Vol%). The 

20 results must be a series of tests with 

a sequential record of analysis and no 

emissions. A laboratory facility may 

exclude a given sample or test result 

only if the exclusion is for a valid 

reason under good laboratory practices 

and it maintains records regarding the 

sample and test results and the reason 

for excluding them. 

(2) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(f)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 

(f) Precision criteria for approval of 

the method defined fuel parameter of 

oxygen and oxygenate content in 

gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning 

November 30, 2014, for motor vehicle 

gasoline and gasoline fuel additives 

subject to the gasoline standards of this 

part, the maximum allowable standard 

deviation computed from the results of 

a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 

days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or 

fewer tests per day) on samples using 

good laboratory practices taken from a 

single homogeneous commercially 

available gasoline must be less than or 

equal to 1.5 times the repeatability ‘‘r’’ 

divided by 2.77, where ‘‘r’’ equals the 

ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5599– 

00(2010) (Example: A gasoline 

containing 3Mass% total oxygen: 

maximum allowable standard deviation 

of 20 tests ≤ 1.5*(0.083Mass%/2.77) = 

0.045Mass%). The 20 results must be a 

series of tests with a sequential record 

of analysis and no emissions. A 

laboratory facility may exclude a given 

sample or test result only if the 

exclusion is for a valid reason under 

good laboratory practices and it 

maintains records regarding the sample 

and test results and the reason for 

excluding them. 

(2) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(g)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section. 

(g) Precision criteria for approval of 

the method defined fuel parameter of 

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in gasoline. 

(1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 

2014, for motor vehicle gasoline and 

gasoline fuel additives subject to the 

gasoline standards of this part and the 

volatility standards at § 80.27, the 

maximum allowable standard deviation 

computed from the results of a 

minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days 

(7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer 

tests per day) on samples using good 

laboratory practices taken from a single 

homogeneous commercially available 

gasoline must be less than or equal to 

1.5 times the repeatability ‘‘r’’ divided 

by 2.77, where ‘‘r’’ equals the ASTM 

repeatability of ASTM 5191–10b 

(Example: A gasoline having a RVP of 

6.8psi: maximum allowable standard 

deviation of 20 tests ≤ 1.5*(0.21psi/2.77) 

= 0.11psi). The 20 results must be a 

series of tests with a sequential record 

of analysis and no emissions. A 

laboratory facility may exclude a given 

sample or test result only if the 

exclusion is for a valid reason under 

good laboratory practices and it 

maintains records regarding the sample 

and test results and the reason for 

excluding them. 

(2) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(c)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section. 

(h) Precision criteria for approval of 

the method defined fuel parameter of 

gasoline distillation. (1) Precision. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor 

vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel 

additives subject to the gasoline 

standards of this part, the maximum 

allowable standard deviation computed 

from the results of a minimum of 20 

tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests 

per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) 

on samples using good laboratory 

practices taken from a single 

homogeneous commercially available 

gasoline must be less than or equal to 

1.5 times the repeatability ‘‘r’’ divided 

by 2.77, where ‘‘r’’ equals the ASTM 

repeatability of ASTM D86–11a for the 

initial boiling point, E10, E50, E90 and 

final boiling point. (Example: A gasoline 

having an initial boiling point of 20 °C 

and a final boiling point of 110 °C: 

Maximum allowable standard deviation 

of 20 tests for initial boiling point ≤ 

1.5*(2.84 °C/2.77) = 1.54 °C, maximum 

allowable standard deviation of 20 tests 

for E10 ≤ 1.5*(1.33 °C/2.77) = 0.72 °C, 

maximum allowable standard deviation 

of 20 tests for E50 ≤ 1.5*(0.74 °C/2.77) 

= 0.40 °C, maximum allowable standard 

deviation of 20 tests for E90t ≤ 1.5*(1.79 

°C/2.77) = 0.97 °C, and maximum 

allowable standard deviation of 20 tests 

for final boiling point ≤ 1.5*(3.33 °C/ 

2.77) = 1.80 °C). The 20 results must be 

a series of tests with a sequential record 

of analysis and no emissions. A 

laboratory facility may exclude a given 

sample or test result only if the 

exclusion is for a valid reason under 

good laboratory practices and it 

maintains records regarding the sample 

and test results and the reason for 

excluding them. 

(2) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(d)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (h)(1) of this section. 

(i) Precision criteria for approval of 

the method defined fuel parameter of 

benzene in gasoline. (1) Precision. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor 

vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel 

additives subject to the gasoline 

standards of this part and the MSAT2 

standards at §§ 80.41, 80.101, and 

80.1230, the maximum allowable 

standard deviation computed from the 

results of a minimum of 20 tests made 

over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week 

and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples 

using good laboratory practices taken 

from a single homogeneous 

commercially available gasoline must be 

less than or equal to 1.5 times the 

repeatability ‘‘r’’ divided by 2.77, where 

‘‘r’’ equals the ASTM repeatability of 

ASTM D3606–10 (Example: A gasoline 

having a 1Vol% benzene: maximum 

allowable standard deviation of 20 tests 

≤ 1.5*(0.04Vol%/2.77) = 0.02Vol%). 

The 20 results must be a series of tests 

with a sequential record of analysis and 

no emissions. A laboratory facility may 

exclude a given sample or test result 

only if the exclusion is for a valid 

reason under good laboratory practices 

and it maintains records regarding the 

sample and test results and the reason 

for excluding them. 

(2) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(e)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. 

(j) Precision criteria for approval of 

the method defined fuel parameter of 

aromatics in diesel. (1) Precision. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, for motor 

vehicle diesel and diesel fuel additives 

subject to the motor vehicle diesel 

standards at § 80.520, the maximum 

allowable standard deviation computed 

from the results of a minimum of 20 

tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests 

per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) 

on samples using good laboratory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30008 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

practices taken from a single 

homogeneous commercially available 

gasoline must be less than or equal to 

1.5 times the repeatability ‘‘r’’ divided 

by 2.77, where ‘‘r’’ equals the ASTM 

repeatability of ASTM D1319–10 

(Example: A diesel fuel containing 

35Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable 

standard deviation of 20 tests ≤ 

1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77) = 0.70Vol%). The 

20 results must be a series of tests with 

a sequential record of analysis and no 

emissions. A laboratory facility may 

exclude a given sample or test result 

only if the exclusion is for a valid 

reason under good laboratory practices 

and it maintains records regarding the 

sample and test results and the reason 

for excluding them. 

(2) The test method specified at 

§ 80.46(j)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 

2014 is exempt from the requirements of 

paragraph (j)(1) of this section. 

(k) Criteria for designated test method 

reference installations used to qualify 

the accuracy of other method-defined 

parameter instruments. (1) Beginning 

November 30, 2014, the reference 

installation of the method-defined fuel 

parameter for the applicable designated 

test method must have precision equal 

to 1.5 times the repeatability ‘‘r’’ of the 

method-defined fuel parameter’s 

designated test method, where ‘‘r’’ is the 

repeatability of the designated test 

method. 

(i) Olefins in gasoline see paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. 

(ii) Aromatics in gasoline see 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 

(iii) Oxygen and Oxygenate content of 

gasoline see paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section. 

(iv) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 

gasoline see paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section. 

(v) Gasoline Distillation see paragraph 

(h)(1) of this section. 

(vi) Benzene in Gasoline see 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. 

(vii) Aromatics in Diesel see 

paragraph (j)(1) of this section. 

(2) The reference installation of the 

method-defined fuel parameter for the 

applicable designated test method must 

be shown to be near the middle 

distribution of an industry monthly 

inter-laboratory crosscheck program for 

at least a period of five months using 

good laboratory practices. Specifically, 

compute the difference between the 

instrument’s average measurement of 

the fuel closest to the applicable fuel 

standard (or to the average value for the 

fuel parameter in the complex model) 

and the robust mean for that fuel 

obtained by all of the non-outlier labs in 

the monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck 

program. Standardize this difference by 

expressing it in robust standard 

deviation units. These standardized 

inter-laboratory crosscheck differences 

should be placed in a moving average 

with a minimum span of five months. 

The instrument’s moving average in 

robust standard deviation units cannot 

be outside the central 50% of the 

distribution of all laboratories that 

participated in the inter-laboratory 

crosscheck program. 

(3) The reference installation of the 

method-defined fuel parameter for the 

applicable designated test method must 

be shown to be in statistical quality 

control as specified in ASTM 

International D6299 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section) for a minimum period of five 

months using good laboratory practices. 

(l) Qualification criteria for Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) 

Method-Defined Parameter Test 

Methods. (1) Beginning November 30, 

2014, include full test method 

documentation by the Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) 

organization, including a description of 

the technology and/or instrumentation 

that makes the method functional. 

(2) Include information reported in 

the test method that demonstrates the 

test method meets the applicable 

precision information for the methoddefined fuel parameter as described in 

this section. 

(3) Include information reported in 

the test method that demonstrates the 

test method has been evaluated using 

ASTM International D6708 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (r) of this section) and 

whether the comparison is a ‘‘null’’ 

result or whether a correlation equation 

needs to be applied that predicts 

designated test method results from the 

applicable method-defined alternative 

test method. 

(4) The test methods specified at 

§§ 80.2(w) and 80.46(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), 

(c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1) and 

in use prior to May 30, 2013 are exempt 

from the requirements of paragraphs 

(l)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(m) Qualification criteria for NonVoluntary Consensus Standard Based 

(non-VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter 

Test Methods. For a non-VCSB method 

to be approved, the following 

information must be submitted to the 

Administrator by each test facility for 

each method that it wishes to have 

approved. 

(1) Beginning November 30, 2014, full 

and thorough test method 

documentation, including a description 

of the technology and/or 

instrumentation that makes the method 

functional so a person lacking 

experience with the test instrument 

would be able to replicate its results. 

(2) Information reported in the test 

method that demonstrates the test 

method meets the applicable precision 

information using good laboratory 

practices for the method-defined fuel 

parameter as described in this section. 

(3) Both the candidate methoddefined Non-VCSB test method and its 

respective designated test method must 

be tested on a range of consensus named 

fuels or locally-named reference 

materials that are typical of those 

analyzed by the facility in practice using 

good laboratory practices and must meet 

the data requirements for variability as 

required in ASTM International D6708 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (r) of this section). 

(4) The facility using the candidate 

method-defined non-VCSB test method 

must statistically establish through 

application of ASTM D6708 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (r) of this section) that the 

candidate method measures the same 

aspect of samples as applicable to its 

respective designated test method using 

good laboratory practices. 

(5) If the use of ASTM D6708 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (r) of this section) reveals that 

the candidate method-defined nonVCSB test method has sample-specific 

biases due to matrix effects that cannot 

be determined as random the method is 

disqualified. If however, it is 

determined that the candidate methoddefined non-VCSB test method can be 

qualified on a narrow circumscribed 

range of fuels while still meeting the 

data requirements for variability as 

required in ASTM International D6708 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (r) of this section) (see 

paragraph (m)(3) of this section), then 

the types of fuels on which the 

qualification was achieved and for 

which the method is to be approved 

must be specified in the candidate 

method-defined non-VCSB test method 

description. If there is any restriction on 

the scope of fuels for which the 

candidate method-defined non-VCSB 

test method is to be qualified, the 

applicant must include a discussion of 

how the facility plans to screen sample 

for conformity to the scope. If the 

candidate method-defined test method 

is found to have minimal matrix effects, 

a statement to this effect must be 

included by the applicant in its 

application. 

(6) The candidate method-defined 

non-VCSB test method precision 

qualification must be conducted in the 

form of ‘‘cross-method reproducibility’’ 

(Rcm) of the candidate method and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30009 

applicable designated test method as 

required in ASTM International D6708 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (r) of this section), where the 

Rcm must be equal to or less than 70 

percent of the published reproducibility 

of the applicable designated test method 

using good laboratory practices. 

(7) The applicant of the candidate 

method-defined non-VCSB test method 

must demonstrate through the use of 

ASTM D6708 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section) whether a correlation to 

applicable designated test method is 

necessary. If it is determined through 

the use of this practice that the 

candidate method-defined non-VCSB 

test method requires a correlation 

equation in order to predict designated 

test method results, then this correlation 

equation must be applied to the 

candidate instruments output to obtain 

measurement results for regulatory 

purposes using good laboratory 

practices. 

(8) Any additional information 

requested by the Administrator and 

necessary to render a decision as to 

approval of the test method. 

(9) Samples used for precision and 

accuracy determination must be 

retained for 90 days. 

(10) EPA approval. Within 90 days of 

the receipt of materials required to be 

submitted under paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (9) of this section, the 

Administrator shall determine whether 

the test method is approved under this 

section. 

(11) If the Administrator denies 

approval of the test method, within 90 

days of receipt of all materials required 

to be submitted in paragraphs (m)(1) 

through (9) of this section, the 

Administrator will notify the applicant 

of the reasons for not approving the 

method. If the Administrator does not 

notify the applicant within 90 days of 

receipt of the application, then the test 

method shall be deemed approved. 

(12) The Administrator may revoke 

approval of a test method under this 

section for cause, including, but not 

limited to, a determination by the 

Administrator that the approved test 

method has proved to be inadequate in 

practice. 

(13) An independent third-party 

scientific review and written report and 

verification of the information provided 

pursuant to paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(9) of this section. The report and 

verification shall be based upon a site 

visit and review of relevant documents 

and shall separately identify each item 

required by paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(9) of this section, describe how the 

independent third-party evaluated the 

accuracy of the information provided, 

state whether the independent thirdparty agrees with the information 

provided, and identify any exceptions 

between the independent third-party’s 

findings and the information provided. 

(i) The information required under 

this section to be provided by an 

independent third party must be 

conducted by both a professional 

chemist and professional statistician as 

specified in paragraph (m)(13)(i)(A) of 

this section. The verifying chemist and 

statistician must be: 

(A) For a refiner, importer, oxygenate 

producer, and oxygenate blender, a 

chemist and statistician who has 

received at least a bachelor’s degree in 

science from an accredited college in 

the United States, with professional 

work experience in the petroleum or 

oxygenate field. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(ii) To be considered an independent 

third-party under this paragraph 

(m)(13): 

(A) The third-party shall not be 

employed by the refiner, importer, 

oxygenate producer, or oxygenate 

blender, or any subsidiary or employee 

of the refiner, import facility, oxygenate 

producing facility, or oxygenate blender. 

(B) The third party shall be free from 

any interest in the refiner’s, importer’s, 

oxygenate producer’s, or oxygenate 

blender’s business. 

(C) The refiner, importer, oxygenate 

producer, or oxygenate blender shall be 

free from any interest in the thirdparty’s business. 

(D) Use of a third-party that is 

debarred, suspended, or proposed for 

debarment pursuant to the Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension 

regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the 

Debarment, Suspension and Ineligibility 

provisions of the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations, 48 CFR part 9 subpart 9.4, 

shall be deemed in noncompliance with 

the requirements of this section. 

(iii) The independent third-party shall 

retain all records pertaining to the 

verification required under this section 

for a period of five years from the date 

of creation and shall deliver such 

records to the Administrator upon 

request. 

(iv) The third-party must provide to 

EPA documentation of his or her 

qualifications as part of the scientific 

review, including proof of appropriate 

college degree. 

(14) If the Administrator finds that an 

individual test facility has provided 

false or inaccurate information under 

this section, upon notice from the 

Administrator the approval shall be 

void ab initio. 

(n) Accuracy and Precision Statistical 

Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for 

the Absolute Fuel Parameters. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, a test 

shall not be considered a test using an 

approved test method unless the 

following quality control procedures are 

performed separately for each 

instrument used to make measurements: 

(1) Accuracy SQC. Every facility shall 

conduct tests on every instrument with 

a commercially available gravimetric 

reference material, or check standard as 

defined in the ASTM International 

standard practice D6299 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section) on at least a quarterly basis 

using good laboratory practices. The 

facility must pre-treat and assess results 

from the check standard testing after at 

least 15 testing occasions as described 

in section 8.2 of this standard practice. 

The facility must construct ‘‘MR’’ and 

‘‘I’’ charts with control lines as 

described in section 8.4 and appropriate 

Annex sections of this standard 

practice. In circumstances where the 

absolute difference between the mean of 

multiple back-to-back tests of the 

standard reference material and the 

accepted reference value of the standard 

reference material is greater than 0.75 

times the published reproducibility of 

the test method must be investigated by 

the facility. Records of the standard 

reference materials measurements as 

well as any investigations into any 

exceedance of these criteria must be 

kept for a period of 5 years. 

(2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility 

shall conduct tests on every instrument 

with a quality control material as 

defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM 

International D6299 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section) either once per week or once 

per every 20 productions tests, 

whichever is more frequent. The facility 

must construct and maintain an ‘‘I’’ 

chart as described in section 7 and 

section A1.5.1 and a ‘‘MR’’ chart as 

described in section A1.5.2. Any 

violations of control limit(s) should be 

investigated by personnel of the facility 

and records kept for a period of 5 years. 

(ii) Validation of New QC Material. 

When a test facility is making a 

transition from one batch of QC material 

to the next batch of QC material, the 

facility will follow the ‘‘Q-Procedure’’ in 

Annex 1.9 of ASTM International 

standard practice D6299 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section). In following the Q-Procedure if 

the plot of results from the old and new 

QC materials on its respective chart 

shows no special-cause signals, then the 

result of the new QC material will be 

considered valid. These records must be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30010 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

kept by the facility for a period of 5 

years. 

(o) Accuracy and Precision Statistical 

Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for 

the Voluntary Consensus Standard 

Based (VCSB) Method-Defined Fuel 

Parameters. Beginning November 30, 

2014, a test shall not be considered a 

test using an approved test method 

unless the following quality control 

procedures are performed separately for 

each instrument used to make 

measurements: 

(1) Accuracy SQC. Every facility shall 

conduct tests of every instrument with 

a commercially available check standard 

as defined in the ASTM International 

standard practice D6299 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section) on at least a quarterly basis 

using good laboratory practices. The 

check standard must be an ordinary fuel 

with levels of the fuel parameter of 

interest close to either the applicable 

regulatory standard or the average level 

of use for the facility. The Accepted 

Reference Value of the check standard 

must be determined by the respective 

designated test method for the fuel 

parameter following the guidelines of 

ASTM International standard practice 

D6299. The facility must pre-treat and 

assess results from the check standard 

testing after at least 15 testing occasions 

as described in section 8.2 of this 

standard practice. The facility must 

construct ‘‘MR’’ and ‘‘I’’ charts with 

control lines as described in section 8.4 

and appropriate Annex sections of this 

standard practice. In circumstances 

where the absolute difference between 

the mean of multiple back-to-back tests 

of the standard reference material and 

the accepted reference value of the 

standard reference material is greater 

than 0.75 times the published 

reproducibility of the test method must 

be investigated by the facility. Records 

of the standard reference materials 

measurements as well as any 

investigations into any exceedance of 

these criteria must be kept for a period 

of 5 years. 

(2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility 

shall conduct tests of every instrument 

with a quality control material as 

defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM 

International D6299 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section) either once per week or once 

per every 20 productions tests, 

whichever is more frequent. The facility 

must construct and maintain an ‘‘I’’ 

chart as described in section 7 and 

section A1.5.1 and a ‘‘MR’’ chart as 

described in section A1.5.2. Any 

violations of control limit(s) should be 

investigated by personnel of the facility 

and records kept for a period of 5 years. 

(ii) Validation of New QC Material. 

When a test facility is making a 

transition from one batch of QC material 

to the next batch of QC material, the 

facility will follow the ‘‘Q-Procedure’’ in 

Annex 1.9 of ASTM International 

standard practice D6299 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section). In following the Q-Procedure if 

the plot of results from the old and new 

QC materials on its respective chart 

shows no special-cause signals, then the 

result of the new QC material will be 

considered valid. These records must be 

kept by the facility for a period of 5 

years. 

(p) Accuracy and Precision Statistical 

Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for 

the Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard 

Based (Non-VCSB) Method-Defined Fuel 

Parameters. Beginning November 30, 

2014, a test shall not be considered a 

test using an approved test method 

unless the following quality control 

procedures are performed separately for 

each instrument used to make 

measurements: 

(1) Accuracy SQC for Non-VCSB 

Method-Defined test methods with 

minimal matrix effects. Every facility 

shall conduct tests on every instrument 

with a commercially available check 

standard as defined in the ASTM 

International standard practice D6299 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (r) of this section) on at least 

a quarterly basis using good laboratory 

practices. The check standard must be 

an ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel 

parameter of interest close to either the 

applicable regulatory standard or the 

average level of use for the facility. The 

Accepted Reference Value of the check 

standard must be determined by the 

respective designated test method for 

the fuel parameter following the 

guidelines of ASTM International 

standard practice D6299. The facility 

must pre-treat and assess results from 

the check standard testing after at least 

15 testing occasions as described in 

section 8.2 of this standard practice. The 

facility must construct ‘‘MR’’ and ‘‘I’’ 

charts with control lines as described in 

section 8.4 and appropriate Annex 

sections of this standard practice. In 

circumstances where the absolute 

difference between the mean of multiple 

back-to-back tests of the standard 

reference material and the accepted 

reference value of the standard reference 

material is greater than 0.75 times the 

published reproducibility of the test 

method must be investigated by the 

facility. Records of the standard 

reference materials measurements as 

well as any investigations into any 

exceedance of these criteria must be 

kept for a period of 5 years. 

(2)(i) Accuracy SQC for Non-VCSB 

Method-Defined test methods with high 

sensitivity to matrix effects. Every 

facility shall conduct tests on every 

instrument with a production fuel on at 

least a quarterly basis using good 

laboratory practices. The production 

fuel must be representative of the 

production fuels that are routinely 

analyzed by the facility. The Accepted 

Reference Value of the production fuel 

must be determined by the respective 

reference installation of the designated 

test method for the fuel parameter 

following the guidelines of ASTM 

International standard practice D6299 

(incorporated by reference, see 

paragraph (r) of this section). The 

facility must pre-treat and assess results 

from the check standard testing after at 

least 15 testing occasions as described 

in section 8.2 of this standard practice. 

The facility must construct ‘‘MR’’ and 

‘‘I’’ charts with control lines as 

described in section 8.4 and appropriate 

Annex sections of this standard 

practice. In circumstances where the 

absolute difference between the mean of 

multiple back-to-back tests of the 

standard reference material and the 

accepted reference value of the standard 

reference material is greater than 0.75 

times the published reproducibility of 

the test method must be investigated by 

the facility. Documentation on the 

identity of the reference installation and 

its control status must be maintained on 

the premises of the method-defined 

alternative test method. Records of the 

standard reference materials 

measurements as well as any 

investigations into any exceedances of 

this criterion must be kept for a period 

of 5 years. 

(ii) Each facility is required to send 

every 20th production batch of gasoline 

or diesel fuel to EPA’s laboratory, along 

with the facility’s measurement result 

used to certify the batch using the 

respective method-defined non-VCSB 

test method. The EPA retains the right 

to return such sample on a blind basis 

for a required reanalysis on the 

respective method-defined non-VCSB 

test method within 180 days upon 

receipt of such sample. 

(3)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility 

shall conduct tests on every instrument 

with a quality control material as 

defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM 

International D6299 (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section) either once per week or once 

per every 20 productions tests, 

whichever is more frequent. The facility 

must construct and maintain an ‘‘I’’ 

chart as described in section 7 and 

section A1.5.1 and a ‘‘MR’’ chart as 

described in section A1.5.2. Any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30011 

violations of control limit(s) should be 

investigated by personnel of the facility 

and records kept for a period of 5 years. 

(ii) Validation of New QC Material. 

When a test facility is making a 

transition from one batch of QC material 

to the next batch of QC material, the 

facility will follow the ‘‘Q-Procedure’’ in 

Annex 1.9 of ASTM International 

standard practice D6299 (incorporated 

by reference, see paragraph (r) of this 

section) using good laboratory practices. 

In following the Q-Procedure if the plot 

of results from the old and new QC 

materials on its respective chart shows 

no special-cause signals, then the result 

of the new QC material will be 

considered valid. These records must be 

kept by the facility for a period of 5 

years. 

(q) Record retention requirements for 

the test methods approved under this 

subpart. (1) Each individual test facility 

must retain records related to the 

establishment of accuracy and precision 

values, all test method documentation, 

and any statistical quality control 

testing and analysis under this section 

using good laboratory practices for a 

period for five years. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(r) Materials incorporated by 

reference. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of the documents listed in this 

section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR 51. Anyone may inspect 

copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Room B102, EPA West Building, 

Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA 

docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0135, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

The telephone number for the Air 

Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1742. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov//federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. For further 

information on these test methods, 

please contact the Environmental 

Protection Agency at 734–214–4582. 

(1) ASTM International material. 

Anyone may purchase copies of these 

materials from the ASTM International 

(ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959, or by 

contacting ASTM International 

customer service at 10–832–9585, or by 

contacting the email address of 

service@astm.org from the ASTM 

International Web site of http:// 

www.astm.org. 

(i) ASTM International standard 

practice D6708–08 (‘‘ASTM 

International D6708’’), ‘‘Standard 

Practice for Statistical Assessment and 

Improvement of Expected Agreement 

Between Two Test Methods that Purport 

to Measure the Same Property of a 

Material’’, approved December 15, 2008. 

(ii) ASTM International standard 

practice D6299–10ε1 (‘‘ASTM 

International D6708’’), ‘‘Standard 

Practice for Applying Statistical Quality 

Assurance and Control Charting 

Techniques to Evaluate Analytical 

Measurement System Performance’’, 

approved March 1, 2010. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 7c. Section 80.65 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d)(1). 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(2)(iv). 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d)(2)(v)(E). 

■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(3). 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) 

introductory text, (e)(1)(i), and (e)(2) 

introductory text. 

■ f. Adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4). 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and 

(f)(3)(iii)(A). 

■ h. Adding a new paragraph (f)(5). 

■ i. Revising paragraph (i) introductory 

text. 

■ j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and 

(i)(1)(iii). 

■ k. Revising paragraphs (i)(4)(ii) 

introductory text and (i)(4)(ii)(A). 

■ l. Revising paragraph (i)(6)(i). 

§ 80.65 General requirements for refiners 

and importers. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) All gasoline produced or imported 

shall be properly designated as 

reformulated gasoline, conventional 

gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB. 

(2) * * * 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) * * * 

(E) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(3) Every batch of reformulated 

gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, 

or CBOB produced or imported at each 

refinery or import facility shall be 

assigned a number (the ‘‘batch 

number’’), consisting of the EPAassigned refiner or importer registration 

number, the EPA facility registration 

number, the last two digits of the year 

in which the batch was produced, and 

a unique number for the batch, 

beginning with the number one for the 

first batch produced or imported each 

calendar year and each subsequent 

batch during the calendar year being 

assigned the next sequential number 

(e.g., 4321–54321–95–000001, 4321– 

543321–95–000002, etc.). 

(e) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(e)(3) and (4) of this section, each refiner 

or importer shall, for each batch of 

reformulated gasoline or RBOB 

produced or imported, determine the 

volume and the value of each of the 

properties specified in paragraph 

(e)(2)(i) of this section, except that the 

value for RVP must be determined only 

in the case of reformulated gasoline or 

RBOB that is VOC-controlled. These 

determinations shall: 

(i) Be based on a representative 

sample of the reformulated gasoline or 

RBOB that is analyzed using the 

methodologies specified in § 80.46 

through November 29, 2014, or, 

beginning November 30, 2014, in 

§ 80.47; 

* * * * * 

(2) In the event that the value of any 

of these properties is determined by the 

refiner or importer and by an 

independent laboratory in conformance 

with the requirements of paragraph (f) of 

this section: 

* * * * * 

(3) Beginning January 1, 2013, API 

Gravity is not required to be measured 

or reported for the purpose of batch 

certification. 

(4) For the purposes of meeting the 

requirements of this paragraph (e) for 

any winter fuel parameter except 

benzene, oxygenate, RVP and sulfur, 

any refiner or importer may, prior to 

analysis, combine samples of gasoline 

collected from more than one batch of 

gasoline or blendstock (‘‘composite 

sample’’), and treat such composite 

sample as one batch of gasoline or 

blendstock provided that the refiner or 

importer meets all of the following 

requirements: 

(i) Samples must be from a single 

reporting year, must be limited to nonVOC gasoline, and must be of a single 

grade of gasoline or of a single type of 

batch-produced blendstock. 

(ii) Combines samples of gasoline that 

are produced or imported over a period 

no longer than one month. Blendstock 

samples of a single blendstock type 

obtained from continuous processes 

over a calendar month may be mixed 

together to form one blendstock sample 

and the sample subsequently analyzed 

for the required fuel parameters. 

(iii)(A) Samples shall have been 

collected and stored using good 

laboratory practices in order to prevent 

change in product composition with 

regard to baseline properties and to 

minimize loss of volatile fractions of the 

sample. 

(B) Properties of the retained samples 

shall be adjusted for loss of butane by 

comparing the RVP measured 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30012 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

immediately after blending with the 

RVP determined at the time that the 

supplemental properties are measured. 

(C) The volume of each batch or 

shipment sampled, to the nearest gallon, 

shall have been noted and the sum of 

the volumes, in gallons, calculated. 

(iv) For each batch or shipment 

sampled, the ratio of its volume to the 

total volume determined in paragraph 

(e)(4)(iii)(C) of this section shall be 

determined to three decimal places. 

This shall be the volumetric fraction of 

the shipment in the mixture. 

(v) The total minimum volume 

required to perform duplicate analyses 

to obtain values of all of the required 

fuel parameters shall be determined. 

(vi) The volumetric fraction 

determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of 

this section for each batch or shipment 

shall be multiplied by the value 

determined in paragraph (e)(4)(v) of this 

section. 

(vii) The resulting value determined 

in paragraph (e)(4)(vi) of this section for 

each batch or shipment shall be the 

volume of each batch or shipment’s 

sample to be added to the mixture. This 

volume shall be determined to the 

nearest milliliter. 

(viii) The appropriate volumes of each 

shipment’s sample shall be thoroughly 

mixed and the solution analyzed per the 

methods required under § 80.46 or 

§ 80.47, as applicable. 

(ix) Uses the total of the volumes of 

the batches of gasoline that comprise the 

composite sample, and the results of the 

analyses of the composite sample, for 

purposes of compliance calculations 

under this paragraph (e). 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Option 1. The refiner or importer 

shall, for each batch of reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB that is produced or 

imported, have the value for each 

property specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) 

of this section determined by an 

independent laboratory that collects and 

analyzes a representative sample from 

the batch using the methodologies 

specified in § 80.46 through November 

29, 2014, and the methodologies 

specified in § 80.47 beginning 

November 30, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(A) A report for the period January 

through March shall be submitted by 

June 1; a report for the period April 

through June shall be submitted 

bySeptember 1; a report for the period 

July through September shall be 

submitted by December 1; and a report 

for the period October through 

December shall be submitted by March 

31. Beginning, January 1, 2014, a single 

annual report for calendar year January 

through December may be submitted by 

the following March 31. 

* * * * * 

(5) A refiner or importer may 

designate one alternate independent 

laboratory, to be used only when the 

designated independent laboratory per 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section is 

unavailable and cannot perform testing 

required for compliance. 

(i) The alternate independent 

laboratory must meet all provisions of 

this section for designated independent 

laboratories. 

(ii) An alternate independent 

laboratory may not be used to select a 

preferred test result. The alternate 

laboratory may only be used on those 

occasions where operational necessity 

causes a need for it (e.g., the primary 

designated laboratory is closed, the 

apparatus for certain test methods are 

down, or independent laboratory 

personnel are not available). 

* * * * * 

(i) Exclusion of previously certified 

gasoline. Any refiner who uses 

previously certified reformulated 

gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, 

or CBOB to produce reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB must exclude the 

previously certified gasoline for 

purposes of demonstrating compliance 

with the standards under § 80.41. This 

exclusion must be accomplished by the 

refiner as follows: 

(1) * * * 

(ii) In the case of previously certified 

reformulated gasoline or RBOB 

determine the emissions performances 

for toxics and NOX, except as provided 

in § 80.41(e) and (f), and VOC for VOCcontrolled gasoline, and the 

designations for VOC control. 

(iii) In the case of previously certified 

conventional gasoline or CBOB, 

determine the exhaust toxics and NOX

emissions performances, except as 

provided in § 80.101(c)(3) and (4). 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Where a refiner uses previously 

certified conventional gasoline or CBOB 

to produce reformulated gasoline or 

RBOB: 

(A) The refiner must include the 

volume and properties of any batch of 

previously certified conventional 

gasoline or CBOB as a negative batch in 

the refiner’s anti-dumping compliance 

calculations under § 80.101(g) for the 

refinery, or where applicable, the 

refiner’s aggregation under § 80.101(h); 

and 

* * * * * 

(6)(i) Any refiner may use the 

procedures specified in this paragraph 

(i) to combine previously certified 

conventional gasoline or CBOB with 

reformulated gasoline or RBOB, to 

reclassify conventional gasoline or 

CBOB into reformulated gasoline or 

RBOB, or to change the designations of 

reformulated gasoline or RBOB with 

regard to VOC control. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

■ 8. Section 80.75 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iv). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B). 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(D). 

■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ix)(F). 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b). 

■ f. Revising paragraph (c)(1). 

■ g. Adding paragraph (d) introductory 

text. 

■ h. Revising paragraph (d)(1). 

■ i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii). 

■ j. Adding paragraph (e) introductory 

text. 

■ k. Revising paragraph (e)(1). 

■ l. Adding paragraph (g) introductory 

text. 

■ m. Adding paragraph (h) introductory 

text. 

■ n. Revising paragraph (i). 

■ o. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(k). 

■ p. Revising paragraph (l). 

■ q. Revising paragraph (o) introductory 

text. 

§ 80.75 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The first quarterly report shall 

include information for reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB produced or imported 

from January 1 through March 31, and 

shall be submitted by June 1 of each 

year; 

(ii) The second quarterly report shall 

include information for reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB produced or imported 

from April 1 through June 30, and shall 

be submitted by September 1 of each 

year; 

(iii) The third quarterly report shall 

include information for reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB produced or imported 

from July 1 through September 30, and 

shall be submitted by December 1 of 

each year; and 

(iv) The fourth quarterly report shall 

include information for reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB produced or imported 

from October 1 through December 31, 

and shall be submitted by March 31 of 

each year. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30013 

(2) * * * 

(v) * * * 

(B) The properties, along with 

identification of the test method used to 

measure those properties, pursuant to 

§§ 80.65 and 80.66; 

* * * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(D) The volume, properties (along 

with identification of the test method 

used to measure those properties), and 

designation of the batch. 

(ix) * * * 

(F) The properties of the butane batch, 

along with the identification of the test 

method used to measure those 

properties, specified by the butane 

supplier, or the properties specified in 

§ 80.82(c) or (d), as appropriate; 

* * * * * 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) * * * 

(1) Any refiner or importer that 

produced or imported any reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB under the complex 

model that was to meet the VOC 

emissions performance standards on 

average (‘‘averaged reformulated 

gasoline’’) shall submit to the 

Administrator, with the third quarterly 

report, a report for each refinery or 

importer for such averaged reformulated 

gasoline produced or imported during 

the previous VOC averaging period. 

Beginning January 1, 2014, the 

information required by this paragraph 

(c) shall be submitted with the annual 

report. This information shall be 

reported separately for the following 

categories: 

* * * * * 

(d) Benzene content averaging reports. 

Pursuant to § 80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, 

refinery or importer not subject to the 

applicable standards at § 80.41(f)(1), the 

report required by this paragraph (d) is 

not required beginning January 1, 2014, 

or beginning January 1, 2016 for all 

other refiners. 

(1) Any refiner or importer that 

produced or imported any reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the 

benzene content standards on average 

(‘‘averaged reformulated gasoline’’) shall 

submit to the Administrator, with the 

fourth quarterly report, a report for each 

refinery or importer for such averaged 

reformulated gasoline that was 

produced or imported during the 

previous toxics averaging period. 

Beginning January 1, 2014, the 

information required by this paragraph 

(d) shall be submitted with the annual 

report. 

(2) * * * 

(iii) The actual total content of 

benzene, along with identification of the 

test methods used to measure the 

content of benzene; 

* * * * * 

(e) Toxics emissions performance 

averaging reports. Pursuant to 

§ 80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or 

importer not subject to the applicable 

standards at § 80.41(f)(1), the report 

required by this paragraph (e) is not 

required beginning January 1, 2014, or 

beginning January 1, 2016 for all other 

refiners. 

(1) Any refiner or importer that 

produced or imported any reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the 

toxics emissions performance standards 

on average (‘‘averaged reformulated 

gasoline’’) shall submit to the 

Administrator, with the fourth quarterly 

report, a report for each refinery or 

importer for such averaged reformulated 

gasoline that was produced or imported 

during the previous toxics averaging 

period. Beginning January 1, 2014, the 

information required by this paragraph 

(e) shall be submitted with the annual 

report. 

* * * * * 

(g) NOX emissions performance 

averaging reports. Pursuant to 

§ 80.41(f)(2), for any refiner, refinery or 

importer not subject to the applicable 

standards at § 80.41(f)(1), the report 

required by this paragraph (g) is not 

required beginning January 1, 2012. 

* * * * * 

(h) Credit transfer reports. As an 

additional part of the fourth quarterly 

report required by this section, any 

refiner or importer shall, for each 

refinery or importer, supply the 

information specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (3) of this section for any 

benzene credits that are transferred from 

or to another refinery or importer. 

Beginning January 1, 2014, the 

information required by this paragraph 

(h) shall be submitted with the annual 

report. 

* * * * * 

(i) Covered areas of gasoline use 

report. Any refiner that produced any 

reformulated gasoline that was to meet 

any reformulated gasoline standard on 

average (‘‘averaged reformulated 

gasoline’’) shall, for each refinery at 

which such averaged reformulated 

gasoline was produced, submit to the 

Administrator, with the fourth quarterly 

report, a report that contains the 

identity of each covered area that was 

supplied with any averaged 

reformulated gasoline produced at each 

refinery during the previous year. 

Beginning January 1, 2014, the 

information required by this paragraph 

(i) shall be submitted with the annual 

report. 

* * * * * 

(k) [Reserved] 

(l) Reports for per-gallon compliance 

gasoline. In the case of reformulated 

gasoline or RBOB for which compliance 

with each of the standards set forth in 

§ 80.41 is achieved on a per-gallon basis, 

the refiner or importer shall submit to 

the Administrator, by March 1 of each 

year, a report of the volume of each 

designated reformulated gasoline or 

RBOB produced or imported during the 

previous calendar year for which 

compliance is achieved on a per-gallon 

basis, and a statement that each gallon 

of this reformulated gasoline or RBOB 

met the applicable standards. 

* * * * * 

(o) Additional reporting requirements 

for refiners that blend butane with 

reformulated gasoline or RBOB. For 

refiners that blend any butane with 

reformulated gasoline or RBOB under 

§ 80.82, the refiner shall submit to the 

Administrator, by March 1 of each year, 

a report for the refinery which includes 

the following information for the 

previous calendar year: 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 80.82 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text. 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a) through (d). 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e)(1). 

■ d. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j). 

§ 80.82 Butane blending. 

A refiner for any refinery that 

produces gasoline by blending butane 

with previously certified gasoline may 

meet the sampling and testing 

requirements for this part as follows: 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(e) and (i) of this section, any refinery 

that blends butane for which the 

refinery has documents from the butane 

supplier which demonstrate that the 

butane is commercial grade, as defined 

in paragraph (c) of this section, may 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards in this part based on the 

properties specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section, or the properties specified 

by the butane supplier. 

(b)(1) Except as provided in 

paragraphs (e) and (i) of this section, 

any refiner that blends butane for which 

the refiner has documents from the 

butane supplier which demonstrate that 

the butane is non-commercial grade, as 

defined in paragraph (d) of this section, 

may demonstrate compliance with the 

standards in this part based on the 

properties specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, or the properties specified 

by the butane supplier, provided that 

the refinery: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30014 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Conducts a quality assurance 

program of sampling and testing the 

butane obtained from each separate 

butane supplier which demonstrates 

that the butane has the properties 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section; and 

(ii) The frequency of sampling and 

testing for the butane received from 

each butane supplier must be one 

sample for every 500,000 gallons of 

butane received, or one sample every 

three months, whichever is more 

frequent. 

(2) Where test results indicate the 

butane does not meet the requirements 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the 

refiner may: 

(i) Blend the butane with 

conventional gasoline, or reformulated 

gasoline that has been downgraded to 

conventional gasoline, provided that 

any applicable equivalent emissions 

performance standards of the butane 

batch, as determined using the 

provisions in § 80.101(g)(3), meets the 

refinery’s standards under § 80.101 and 

the refiner meets all of the standards 

and requirements applicable to refiners 

of conventional gasoline under this part; 

(ii) Blend the butane with 

reformulated gasoline or RBOB, 

provided that the final batch of butane 

blended with reformulated gasoline or 

RBOB meets the per-gallon standards in 

§ 80.41, as determined using the test 

methods in § 80.46. 

(c) Commercial grade butane is 

defined as butane for which test results 

demonstrate that the butane is 95% pure 

and has all of the following properties: 

(1) Olefins ≤1.0 vol%. 

(2) Aromatics ≤2.0 vol%. 

(3) Benzene ≤0.03 vol%. 

(4) Sulfur ≤30 ppm from January 1, 

2005 through December 31, 2016; ≤10 

ppm beginning January 1, 2017 and 

thereafter. 

(d) Non-commercial grade butane is 

defined as butane for which test results 

demonstrate the butane has all of the 

following properties: 

(1) Olefins ≤10.0 vol%. 

(2) Aromatics ≤2.0 vol%. 

(3) Benzene ≤0.03 vol%. 

(4) Sulfur ≤30 ppm beginning January 

1, 2005 through December 31, 2016; ≤10 

ppm beginning January 1, 2017 and 

thereafter. 

(e)(1) When butane is blended with 

conventional gasoline under this section 

during the period May 1 through 

September 15, the refiner shall 

demonstrate through sampling and 

testing, using the test method for Reid 

vapor pressure in § 80.47, that each 

batch of conventional gasoline blended 

with butane meets the volatility 

standards specified in § 80.27. 

* * * * * 

(i) A refiner who only blends 

commercial grade or non-commercial 

grade butane into PCG may meet the 

sampling and testing requirements of 

subpart O of this part by meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (a) through 

(f) and (h)(3) of this section and all of 

the following additional requirements: 

(1) The per-gallon sulfur content of 

every batch of butane must not exceed 

10 ppm. 

(2) The refiner obtains test results 

from the butane supplier that 

demonstrate that the sulfur content of 

each load does not exceed the 

applicable per-gallon sulfur standard 

under paragraph (i)(1) of this section 

through test results of samples of butane 

contained in the storage tank from 

which the butane blender is supplied. 

(i) Sampling and testing for the sulfur 

content of the butane by the supplier 

must be subsequent to each receipt of 

butane into the supplier’s storage tank 

or the sampling and testing must be 

immediately before transfer of butane to 

the butane blender. 

(ii) The testing must be performed in 

accord with the provisions of § 80.47. 

(iii) The butane blender must obtain 

a copy of the butane supplier’s test 

results at the time of each transfer of 

butane to the butane blender. 

(3) The sulfur content and volume of 

each batch of gasoline produced is that 

of the butane that the refiner blends into 

PCG for the purposes of calculating 

compliance with the 10 ppm per-gallon 

sulfur standard. 

(4) The requirements of paragraphs 

(i)(1) through (3) of this section apply 

regardless of whether the butane is 

commercial grade or noncommercial 

grade. 

(5) The quality assurance testing 

requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section applies regardless of whether 

the butane is commercial grade or 

noncommercial grade. 

(6) If any of the requirements of this 

paragraph (i) are not met, in whole or 

in part for any butane blended into 

gasoline, that butane is deemed in 

violation of the gasoline standards in 

§ 80.1603(a). 

(j) The PCG procedures of § 80.1640 

may be used to meet the sampling and 

testing requirements of subpart O of this 

part. 

■ 10. Section 80.101 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C). 

■ c. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(C). 

§ 80.101 Standards applicable to refiners 

and importers. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i)(A) Through November 29, 2014, 

determine the value of each of the 

properties required for determining 

compliance with the standards that are 

applicable to the refiner or importer, by 

collecting and analyzing a 

representative sample of gasoline or 

blendstock from the batch, using 

methodologies specified in § 80.46; 

beginning November 30, 2014, 

determine the value of each of the 

properties required for determining 

compliance with the standards that are 

applicable to the refiner or importer, by 

collecting and analyzing a 

representative sample of gasoline or 

blendstock from the batch, using 

methodologies specified in § 80.47; 

except that 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) The testing must be for each 

applicable parameter specified under 

§ 80.65(e)(2)(i), using either of the 

following: 

(1) The test methods specified under 

§ 80.46, through November 29, 2014. 

(2) The test methods specified under 

§ 80.47, beginning November 30, 2014. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) The testing must be for each 

applicable parameter specified under 

§ 80.65(e)(2)(i), using the test methods 

specified under § 80.46 through 

November 29, 2014, or under § 80.47 

beginning November 30, 2014. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

■ 11. Section 80.105 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(v). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi)(D). 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(F) 

and (a)(5)(vii)(G). 

■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iii). 

■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(2). 

§ 80.105 Reporting requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(v) The properties, along with 

identification of the test method used to 

measure those properties, pursuant to 

§ 80.101(i); 

(vi) * * * 

(D) The volume, properties, along 

with identification of the test method 

used to measure those properties, and 

designation of the batch; 

(vii) * * * 

(F) The properties of the butane batch 

specified by the butane supplier, along 

with identification of the test method 

used to measure those properties of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30015 

butane, or the properties specified in 

§ 80.82(c) or (d), as appropriate. 

(G) Where butane is blended with 

conventional gasoline during the period 

May 1 through September 15, the Reid 

vapor pressure, along with 

identification of the test method used to 

measure Reid vapor pressure using the 

appropriate test method at § 80.46 

through November 29,2014, and at 

§ 80.47 beginning November 30, 2014; 

and 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(iii) A statement that the gasoline 

produced using butane meets all 

applicable downstream standards that 

apply to conventional gasoline under 

subpart E of this part, along with the test 

methods used to determine compliance 

with the downstream standards that 

apply to conventional gasoline under 

subpart E of this part; and 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 

each year for the prior calendar year 

averaging period; and 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 80.161 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(2) 

and adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(3). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b)(2) 

introductory text. 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(C), 

(b)(3)(v), and (b)(3)(viii). 

■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(1). 

§ 80.161 Detergent additive certification 

program. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) In the case of the alternative 

national generic certification option 

pursuant to § 80.163(a)(1)(iii), the 

minimum recommended concentration 

must equal or exceed the amount mixed 

into the associated test fuel specified in 

§ 80.177, which was shown to satisfy 

the fuel injector deposit control and 

intake valve deposit control 

performance tests and standards 

specified in § 80.176. 

(3) In the case of any other detergent 

certification option, the minimum 

recommended concentration must equal 

or exceed the amount mixed into the 

associated test fuel specified in § 80.164, 

which was shown to satisfy the fuel 

injector deposit control and intake valve 

deposit control performance tests and 

standards specified in § 80.165. 

* * * * * 

(2) The detergent additive 

manufacturer (or other certifying party) 

must submit to EPA a sample of the 

actual detergent additive package which 

was used in the certification test fuels 

specified in § 80.164 or § 80.177 or, if 

such sample is not available, then a 

sample which has the same composition 

as the package used in certification 

testing. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Complete documentation of the 

test fuel formulation, IVD demonstration 

procedures, fuel injector deposit 

demonstration procedure if applicable, 

detergent performance test procedures, 

and test results are available for EPA’s 

inspection upon request. 

* * * * * 

(v) In the case of a national or PADD 

certification (pursuant to § 80.163(a)(1), 

(a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or (b)) for which the 

test fuel was specially formulated from 

refinery blend stocks, the results of the 

IVD demonstration test, pursuant to 

§ 80.164(b)(3). In the case of an 

alternative national generic certification 

(pursuant to § 80.163(a)(1)(iii)), the 

results of the IVD demonstration test 

and fuel injector deposit demonstration 

test (pursuant to § 80.177). 

* * * * * 

(viii) The test concentration(s) of the 

subject detergent additive in each test 

fuel, and the corresponding test results 

(percent flow restriction demonstrated 

in the fuel injector test and milligrams 

of deposit per valve demonstrated in the 

IVD test). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) If a detergent blender possesses 

deposit control performance test results 

as specified in § 80.165, § 80.166, or 

§ 80.176 which show that the minimum 

treat rate recommended by the 

manufacturer of a detergent additive 

product exceeds the amount of that 

detergent actually required for effective 

deposit control, then, upon informing 

EPA in writing of these circumstances, 

the detergent blender may use the 

detergent at the lower concentration 

substantiated by these test results. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 80.163 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 80.163 Detergent certification options. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Alternative national generic 

certification option. To be certified 

under this option, a candidate detergent 

must meet the deposit control 

performance test requirements and 

standards specified in § 80.176 using 

test fuels that conform to the 

requirements in § 80.177. A detergent 

certified under this option is eligible to 

be used at a conforming LAC in any 

grade of gasoline, with or without an 

oxygenate component. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 80.164 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 80.164 Certification test fuels. 

(a) General requirements. This section 

provides specifications for the test fuels 

required in conjunction with the 

certification options described in 

§ 80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (b) 

through (d). For each such certification 

option, the associated test fuel must 

meet or exceed the levels of four basic 

fuel parameters (aromatics, fuel sulfur, 

olefins, and T–90) prescribed here and 

may also contain specified oxygenate 

compounds. In addition, pursuant to 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, some 

fuels must undergo an IVD 

demonstration test before they are 

eligible to be used as test fuels under 

this certification program. Test fuel 

characteristics must be reported to EPA 

in the detergent certification letter 

required pursuant to § 80.161(b)(3). The 

specifications for the test fuels required 

in conjunction with the alternative 

national generic certification option in 

§ 80.163(a)(1)(iii) are contained in 

§ 80.177. 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Section 80.165 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.165 Certification test procedures and 

standards. 

This section specifies the deposit 

control test requirements and 

performance standards which must be 

met in order to certify detergent 

additives for use in unleaded gasoline, 

pursuant to § 80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3). 

These standards must be met in the 

context of the specific test procedures 

identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section, except as provided in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The testing 

must be conducted and the performance 

standards met when the subject 

detergent additive is mixed in a test fuel 

meeting all relevant requirements of 

§ 80.164, including the deposit-forming 

tendency demonstration specified in 

§ 80.164(b)(3), if applicable. Complete 

test documentation must be submitted 

by the certifying party within 30 days of 

receipt of a written request from EPA for 

such records. The certification test 

procedures and standards associated 

with the alternative national generic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30016 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

certification option in § 80.163(a)(1)(iii) 

are contained in § 80.176. 

(a) Fuel injector deposit control 

testing. The required test fuel must 

produce no more than 5% flow 

restriction in any one injector when 

tested in accordance with ASTM D 

5598–94, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Evaluating Unleaded Automotive SparkIgnition Engine Fuel for Electronic Port 

Fuel Injector Fouling,’’ 1994, which is 

incorporated by reference pursuant to 

§ 80.178. At the option of the certifier, 

fuel injector flow may be measured at 

intervals during the 10,000 mile test 

cycle described in ASTM D 5598–94, in 

addition to the flow measurements 

required at the completion of the test 

cycle, but not more than every 1,000 

miles. 

(b) Intake valve deposit control 

testing. The required test fuel must 

produce the accumulation of less than 

100 mg of intake valve deposits on 

average when tested in accordance with 

ASTM D 5500–94, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Vehicle Evaluation of 

Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition 

Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit 

Formation,’’ 1994, which is 

incorporated by reference pursuant to 

§ 80.178. 

(c) If conducted using test fuels 

meeting all relevant requirements of 

§ 80.164, and completed prior to 

September 3, 1996, then the PFID and 

IVD control test procedures required for 

detergent certification in California 

(specified in section 2257 of Title 13, 

California Code of Regulations) will also 

be considered acceptable. California Air 

Resources Board, ‘‘Test Method for 

Evaluating Port Fuel Injector (PFI) 

Deposits in Vehicle Engines’’, March 1, 

1991, and California Air Resources 

Board, ‘‘BMW—10,000 Miles Intake 

Valve Test Procedure’’, March 1, 1991, 

are incorporated by reference pursuant 

to § 80.178. 

■ 16. Section 80.167 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 80.167 Confirmatory testing. 

* * * * * 

(a) Confirmatory testing conducted to 

evaluate the validity of detergent 

certifications under the national, PADD, 

or fuel-specific options under 

§ 80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (b) 

through (d) will generally entail a single 

vehicle test using the procedures 

detailed in § 80.165. The test fuel(s) 

used in conducting such confirmatory 

certification testing will contain the 

specified fuel parameters at or below the 

minimum levels specified in § 80.164, 

and will otherwise conform to the 

applicable certification test fuel 

specifications therein. Confirmatory 

testing conducted to evaluate the 

validity of detergent certifications under 

the alternative national generic 

certification option in § 80.163(a)(1)(iii) 

will generally entail a single test using 

the procedures detailed in § 80.177. The 

test fuel(s) used in conducting such 

confirmatory certification testing will 

contain the specified fuel parameters at 

or below the minimum levels specified 

in § 80.177, and will otherwise conform 

to the applicable certification test fuel 

specifications therein. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. A new § 80.175 is added to subpart 

G and reserved as follows: 

§ 80.175 [Reserved] 

■ 18. A new § 80.176 is added to subpart 

G to read as follows: 

§ 80.176 Alternative certification test 

procedures and standards. 

This section specifies the deposit 

control test requirements and 

performance standards which must be 

met in order to certify detergent 

additives for use in unleaded gasoline 

pursuant to § 80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2). 

These standards must be met in the 

context of the specific test procedures 

identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. Testing must be conducted 

and the performance standards met 

when the subject detergent additive is 

mixed in a test fuels meeting all relevant 

requirements of § 80.177. Complete test 

documentation must be submitted by 

the certifying party within 30 days of 

receipt of a written request from EPA for 

such records. 

(a) Fuel injector deposit control 

testing. The required test fuel must 

produce no more than one inoperative 

injector when tested in accordance with 

the fuel injector deposit test procedure 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Intake valve deposit control 

testing. The required test fuel must 

produce the accumulation of less than 

50 mg of intake valve deposits on 

average when tested in accordance with 

ASTM D6201—04(2009), ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Dynamometer 

Evaluation of Unleaded Spark-Ignition 

Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit 

Formation’’, which is incorporated by 

reference pursuant to § 80.178. 

(1) Tests conducted for the intake 

valve deposit demonstration test 

pursuant to § 80.177(b)(1)(iv) and to 

demonstrate compliance with the intake 

valve deposit control standards in this 

section must be conducted using the 

same engine block and cylinder head. 

(2) All results must be derived from 

operationally valid tests in accordance 

with the test validation criteria of ASTM 

D 6201—04(2009). 

(3) Test results shall be reported for 

individual intake valves and as an 

average of all intake valves. 

(c) Fuel injector deposit test 

procedure—(1) Summary of Test 

Procedure. After flushing the vehicle 

fuel system with the fuel to be tested 

and installing new injectors, an 

automatic starter control system starts 

the vehicle and lets it idle for five 

minutes. The engine is then shut off and 

allowed to soak for 25 minutes. This 

cycle is repeated for a total of 192 cycles 

(96 hours). During this time, the engine 

is kept at operating temperature with 

block heaters. After the 96 hours of 

start/soak cycles, the engine is allowed 

to hot-soak for 48 hours, during which 

time the engine is not started but is 

maintained at operating temperature. At 

the end of the 48-hour hot soak, the 

block heaters are turned off and the 

engine is allowed to cool naturally to 

room temperature. At the end of this 48- 

hour ambient temperature soak, an 

injector balance test is conducted to 

determine whether any poppet nozzles 

are stuck closed. 

(2) Facilities and Equipment—(i) 

Location. A temperature-controlled 

garage or large room is needed. A 

dynamometer is not needed, since this 

test is an idle test. The room 

temperature shall be maintained in the 

range of 68–75 °F. The room shall be 

equipped with an exhaust system that 

connects to the vehicle tail pipe to 

remove the exhaust gases from the 

building. It is recommended that an 

interlock be provided so that if the 

building exhaust system fails, the 

vehicle test will shut down. 

(ii) Electrical Power. Two 110-volt, 

15-amp circuits are needed (20-amp 

circuits are recommended) to operate 

the four block heaters and a battery 

charger. 

(iii) Fuel Drain Facility. A facility is 

required to drain the fuel from the 

vehicle between tests. The fuel is 

drained from the service port on the fuel 

rail, near the back of the engine. A 

commercial cart equipped with a tank 

and a suction pump is recommended for 

this operation. 

(iv) Vehicle. A Chevrolet Astro or 

GMC Safari van, model year 1998–2001, 

shall be used for the test. Either twowheel drive or all-wheel drive is 

satisfactory, although the former allows 

easier installation of the block heaters. 

(v) Injectors. New injectors, General 

Motors part number 17091432, shall be 

used for each test. 

(vi) Block Heaters. Four block heaters, 

General Motors part number 12371293, 

are needed for each vehicle. Two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30017 

heaters shall be installed on each side 

of the engine, in the freeze plug 

locations. 

(vii) Battery Charger. Because of the 

large number of starts and the very short 

engine running time, a battery charger is 

needed. It is recommended that the 

charger be installed permanently on the 

vehicle and remain plugged in while the 

test is in progress. 

(viii) Starter Controller. A system is 

needed to start the engine automatically 

and then shut it off after exactly five 

minutes of running. A commercial aftermarket remote starting system 

connected to a timer or computer can be 

used, or a one-of-a-kind system can be 

designed and built. 

(ix) Tech 2 Analyzer. A General 

Motors Tech 2 analyzer, part number 

GM3000094, available from Kent-Moore, 

shall be used to conduct the injector 

balance test. 

(x) Fuel Pressure Gauge. A fuel 

pressure gauge capable of measuring 

fuel system pressure to the nearest 1 psi 

over the range of 45 to 65 psi, shall be 

used with the Tech 2 analyzer when 

conducting the injector balance test. A 

pressure transducer shall not be used. 

(xi) Gaskets. The upper intake 

manifold gasket and injector body 

gasket will need to be replaced from 

time to time as they crack, tear, or wear 

out from frequent handling during 

injector replacement. 

(3) Initial Vehicle Preparation—(i) 

Diagnostics. To help determine whether 

a vehicle is satisfactory for use in this 

injector test procedure, a thorough 

inspection and engine diagnostic test 

shall be conducted as described in the 

service manual. Check the cooling 

system to be sure the coolant looks 

clean and there are no signs of rust. 

(ii) Block Heaters. Install four electric 

block heaters, General Motors part 

number 12371293, in the coolant 

passages of the engine block, two on 

each side of the block. The heaters will 

be plugged into a heater control unit. 

Two of the heaters will remain on at all 

times during the first 144 hours of the 

injector fouling test, while the other two 

heaters will be turned on and off by the 

controller as needed to maintain an 

engine temperature of about 100–102°C 

during the soak periods of the test. (The 

temperature will drop while the engine 

is running, as the coolant from the 

radiator circulates through the engine. 

The temperature should recover to 100– 

102°C within about 20 minutes after the 

engine shuts off.) 

(iii) Thermocouples. Install a 1⁄16-inch 

Type K thermocouple in a threaded bolt 

hole on the rear of the right cylinder 

head. This thermocouple provides the 

feedback signal to the controller to turn 

two block heaters on and off. Install 

another thermocouple in the other hole 

near the first thermocouple. This second 

thermocouple provides a signal to an 

over-temperature safety shut-off on the 

heater controller. If the engine 

temperature reaches the set point (110°C 

recommended), the heater controller 

will signal the starter controller to shut 

down the test. 

(iv) Fuel System Flush. Drain the fuel 

from the fuel system through the service 

port on the fuel rail at the back of the 

engine. Refuel with a non-detergent 

gasoline containing between 5 and 10 

percent ethanol. Drive the vehicle for 

approximately 100 miles to thoroughly 

expose all parts of the fuel system to the 

fuel. The fuel pump and fuel filters 

should not be replaced unless there is 

a problem with them or if the vehicle 

history suggests that replacement would 

be prudent. If replacement is necessary, 

the new parts should first be 

conditioned by recirculating a 10% 

ethanol-gasoline blend (without deposit 

control additive) through them for one 

week. 

(v) Oil Change. Change the engine oil 

and oil filter, using oil that meets the 

manufacturer’s recommended service 

classification and viscosity grade. 

(vi) Battery Charger. Install a battery 

charger in the vehicle so that it can be 

plugged in during the test and keep the 

battery at full charge. 

(vii) Radiator. Install cardboard or 

other suitable material on the front of 

the radiator to block the flow of air 

through the radiator while the engine is 

running. This will help minimize the 

drop in coolant temperature. 

(viii) Starter Controller. Make the 

necessary changes to the vehicle 

electrical system so that the engine can 

be started and stopped automatically on 

a programmed schedule. Install a starter 

controller or computer and program it to 

do the following: 

(A) Start the engine and let it run for 

5 minutes, and then shut it off and let 

it hot-soak for 25 minutes. 

(B) Repeat the 5/25 cycle for a total of 

192 cycles. 

(C) Allow a 48-hr hot soak during 

which the engine is not run but the 

engine temperature is maintained at 

100–102°C. 

(D) Turn off the heaters for 48 hours. 

(E) Continuously count and display 

the number of cycles that have been 

completed throughout the test. 

(4) Test Procedure. The steps 

described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) though 

(vi) of this section must be performed by 

the action described in paragraph 

(c)(3)(vii) of this section so that the new 

injectors are exposed only to the new 

test fuel. 

(i) Drain the fuel from the vehicle. 

(ii) Add approximately 2 gallons of 

the fuel to be tested. 

(iii) Drive the vehicle for 

approximately 20 miles at speeds up to 

approximately 50–60 mph. 

Approximately every 5 miles, stop the 

vehicle and moderately accelerate. If the 

radiator covering is still in place, watch 

the temperature gauge during the 

driving and avoid overheating the 

engine. This step not only flushes the 

fuel system but also helps remove 

carbon (if any) from the spark plugs and 

water from the exhaust system. 

(iv) Drain the fuel from the vehicle 

and add approximately 1 to 2 gallons of 

the fuel to be tested. 

(v) Drive the vehicle for 

approximately 5 miles. Watch the 

temperature gauge and avoid 

overheating the engine. 

(vi) Drain the fuel from the vehicle 

and add approximately 10 gallons of the 

fuel to be tested. (The test consumes 

about 7.5 gallons of fuel.) 

(vii) Remove the fuel injectors and 

install new injectors. Run the engine for 

a few minutes to be sure it runs 

properly. 

(viii) Park the vehicle in the location 

where the test will be run. 

(ix) Connect the vehicle tail pipe to 

the building exhaust system. 

(x) Depending on the design of the 

starter control system, remove fuses and 

relays as necessary and connect the 

wires from the controller to the vehicle 

fuse box. Close the hood. 

(xi) Turn on the vehicle ignition 

switch and the security bypass switch if 

so equipped. 

(xii) Turn on the heater controller and 

be sure that it is working. 

(xiii) Turn on the starter controller 

and the vehicle should start. 

(xiv) Monitor the engine temperature 

for the first few cycles to be sure it is 

increasing. 

(xv) At the end of the 192-hour (8- 

day) test, turn off the ignition switch, 

starter controller, and heater controller. 

Return the fuses, relays, and wires to 

their standard configuration for normal 

operation of the vehicle. 

(xvi) Connect the Tech 2 analyzer to 

the ALDL connector under the 

instrument panel, and connect the fuel 

pressure gauge to the service port on the 

fuel rail at the back of the engine. 

(xvii) Conduct the injector balance 

test by following the instructions on the 

Tech 2. The injector balance test checks 

each injector individually to determine 

whether the poppet nozzle is stuck 

closed. First, the Tech 2 turns on the 

fuel pump momentarily to pressurize 

the fuel system. Then it pulses the 

injector for a preset interval. If the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30018 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

injector and poppet nozzle are working 

properly, the fuel system pressure will 

decrease gradually and smoothly by 

about 8 to 10 psi during the pulsing. If 

the pressure does not decrease, or 

decreases very suddenly but then stops 

decreasing before the pulsing is done, 

the poppet is stuck closed. This 

procedure, beginning with pressurizing 

the fuel system, is carried out for each 

injector. 

■ 19. A new § 80.177 is added to subpart 

G to read as follows: 

§ 80.177 Certification test fuels for use 

with the alternative test procedures and 

standards. 

(a) General requirements. This section 

provides specifications for the test fuels 

required in conjunction with the 

alternative national generic certification 

option described in § 80.163(a)(1)(iii). 

(1) The test fuel characteristics 

detailed in this section must be reported 

to EPA in the detergent certification 

letter required pursuant to 

§ 80.161(b)(3). 

(2) The levels of the basic fuel 

parameters specified in this section 

(ethanol, olefins, aromatics, sulfur, and 

90% evaporation distillation 

temperature) must be measured in 

accordance with applicable procedures 

in § 80.46. 

(3) No detergent-active substance 

other than the detergent additive 

package undergoing testing may be 

added to a certification test fuel. Typical 

nondetergent additives, such as 

antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, and 

metal deactivators, may be present in 

the test fuel at the discretion of the 

additive certifier. In addition, any 

nondetergent additives (other than 

oxygenate compounds) which are 

commonly blended into gasoline and 

which are known or suspected to affect 

IVD or PFID formation, or to reduce the 

ability of the detergent in question to 

control such deposits, should be added 

to the test fuel for certification testing. 

(4) Certification test requirements may 

be satisfied for a detergent additive 

using more than one batch of test fuel, 

provided that each batch satisfies all 

applicable test fuel requirements under 

this section. 

(5) Unless otherwise required by this 

section, finished test fuels must conform 

to the requirements for commercial 

gasoline described in ASTM D 4814–11, 

‘‘Standard Specification for Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel’’, which is 

incorporated by reference pursuant to 

§ 80.178. 

(b) Test fuel for intake valve deposit 

testing: This paragraph provides 

specifications for the test fuels required 

for use in the test procedure specified in 

§ 80.176(b). 

(1) The test fuel must contain levels 

of the specified parameters consistent 

with the requirements of this section. 

(i) The test fuel must contain no less 

than 8.0 volume percent and no more 

than 10.0 volume percent ethanol. 

Commercial fuel grade denatured fuel 

ethanol must be used that conforms to 

the requirement of § 80.1610 and ASTM 

D4806—11a ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending 

with Gasolines for Use as Automotive 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel’’, which is 

incorporated by reference pursuant to 

§ 80.178. 

(ii) The test fuel must contain no less 

than 8.0 volume percent olefins. At least 

75 percent of the olefins must be 

derived from fluid catalytic cracker unit 

(FCC) gasoline. Such FCC gasoline can 

be full-range FCC gasoline or a mixture 

of light and heavy FCC gasolines. Such 

FCC gasoline must be produced by a 

commercial gasoline refiner and meet 

the following criteria: 

(A) The FCC gasoline must be 

designated by the commercial refiner as 

full range FCC gasoline or whole FCC 

gasoline, and must have a T90 

distillation temperature greater than 

300 °F. 

(B) If a mixture of light and heavy 

FCC gasoline is used, heavy FCC 

gasoline must contribute at least 50 

percent of the sulfur in the mixture. 

Heavy FCC gasoline must meet the 

following criteria: 

(1) The heavy FCC gasoline must be 

designated by the commercial refiner as 

heavy FCC gasoline. 

(2) The heavy FCC gasoline must have 

an API gravity less than 45 and a T90 

distillation temperature greater than 

325 °F. 

(iii) The test fuel must contain no less 

than 28 volume percent aromatics. 

(iv) The test fuel must contain no less 

than 240 ppm sulfur. At least 60 percent 

of the sulfur must be derived from FCC 

gasoline that meets the specifications in 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(v) The test fuel must have a T90 

distillation temperature of no less than 

290 °F. 

(vi) The test fuel containing no 

deposit control additives must produce 

no less than 500 mg averaged over all 

intake valves when subjected to the 

intake valve deposit test specified in 

§ 80.176(b). 

(vii) All gasoline blendstocks used to 

formulate the test fuel must be 

representative of normal refinery 

operations and shall be derived from 

conversion units downstream of 

distillation. Butanes and pentanes may 

be used for vapor pressure adjustment. 

The use of chemical grade streams is 

prohibited. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) Test fuel for fuel injector deposit 

testing: This paragraph provides 

specifications for the test fuels required 

for use in the test procedure specified in 

§ 80.176(c). The test fuel must conform 

to the specifications in either paragraph 

(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section. The same 

base test fuel must be used for deposit 

demonstration testing and for 

demonstrating compliance with the fuel 

injector deposit control standards in 

§ 80.176(a). 

(1) Option 1 regarding the 

specifications for the test fuel used for 

fuel injector deposit testing. (i) The test 

fuel must be a commercial full boiling 

range hydrocarbon gasoline or gasoline 

blending component, without 

oxygenates. 

(ii) The test fuel containing no deposit 

control additives must produce at least 

5 inoperable injectors valves when 

subjected to the fuel injector deposit test 

specified in § 80.176(c). 

(2) Option 2 regarding the 

specifications for the formulation of the 

test fuel used for fuel injector deposit 

testing. (i) The test fuel must meet the 

requirements for federal emissions test 

gasoline specified in §§ 80.113 and 

80.112 into which 4-methylbenzenethiol 

has been blended as a concentration of 

56 mg/L. 

(ii) The test fuel containing no deposit 

control additives must produce at least 

4 inoperable injectors valves when 

subjected to the fuel injector deposit test 

specified in § 80.176(c). 

■ 20. A new § 80.178 is added to subpart 

G to read as follows: 

§ 80.178 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) must publish notice of change in 

the Federal Register and the material 

must be available to the public. All 

approved material is available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

go to: http://www/archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. This material is also 

available for inspection at the EPA 

Docket Center, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2005–0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington DC. The telephone 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30019 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. Also, this material is available 

from the source listed in paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section. 

(b) ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C–700, West 

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 

(1–800–262–1373, www.astm.org). 

(1) ASTM D 5598–94, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Evaluating Unleaded 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel 

for Electronic Port Fuel Injector 

Fouling,’’ 1994; IBR approved for 

§ 80.165. 

(2) ASTM D 5500–94, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Vehicle Evaluation of 

Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition 

Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit 

Formation,’’ 1994; IBR approved for 

§ 80.165. 

(3) ASTM D–6201–04(2009) (‘‘ASTM 

D 6201’’), Standard Test Method for 

Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded 

Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake 

Valve Deposit Formation; IBR approved 

for § 80.176. 

(4) ASTM D 4814–11, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Automotive SparkIgnition Engine Fuel’’, IBR approved for 

§ 80.177. 

(5) ASTM D–4806–11a ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Denatured Fuel 

Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for 

Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition 

Engine Fuel’’, IBR approved for 

§ 80.177. 

(c) California Air Resources Board, 

1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, P.O. Box 2815, 

Sacramento, CA 95812 (800) 242–4450, 

http://www.arb.ca.gov). 

(1) California Air Resources Board, 

‘‘Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel 

Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle 

Engines’’, March 1, 1991; IBR approved 

for § 80.165. 

(2) California Air Resources Board, 

‘‘BMW—10,000 Miles Intake Valve Test 

Procedure’’, March 1, 1991; IBR 

approved for § 80.165. 

Subpart H—[Amended] 

■ 21. Section 80.330 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1), and 

(d)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 80.330 What are the sampling and 

testing requirements for refiners and 

importers? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of 

this section, refiners and importers shall 

use the method provided in § 80.46(a)(1) 

or one of the alternative test methods 

listed in § 80.46(a)(3) to measure the 

sulfur content of gasoline they produce 

or import through November 29, 2014. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, for 

purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, 

refiners and importers shall use a 

method approved in § 80.47. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Refiners and importers shall use 

the method provided in § 80.46(a)(2) to 

measure the sulfur content of butane 

when the butane constitutes a batch of 

gasoline through November 29, 2014. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, refiners 

and importers shall use a method 

approved in § 80.47 to measure the 

sulfur content of butane when the 

butane constitutes a batch of gasoline. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section, any ASTM sulfur 

test method for gaseous fuels may be 

used for quality assurance testing under 

§§ 80.340(b)(4) and 80.400, if the 

protocols of the ASTM method are 

followed and the alternative test method 

is correlated to the method provided in 

§ 80.46(a)(2) through November 29, 

2014. Beginning November 30, 2014, 

except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) 

of this section, refiners and importers 

shall use a method approved in § 80.47 

to measure the sulfur content of butane. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Section 80.370 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (d)(2). 

§ 80.370 What are the sulfur reporting 

requirements? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(iv) The sulfur content of the batch, 

along with identification of the test 

method used to measure the sulfur 

content of the batch, as determined 

under § 80.330; and 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 for 

the prior calendar year averaging period. 

* * * * * 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

■ 23. Section 80.511 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(10) to 

read as follows: 

§ 80.511 What are the per-gallon and 

marker requirements that apply to NRLM 

diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, and heating oil 

downstream of the refiner or importer? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b)(5) through (8) of this section, the pergallon sulfur standard of § 80.510(c) 

shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel 

beginning August 1, 2014 for all 

downstream locations other than retail 

outlets or wholesale purchaserconsumer facilities, shall apply to all 

NRLM diesel fuel beginning October 1, 

2014 for retail outlets and wholesale 

purchaser-consumer facilities, and shall 

apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning 

December 1, 2014 for all locations. This 

paragraph (b)(4) does not apply to LM 

diesel fuel produced from transmix or 

interface fuel that is sold or intended for 

sale in areas other than those listed in 

§ 80.510(g)(1) or (g)(2), as provided by 

§ 80.513(f). 

* * * * * 

(10) For the purposes of this subpart, 

on any occasion where a distributor 

directly dispenses fuel into vehicles or 

equipment from a mobile facility such 

as a tanker truck, the distributor shall be 

treated as a retailer, and the mobile 

facility shall be treated as a retail outlet. 

■ 24. Section 80.572 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 80.572 What labeling requirements apply 

to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of Motor Vehicle, NR, LM and 

NRLM diesel fuel and heating oil beginning 

June 1, 2010? 

* * * * * 

(a) From June 1, 2010 through 

November 30, 2014, any retailer or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer who 

sells, dispenses, or offers for sale or 

dispensing, motor vehicle diesel fuel 

subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.520(a)(1), must affix the following 

conspicuous and legible label, in block 

letters of no less than 24-point bold 

type, and printed in a color contrasting 

with the background, to each pump 

stand: 

ULTRA-LOW SULFUR HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum) 

Required for use in all highway diesel vehicles and engines. 

Recommended for use in all diesel vehicles and engines. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30020 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Section 80.573 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 80.573 What labeling requirements apply 

to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of NRLM diesel fuel and heating 

oil beginning June 1, 2012? 

* * * * * 

(a) From June 1, 2012 through 

September 30, 2014, for pumps 

dispensing NRLM diesel fuel subject to 

the 15 ppm sulfur standard of 

§ 80.510(c): 

ULTRA-LOW SULFUR NON-HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum) 

Required for use in all model year 2011 and later nonroad diesel engines. 

Recommended for use in all other non-highway diesel engines. 

WARNING 

Federal law prohibits use in highway vehicles or engines. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Section 80.574 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.574 What labeling requirements apply 

to retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers of ECA marine fuel beginning 

June 1, 2014? 

(a) Any retailer or wholesale 

purchaser-consumer who sells, 

dispenses, or offers for sale or 

dispensing ECA marine fuel must 

prominently and conspicuously display 

in the immediate area of each pump 

stand from which ECA marine fuel is 

offered for sale or dispensing, one of the 

following legible labels, as applicable, 

in block letters of no less than 24-point 

bold type, printed in a color contrasting 

with the background: 

(1) From June 1, 2014 and beyond, for 

pumps dispensing ECA marine fuel 

subject to the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard 

of § 80.510(k): 

1,000 ppm SULFUR ECA MARINE FUEL (1,000 ppm Sulfur Maximum). 

For use in Category 3 (C3) marine vessels only. 

WARNING 

Federal law prohibits use in any engine that is not installed on a C3 marine vessel; use of fuel oil with a sulfur content greater than 1,000 

ppm in an ECA is prohibited except as allowed by 40 CFR part 1043. 

(2) The labels required by paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section must be placed on 

the vertical surface of each pump 

housing and on each side that has gallon 

and price meters. The labels shall be on 

the upper two-thirds of the pump, in a 

location where they are clearly visible. 

(b) Alternative labels to those 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

may be used as approved by EPA. 

(1) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: 

Diesel Sulfur Alternative Label Request, 

6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

(2) For overnight or courier services: 

U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur 

Alternative Label Request, 6406J, 1310 L 

Street NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 

20005. (202) 343–9038. 

■ 27. Section 80.580 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (e) introductory 

text. 

■ b. Revising paragraph (e)(1) 

introductory text. 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i) 

through (e)(1)(iv). 

§ 80.580 What are the sampling and 

testing methods for sulfur? 

* * * * * 

(e) Materials incorporated by 

reference. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of the documents listed in this 

section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR 51. Anyone may inspect 

copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Room B102, EPA West Building, 

Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA 

docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0135, or at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

The telephone number for the Air 

Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1742. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call 202–741–6030 or go to: http://www.

archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_

federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

For further information on these test 

methods, please contact the 

Environmental Protection Agency at 

734–214–4582. 

(1) ASTM International material. 

Anyone may purchase copies of these 

materials from ASTM International, 100 

Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, 

PA 19428–2959, or by contacting ASTM 

International customer service at 610– 

832–9585, or by contacting the email 

address of service@astm.org from the 

ASTM International Web site of http:// 

www.astm.org. 

(i) ASTM International standard 

method D2622–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D2622’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 

Products by Wavelength Dispersive XRay Fluorescence Spectrometry’’, 

approved February 15, 2010. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(iii) ASTM International standard 

method D4294–10 (‘‘ASTM 

International D4294’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 

Products by Energy Dispersive X-Ray 

Fluorescence Spectrometry’’, approved 

February 15, 2010. 

(iv) ASTM International standard 

method D5453–09 (‘‘ASTM 

International D5453’’), ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 

Products by Energy Dispersive X-Ray 

Fluorescence Spectrometry’’, approved 

June 15, 2009. 

* * * * * 

■ 28. Section 80.585 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.585 What is the process for approval 

of a test method for determining the sulfur 

content of diesel or ECA marine fuel? 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) The approval of any test method 

under paragraph (b) of this section shall 

be valid for five years from the date of 

approval by the Administrator. After the 

five year period has ceased, in order for 

the test method approval to remain 

valid, the test method must be 

resubmitted for approval with 

applicable precision and accuracy 

information contained in § 80.584(a) 

and (b). If, however, the test method is 

later approved by a voluntary 

consensus-based standards body, the 

approval shall remain valid as long as 

the conditions of paragraph (a) of this 

section are met. 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Section 80.604 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) to read 

as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30021 

§ 80.604 What are the annual reporting 

requirements for refiners and importers of 

NRLM diesel fuel? 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Except for small refiners subject to 

§ 80.554(d), submitted to EPA by 

September 1 each year for the prior 

annual compliance period. Small 

refiners subject to the provisions of 

§ 80.554(d), reports must be submitted 

by September 1 for the previous 

reporting period. 

(4) With the exception of reports 

required under paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section, no reports will be required 

under this section after September 1, 

2014. 

Subpart L—[Amended] 

■ 30. Section 80.1235 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 80.1235 What gasoline is subject to the 

benzene requirements of this subpart? 

(a) * * * 

(6) Blendstock that is combined with 

PCG to produce gasoline must be 

sampled and tested in accordance with 

the provisions at § 80.1347(a)(5) or (6). 

(b) * * * 

(2) Oxygenate added to PCG 

downstream of the refinery that 

produced the PCG, or downstream of 

the import facility where the PCG was 

imported, shall not be included in a 

refiner’s or importer’s compliance 

calculations unless the refiner or 

importer that produced or imported the 

PCG complies with the requirements of 

§ 80.1238(b). On any occasion where 

any person downstream of the refinery 

or importer that produced or imported 

PCG adds oxygenate to such product, it 

shall not include the volume and 

benzene content of the oxygenate in any 

compliance calculations or for credit 

generation under this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 31. Section 80.1238 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 80.1238 How is a refinery’s or importer’s 

average benzene concentration 

determined? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) For oxygenate added to 

conventional gasoline or CBOB, the 

refiner or importer must comply with 

the requirements of § 80.101(d)(4)(ii) 

and the benzene content must be 

measured by sampling the ethanol 

actually added to the conventional 

gasoline or CBOB and testing it for 

benzene content. 

* * * * * 

■ 32. Section 80.1347 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and 

(a)(5). 

■ b. By adding a new paragraph (a)(6). 

§ 80.1347 What are the sampling and 

testing requirements for refiners and 

importers? 

(a) * * * 

(3)(i) Each sample shall be tested in 

accordance with the methodology 

specified at § 80.46(e) through 

November 29, 2014, to determine its 

benzene concentration for compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart. 

Beginning November 30, 2014, each 

sample shall be tested in accordance 

with the methodology specified at 

§ 80.46(e) or § 80.47 to determine its 

benzene concentration for compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart. 

Any negative test result must be 

reported as zero. 

* * * * * 

(5) Exclusion of previously certified 

gasoline (PCG). (i) Any refiner who uses 

PCG to produce gasoline at a refinery, 

must exclude the PCG for purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

benzene standards at § 80.1230. 

(ii) To accomplish the exclusion 

required in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this 

section, the refiner must determine the 

volume and benzene content of the PCG 

used at the refinery and the volume and 

benzene content of gasoline produced at 

the refinery, and use the compliance 

calculation procedures in paragraphs 

(a)(5)(iii) and (iv) of this section. 

(iii) For each batch of PCG that is used 

to produce gasoline the refiner must 

include the volume and benzene 

content of the PCG as a negative volume 

and a positive benzene content in the 

refiner’s compliance calculations in 

accordance with the requirements at 

§ 80.1238. 

(iv) For each batch of gasoline 

produced at the refinery using PCG and 

blendstock, the refiner must determine 

the volume and benzene content of the 

combined product and include each 

batch for purposes of benzene 

compliance in the refinery’s compliance 

calculations at § 80.1240 without regard 

to the presence of previously certified 

gasoline in the batch. 

(v) The refiner must use any PCG that 

it includes as a negative batch in its 

compliance calculations pursuant to 

§ 80.1240 as a component in gasoline 

production during the annual averaging 

period in which the PCG was included 

as a negative batch in the refiner’s 

compliance calculations. 

(vi) Any negative annual average 

value must be reported as zero. 

(vii) The refiner must also comply 

with § 80.65(i) when producing RBOB 

or RFG and § 80.101(g)(9) when 

producing conventional gasoline. 

(6) As an alternative to the sampling 

and testing requirements in paragraph 

(a)(5) of this section, a refiner who 

produces gasoline by blending 

blendstock into PCG may sample and 

test each batch of blendstock when 

received at the refinery to determine the 

volume and benzene content, and treat 

each blendstock receipt as a separate 

batch for purposes of demonstrating 

compliance with the benzene standards 

in § 80.1230, and for benzene reporting. 

* * * * * 

■ 33. Section 80.1348 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 80.1348 What gasoline sample retention 

requirements apply to refiners and 

importers? 

(a) Through November 29, 2014, the 

gasoline sample retention requirements 

specified in subpart H for the gasoline 

sulfur provisions apply for the purpose 

of complying with the requirements of 

this subpart L, except that in addition to 

including the sulfur test result as 

provided by § 80.335(a)(4)(ii), the 

refiner, importer, or independent 

laboratory shall also include with the 

retained sample the test result for 

benzene as conducted pursuant to 

§ 80.46(e). 

(b) Beginning November 30, 2014, 

pursuant to § 80.47, the gasoline sample 

retention requirements specified in 

subpart O of this part for the gasoline 

sulfur provisions apply for the purpose 

of complying with the requirements of 

this subpart L, except that in addition to 

including the sulfur test result as 

provided by § 80.335(a)(4)(ii), the 

refiner, importer, or independent 

laboratory shall also include with the 

retained sample the test result for 

benzene as conducted pursuant to 

§ 80.46(e). 

■ 34. A new § 80.1349 is added to 

subpart L to read as follows: 

§ 80.1349 Alternative sampling and testing 

requirements for importers who import 

gasoline into the United States by truck. 

Importers who import conventional 

gasoline into the United States by truck 

may comply with the sampling and 

testing requirements in § 80.101(i)(3) 

instead of the requirements to sample 

and test every batch of gasoline under 

§ 80.1347. An importer that uses this 

approach must meet the 0.62 volume 

percent benzene standard on a pergallon basis. 

■ 35. Section 80.1354 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(2). 

■ b. Revising paragraph (d)(2). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30022 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 80.1354 What are the reporting 

requirements for the gasoline benzene 

program? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2)(i) The annual average benzene 

concentration, along with identification 

of the test method(s) used to measure 

the annual average benzene 

concentration, per § 80.1238. 

(ii) The maximum average benzene 

concentration, along with identification 

of the test method(s) used to measure 

the maximum average benzene 

concentration, per § 80.1240(b). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 

each year for the prior calendar year 

averaging period. 

* * * * * 

■ 36. Section 80.1451 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text. 

■ b. Revising paragraph (f)(2). 

§ 80.1451 What are the reporting 

requirements under the RFS program? 

(a) * * * 

(1) Annual compliance reports for the 

previous compliance period shall be 

submitted by March 31 of each year and 

shall include all of the following 

information: 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) Quarterly reports shall be 

submitted by the required deadline as 

shown in Table 1 to § 80.1451. Any 

reports generated by EMTS must be 

reviewed, supplemented, and/or 

corrected if not complete and accurate, 

and verified by the owner or responsible 

corporate officer prior to submittal. 

TABLE 1 TO § 80.1451—QUARTERLY REPORTING DEADLINES

Calendar quarter Time period covered Quarterly report deadline 

Quarter One ...................................................................... January 1–March 31 ....................................................... June 1. 

Quarter Two ...................................................................... April 1–June 30 ............................................................... September 1. 

Quarter Three ................................................................... July 1–September 30 ...................................................... December 1. 

Quarter Four ..................................................................... October 1–December 31 ................................................. March 31. 

* * * * * 

■ 37. A new subpart O is added to part 

80 to read as follows: 

Subpart O—Gasoline Sulfur 

Sec. 

80.1600 Additional definitions for subpart 

O. 

80.1601 Fuels subject to the provisions of 

this subpart. 

80.1602 Implementation dates for refiners 

and importers. 

80.1603 Gasoline sulfur standards for 

refiners and importers. 

80.1604 Gasoline sulfur standards and 

requirements for parties downstream of 

refiners and importers. 

80.1605 Deficit carry-forward for refiners 

and importers. 

80.1606 [Reserved] 

80.1607 Gasoline sulfur standards and 

requirements for transmix processors 

and transmix blenders. 

80.1608 [Reserved] 

80.1609 Oxygenate blender requirements. 

80.1610 Standards and requirements for 

producers of denatured fuel ethanol and 

other oxygenates for use by gasoline 

oxygenate blenders. 

80.1611–80.1612 [Reserved] 

80.1613 Standards and other requirements 

for gasoline additive manufacturers and 

blenders. 

80.1614 [Reserved] 

80.1615 Credit generation. 

80.1616 Credit use and transfer. 

80.1620 Small refiner definition. 

80.1621 Small volume refinery definition. 

80.1622 Approval for small refiner and 

small volume refinery status. 

80.1623–80.1624 [Reserved] 

80.1625 Hardship provisions. 

80.1630 Sampling and testing requirements 

for refiners and importers. 

80.1631 Sample retention requirements. 

80.1640 Standards and requirements that 

apply to refiners producing gasoline by 

blending blendstocks into previously 

certified gasoline (PCG). 

80.1641 Alternative sulfur standards and 

requirements that apply to importers 

who transport gasoline by truck. 

80.1642–80.1649 [Reserved] 

80.1650 Registration. 

80.1651 Product transfer document 

requirements. 

80.1652 Reporting requirements. 

80.1653 Recordkeeping. 

80.1654 California gasoline requirements. 

80.1655 National security exemption. 

80.1656 Exemptions for gasoline used for 

research, development, or testing 

purposes. 

80.1657 [Reserved] 

80.1658 Requirements for gasoline for use 

in American Samoa, Guam, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. 

80.1659 [Reserved] 

80.1660 Prohibited acts. 

80.1661 What evidence may be used to 

determine compliance with the 

prohibitions and requirements of this 

subpart and liability for violations of this 

subpart? 

80.1662 Liability for violations under 

subpart O. 

80.1663 Defenses for a violation of a 

prohibited act under subpart O. 

80.1664 [Reserved] 

80.1665 Penalties. 

80.1666 Additional requirements for foreign 

small refiners and foreign small volume 

refineries. 

80.1667 Attest engagement requirements. 

80.1668–80.1674 [Reserved] 

80.1675 Incorporation by reference. 

Subpart O—Gasoline Sulfur 

§ 80.1600 Additional definitions for 

subpart O. 

The definitions of § 80.2 and the 

following additional definitions apply 

to this subpart O: 

California gasoline means any 

gasoline designated by a refiner or 

importer for use in California. 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS has the 

meaning given in § 80.1666(a)(5). 

Foreign refiner is a person who meets 

the definition of refiner under § 80.2(i) 

for a foreign refinery. 

Foreign refinery means a refinery that 

is located outside the United States, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, 

and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands (collectively referred to 

in this subpart as ‘‘the United States’’). 

Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS has the 

meaning given in § 80.1666(a)(6). 

Non-Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning 

given in § 80.1666(a)(4). 

Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given 

in § 80.1666(a)(3). 

Transmix has the meaning given at 

§ 80.84(a)(2). 

Transmix blender has the meaning 

given at § 80.84(a)(7). 

Transmix gasoline product (TGP) has 

the meaning given at § 80.84(a)(3). 

Transmix processing facility has the 

meaning given at § 80.84(a)(4). 

Transmix processor has the meaning 

given at § 80.84(a)(5). 

§ 80.1601 Fuels subject to the provisions 

of this subpart. 

(a) For the purposes of this subpart, 

the following fuels are subject to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30023 

standards and requirements of this 

subpart: 

(1) Reformulated and conventional 

gasoline and RBOB, and CBOB 

(collectively called ‘‘gasoline’’ unless 

otherwise specified). 

(2) Any blendstock (not including 

oxygenates) blended with PCG, as 

defined in § 80.2(d), subject to the 

provisions of § 80.1640. 

(3) Oxygenates blended with gasoline, 

RBOB, or CBOB. 

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, 

the following fuels are not subject to the 

standards and requirements of this 

subpart: 

(1) Gasoline that is used to fuel 

aircraft, racing vehicles or racing boats 

that are used only in sanctioned racing 

events, provided that: 

(i) Product transfer documents 

associated with such gasoline, and any 

pump stand from which such gasoline 

is dispensed, identify the gasoline either 

as gasoline that is restricted for use in 

aircraft, or as gasoline that is restricted 

for use in racing motor vehicles or 

racing boats that are used only in 

sanctioned racing events; 

(ii) The gasoline is completely 

segregated from all other gasoline 

throughout production, distribution and 

sale to the ultimate consumer; and 

(iii) The gasoline is not made 

available for use as motor vehicle 

gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor 

vehicles, except for motor vehicles used 

only in sanctioned racing events. 

(2) California gasoline as defined in 

§ 80.1600 subject to the provisions of 

§ 80.1654. 

(3) Gasoline that is exported for sale 

and use outside the U.S. 

(4) Exempt fuels under §§ 80.1655 

(national security exemptions), 80.1656 

(gasoline used for research, 

development, or testing purposes), and 

80.1658 (gasoline used in American 

Samoa, Guam, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands). 

§ 80.1602 Implementation dates for 

refiners and importers. 

(a) The standards and requirements 

for gasoline sulfur under this subpart O 

(at § 80.1603) shall apply to gasoline 

produced or imported by any refiner or 

importer beginning January 1, 2017, 

except as provided by the credit 

provisions of §§ 80.1615 and 80.1616, 

and the provisions applicable to small 

refiners and small volume refineries. 

(b) The standards and requirements 

for gasoline sulfur under subpart H of 

this part shall continue to apply until 

the gasoline produced or imported by 

any refiner or importer is required to 

comply with the standards and 

requirements under this subpart O. 

§ 80.1603 Gasoline sulfur standards for 

refiners and importers. 

(a) Sulfur standards. (1) Annual 

average standard. (i) The refinery or 

importer annual average gasoline sulfur 

standard is 10.00 parts per million 

(ppm) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/ 

kg), except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section. 

(ii) The averaging period is a calendar 

year (January 1 through December 31). 

(iii) The refinery or importer annual 

average gasoline sulfur standard is the 

maximum average sulfur level allowed 

for gasoline produced at a refinery or 

imported by an importer during each 

calendar year beginning January 1, 2017, 

except as provided by the following: 

(A) The credit use provisions of 

§ 80.1616. 

(B) Beginning January 1, 2020, for 

small refiners and small volume 

refineries approved pursuant to the 

provisions of § 80.1622. Small refiners 

and small volume refineries will 

continue to be subject to the provisions 

of subpart H through December 31, 2019 

(or until compliance with this subpart O 

begins). 

(C) Fuels not subject to the standards 

and requirements of this subpart O as 

specified in § 80.1601(b). 

(iv) The annual average sulfur level is 

calculated in accordance with paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(2) Per-gallon cap standard. (i) The 

refinery or importer per-gallon cap 

standard is 80 ppm, on a per-gallon 

basis except as otherwise provided by 

this section. 

(ii) The per-gallon cap of paragraph 

(a)(2)(i) of this section is the maximum 

sulfur level allowed for any batch of 

gasoline produced at a refinery or 

imported by an importer beginning 

January 1, 2017, except for fuels not 

subject to the standards and 

requirements of this subpart O as 

specified in § 80.1601(b). 

(3) The refinery or importer annual 

average gasoline sulfur standard may be 

met using credits as provided under 

§ 80.1616. Credits cannot be used to 

meet the applicable per-gallon standard. 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) Calculation of the annual average 

sulfur level. (1) The annual refinery or 

importer average gasoline sulfur level is 

calculated as follows: 

Where: 

Sa = The refinery or importer annual average 

sulfur level, in ppm (mg/kg). 

Vi = The volume of gasoline produced or 

imported in batch i, in gallons. 

Si = The sulfur content of batch i determined 

under § 80.1630, in ppm (mg/kg). 

n = The number of batches of gasoline 

produced or imported during the 

averaging period. 

i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or 

imported during the averaging period. 

(2) The annual average sulfur level 

calculation in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section shall be conducted to two 

decimal places using the rounding 

procedure specified in § 80.9. 

(d) Oxygenate added downstream 

from the refinery or import facility. A 

refiner or importer may include 

oxygenate added downstream from the 

refinery or import facility when 

calculating the sulfur content, provided 

the following requirements are met: 

(1) For oxygenate added to 

conventional gasoline or CBOB, the 

refiner or importer must comply with 

the requirements of § 80.101(d)(4)(ii), 

except that the sulfur content and 

volume of the oxygenate shall be 

determined in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

(2) For oxygenate added to RBOB, the 

refiner or importer must comply with 

the requirements of § 80.69(a), except 

that the sulfur content and volume of 

the oxygenate shall be determined in 

accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. 

(3) Where oxygenate added 

downstream from the refinery or import 

facility is included in calculating the 

sulfur content under this paragraph (d): 

(i) The refiner or importer must 

separately test any RBOB or CBOB for 

sulfur content and use that test result in 

calculating the sulfur content of the RFG 

or conventional gasoline and calculate 

the effect of downstream added ethanol 

by using the assumptions in paragraphs 

(d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section. The 

reported volume of the batch is the 

combined volume of the RBOB or CBOB 

and the downstream added oxygenate. 

(ii) For RBOB, the sulfur test result 

obtained from testing a hand blend 

under the terms of § 80.69(a) shall not 

be used for sulfur reporting purposes. 

(iii) The refiner or importer must use 

an assumed sulfur content of 10.00 ppm 

for the oxygenate added downstream. 

(iv) For ethanol added downstream, 

the refiner or importer calculations shall 

assume that 10.00 volume percent 

ethanol is added to the RBOB unless 

some lesser amount of ethanol is 

actually blended. 

(v) RBOB, CBOB, and conventional 

gasoline must meet the per-gallon sulfur 

standard of paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section prior to calculating any dilution 

from the oxygenate added downstream. 

(4) On any occasion where any person 

downstream of the refinery or importer 

that produced or imported previously 

certified gasoline, CBOB or RBOB adds 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.006</GPH>
30024 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

oxygenate to such product, it shall not 

include the volume and sulfur content 

of the oxygenate in any compliance 

calculations or for credit generation 

under this subpart O. 

(e) Exclusions. Refiners and importers 

must exclude from compliance 

calculations all of the following: 

(1) Gasoline that was not produced at 

the refinery or imported by the 

importer. 

(2) In the case of an importer, gasoline 

that was imported as Certified SulfurFRGAS. 

(3) Blendstocks transferred to others, 

except RBOB and CBOB as provided in 

this subpart O. 

(4) PCG. 

(5) Gasoline exempted from standards 

under § 80.1601(b). 

(f) Compliance calculation for the 

annual average sulfur standard. (1) 

Compliance by a refinery or importer 

with the gasoline sulfur annual average 

standard at paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section is achieved if, for calendar year 

y, CSVy≤ (Vy× 10), as determined by the 

following equation: 

CSVy = (Vy x Sa) + D(y-1)¥OC 

Where: 

CSVy = Compliance sulfur value for year y, 

in ppm-gallons. 

Vy = Total gasoline volume produced or 

imported in year y, in gallons. 

Sa = Annual average sulfur level calculated 

in accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section, in ppm (mg/kg). 

D(y-1) = Sulfur deficit from the previous 

reporting period, per § 80.1605, in ppmgallons. 

OC = Sulfur credits obtained by the refinery 

or importer, in ppm-gallons. 

(2) Sulfur credits used in the 

calculation specified in paragraph (f)(1) 

of this section must be used in 

accordance with the requirements at 

§ 80.1616. 

(3) Compliance with the gasoline 

sulfur annual average standard at 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not 

achieved, and a deficit is created per 

§ 80.1605, if for calendar year y, CSVy> 

(Vy × 10). The deficit value to be 

included in the following year’s 

compliance calculation per paragraph (f) 

of this section is calculated as follows: 

Dy = CSVy¥(Vy × 10y) 

Where: 

Dy = Sulfur deficit created in compliance 

period y, in ppm-gallons. 

§ 80.1604 Gasoline sulfur standards and 

requirements for parties downstream of 

refiners and importers. 

(a) The sulfur standard for gasoline at 

any downstream location shall be 

determined in accordance with the 

provisions of this section. A 

downstream location is any point in the 

gasoline distribution system 

downstream from refineries and import 

facilities, including, but not limited to, 

facilities of any of the following parties: 

(1) Distributors. 

(2) Carriers. 

(3) Oxygenate blenders. 

(4) Retailers. 

(5) Wholesale purchaser-consumers. 

(b) Except as otherwise provided in 

this subpart O, the sulfur content of 

gasoline at any downstream location 

shall not exceed 95 ppm, on a per-gallon 

basis, beginning January 1, 2017. 

§ 80.1605 Deficit carry-forward for refiners 

and importers. 

(a) Deficit carry-forward. (1) A refiner 

or importer may exceed the annual 

average sulfur standard for a given 

calendar year, creating a compliance 

deficit, provided that the requirements 

of paragraph (a)(2) of this section are 

met. 

(2) When a compliance deficit is 

created per paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, in the calendar year following 

the year the standard is not met, the 

refinery or importer must: 

(i) Achieve compliance with the 

annual average sulfur standard in 

§ 80.1603(a)(1); and 

(ii) Use additional sulfur credits 

sufficient to offset the compliance 

deficit of the previous year. 

(b) The compliance deficit value shall 

be calculated in accordance with 

§ 80.1603(f)(3). 

§ 80.1606 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1607 Gasoline sulfur standards and 

requirements for transmix processors and 

transmix blenders. 

Transmix processors and transmix 

blenders may comply with the following 

requirements instead of the 

requirements and standards otherwise 

applicable to a refiner under this 

subpart O. 

(a) Any transmix processor who 

recovers transmix gasoline product 

(TGP) from transmix through transmix 

processing under § 80.84(c) must show 

through sampling and testing (using the 

methods in § 80.1630) that the TGP 

meets the applicable sulfur standards 

under § 80.1604(b), prior to the TGP 

leaving the transmix processing facility. 

(b) The sampling and testing required 

under paragraph (a) of this section shall 

be conducted following each occasion 

TGP is produced. 

(c) Any transmix processor who 

produces gasoline by adding blendstock 

to TGP must, for such blendstock, 

comply with all requirements and 

standards that apply to a refiner under 

this subpart O, and must meet the 

applicable downstream sulfur standards 

under § 80.1604 for the gasoline 

produced by blending blendstock and 

TGP, prior to the gasoline leaving the 

transmix processing facility. 

(d) Any transmix processor who 

produces gasoline by blending 

blendstock into TGP must meet the 

sampling and testing requirements of 

this subpart O through either of the 

methods provided in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section or through the alternative 

method provided in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. 

(1)(i) Sample and test the blendstock 

when received at the transmix 

processing facility, using the methods 

specified in § 80.1630, to determine the 

volume and sulfur content, and treat 

each volume of blendstock that is 

blended into a volume of TGP as a 

separate batch for purposes of 

calculating and reporting compliance 

with the applicable annual average and 

per-gallon cap sulfur standards in 

§ 80.1603. 

(ii) Use sulfur test results of the 

blendstock supplier provided that all 

the following requirements are met: 

(A) Sampling and testing by the 

blendstock supplier is performed using 

the methods specified in § 80.1630. 

(B) Testing for the sulfur content of 

the blendstock in the supplier’s storage 

tank must be conducted following the 

last receipt of blendstock into the 

supplier’s storage tank that supplies the 

transmix processor. 

(C) The transmix processor must 

obtain a copy of the blendstock 

supplier’s test results, reflecting the 

sulfur content of each load of 

blendstock supplied to the transmix 

processor, at the time of each transfer of 

blendstock to the transmix processor. 

(D) The transmix processor must 

conduct a quality assurance program of 

sampling and testing for each 

blendstock supplier. The frequency of 

blendstock sampling and testing must 

be one sample for every 500,000 gallons 

of blendstock received or one sample 

every 3 months, whichever results in 

more frequent sampling. 

(iii) If any of the requirements of 

paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section are 

not met, in whole or in part, for any 

blendstock blended into TGP, that 

blendstock is deemed in violation of the 

gasoline sulfur standards of this subpart 

O. 

(2) As an alternative to the sampling 

and testing procedures described in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the 

following procedures may be used: 

(i) Sample and test each batch of TGP 

and determine the volume of the TGP. 

(ii) Sample and test the gasoline 

produced by blending blendstock into 

TGP, and determine its volume. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30025 

(iii) Calculate the sulfur content and 

the volume of the batch by subtracting 

the volume and sulfur content of the 

TGP from the volume and sulfur content 

of the gasoline after blendstock 

blending. For purposes of compliance 

and reporting, the sulfur content shall 

be the calculated volume and sulfur 

content of the blendstock, and the 

applicable standards shall be the 

average and cap standards in § 80.1603. 

The applicable cap standard of the 

gasoline blend shall be the cap standard 

under § 80.1604. 

(iv) Tests shall be performed using the 

methods specified in § 80.1630, to 

determine the sulfur content of the 

batch. 

(v) The sulfur content of each batch of 

gasoline produced by blending 

blendstock into TGP must be no greater 

than the downstream sulfur standard 

under § 80.1604 applicable to the 

designation of the TGP. 

(e) Any transmix blender who 

produces gasoline by blending transmix, 

or mixtures of gasoline and distillate 

fuel described in § 80.84(e), into 

previously certified gasoline under 

§ 80.84(d) must meet the applicable 

downstream sulfur standards under 

§ 80.1604 for the gasoline produced by 

blending transmix and previously 

certified gasoline and the endpoint 

standard specified in § 80.84. 

(f) Any transmix processor or 

transmix blender who adds any 

feedstock to its transmix other than 

gasoline, distillate fuel, or gasoline 

blendstocks from pipeline interface 

must meet all requirements and 

standards that apply to a refiner under 

this subpart O for all gasoline it 

produces during a compliance period. 

§ 80.1608 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1609 Oxygenate blender 

requirements. 

(a) Oxygenate blenders who blend 

only oxygenate that complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section into gasoline downstream of the 

refinery that produced the gasoline or 

the import facility where the gasoline 

was imported are not subject to the 

refiner or importer requirements of this 

subpart for such gasoline. Such 

oxygenate blenders are subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section, the requirements and 

prohibitions applicable to downstream 

parties, the requirements of 

§ 80.1603(d)(4), and the prohibition 

specified in § 80.1660(e). 

(b) Beginning March 1, 2017, the DFE 

or other oxygenate used must comply 

with the requirements of § 80.1610. 

Prior to March 1, 2017, DFE is subject 

to the sulfur requirements of § 80.385(e). 

§ 80.1610 Standards and requirements for 

producers of denatured fuel ethanol and 

other oxygenates for use by gasoline 

oxygenate blenders. 

Beginning January 1, 2017, producers 

of denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) or other 

oxygenates for use by oxygenate 

blenders under § 80.1609 must comply 

with the following requirements: 

(a) Standards. (1) The sulfur content 

must not be greater than 10 ppm as 

determined in accordance with the test 

requirements of § 80.1630. 

(2) The DFE or other oxygenate must 

be composed solely of carbon, 

hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur. 

(3) In the case of DFE, only gasoline, 

RBOB, CBOB, or natural gas liquids may 

be used as denaturants. 

(4) The concentration of all 

denaturants used in DFE is limited to a 

maximum of 2. volume percent. 

(b) Registration. Unless registered 

under § 80.1450, the producer of DFE or 

other oxygenate must register with EPA 

pursuant to the requirements of 

§ 80.1650. 

(c) PTDs. The producer of DFE or 

other oxygenate must initiate a PTD for 

each batch of DFE or other oxygenate 

that it ships from its facility which 

contains the statement in either 

paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, 

as applicable. 

(1) For DFE, ‘‘Meets EPA standards for 

denatured fuel ethanol for use in 

gasoline’’; or 

(2) For oxygenates other than DFE, 

‘‘Meets EPA standards for motor fuel 

oxygenates for use in gasoline’’ 

(3) PTDs that are complaint with the 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section must be transferred from each 

party transferring oxygenate to each 

party that receives oxygenate through to 

the oxygenate blender. 

(d) Batch numbers. Every batch of 

oxygenate produced or imported at 

oxygenate production or import facility 

shall be assigned a number (the ‘‘batch 

number’’), consisting of the EPAassigned oxygenate producer or 

importer registration number, the EPA 

facility registration number, the last two 

digits of the year in which the batch was 

produced, and a unique number for the 

batch, beginning with the number one 

for the first batch produced or imported 

each calendar year and each subsequent 

batch during the calendar year being 

assigned the next sequential number 

(e.g., 4321–54321–95–000001, 4321– 

543321–95–000002, etc.) 

§§ 80.1611–80.1612 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1613 Standards and other 

requirements for gasoline additive 

manufacturers and blenders. 

Gasoline additive manufacturers and 

blenders must meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) Gasoline additive manufacturers, 

as defined in 40 CFR 79.2(f), must meet 

the following requirements: 

(1)(i) Except as otherwise provided, 

this section applies to any additive, as 

defined in 40 CFR 79.2(e), manufactured 

for use in gasoline that is not an 

oxygenate compound, and that is sold 

for use at a concentration of less than 

1.0% by volume. 

(ii) Oxygenate compound additives 

subject to the 10 ppm per-gallon sulfur 

standard and the requirements of 

§ 80.1610 are not subject to the 

provisions of this section except for the 

provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section. 

(2) The additive must contribute no 

more than 3 ppm on a per gallon basis 

to the sulfur content of gasoline when 

used at the maximum recommended 

treatment rate. 

(3) The additive manufacturer must 

maintain records of its additive 

production quality control activities 

which demonstrates that the sulfur 

content of additive production batches 

complies with the sulfur requirement in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and 

make these records available upon 

request. 

(4) The maximum treatment rate on 

the product transfer document for the 

additive must state all the following: 

(i) The maximum registered 

concentration. 

(ii) The maximum allowed treatment 

rate which corresponds to the maximum 

registered concentration. The maximum 

allowed concentration must comply 

with the requirements in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

(b) The following provisions apply to 

parties who are downstream of the 

gasoline refiner or importer and who 

blend additives to gasoline, RBOB or 

CBOB and who are not refiners. 

(1) On any occasion where the 

additive blender is solely acting as an 

oxygenate blender, as defined in 

§ 80.2(mm), it is subject to the 

prohibition in § 80.1660(e) and the 

downstream gasoline sulfur standard of 

§ 80.1604(b). 

(2) On any occasion where an additive 

blender blends an additive (subject to 

the requirements of § 80.1613(a)) at a 

concentration of less than 1.0% by 

volume, it is subject to the prohibition 

in § 80.1660(f) and the downstream 

gasoline sulfur standard of § 80.1604(b). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30026 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(3) On any occasion where an additive 

blender blends an additive at a 

concentration of 1.0% by volume or 

greater, it is a fuel manufacturer as 

defined in 40 CFR 79.2(d), and is subject 

to all the provisions that apply to 

refiners under this subpart O. 

§ 80.1614 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1615 Credit generation. 

(a) Who may generate credits? Credits 

may be generated under this subpart O, 

as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and 

(d) of this section, by the following 

entities: 

(1) U.S. refiners, including small 

refiners under § 80.1620, and refiners 

owning small volume refineries under 

§ 80.1621. Foreign refiners may not 

generate credits. 

(2) Importers. 

(b) Early credit generation—January 1, 

2014 through December 31, 2016. (1) 

Early credits may be generated for 

gasoline produced or imported from 

January 1, 2014 through December 31, 

2016, by a refiner, including small 

refiners and owners of small volume 

refineries approved pursuant to 

§ 80.1622, and importers. 

(2) A refiner or importer may generate 

early credits for gasoline it produces at 

a refinery or imports during an annual 

averaging period when its annual 

average sulfur level, calculated in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 80.1603(c), is less than 30 ppm. 

(3)(i) The number of early credits 

generated shall be calculated annually 

for each applicable averaging period 

according to the following equation: 

ECa = [Va × (30¥S a)]¥CRa

Where: 

ECa = Early credits generated during the 

annual averaging period, in ppm-gallons, 

for use pursuant to § 80.1616. 

Sa = Annual average sulfur level, calculated 

in accordance with the provisions of 

§ 80.1603(c), in ppm. 

Va = Total volume of gasoline produced or 

imported during the averaging period, in 

gallons. 

CRa = Credits generated during the annual 

averaging period per § 80.310, in ppmgallons, for use pursuant to subpart H of 

this part. 

(ii) No credits shall be generated 

unless the value of ECa is positive. 

(iii) The value of ECa shall be rounded 

to the nearest ppm-gallon in accordance 

with the rounding procedure specified 

in § 80.9. 

(4) A refiner or importer may include 

any downstream added oxygenates 

included in its RFG or conventional 

gasoline volume under the provisions of 

§§ 80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectively, 

for the purpose of generating credits. 

(5) All, some, or no credits generated 

during the time period specified in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be 

designated as subject to the 

requirements of subpart H of this part. 

Any remaining credits must be 

designated as subject to the 

requirements of this subpart O. 

(c) Standard credit generation— 

beginning January 1, 2017. (1) Refiners, 

including small refiners and owners of 

small volume refineries approved 

pursuant to § 80.1622, and importers 

may generate standard credits for the 

gasoline produced at a refinery or 

imported during an annual averaging 

period when the annual average sulfur 

level of the refiner, refinery or importer, 

as applicable, and as calculated in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 80.1603(c), is less than 10 ppm. 

(2)(i) The number of standard credits 

generated shall be calculated annually 

for each applicable averaging period 

according to the following equation: 

SCa = [Va × (10¥Sa)]¥CRa

Where: 

SCa = Standard credits generated during the 

annual averaging period, in ppm-gallons, 

for use pursuant to § 80.1616. 

Sa = Annual average sulfur level, calculated 

in accordance with the provisions of 

§ 80.1603(c), in ppm. 

Va = Total volume of gasoline produced or 

imported during the averaging period, in 

gallons. 

CRa = Credits generated during the annual 

averaging period per § 80.310, in ppmgallons, for use pursuant to subpart H. 

This term is applicable only to small 

refiners and small volume refineries per 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and only 

prior to January 1, 2020. Beginning 

January 1, 2020, the value of this term is 

zero. 

(ii) No credits shall be generated 

unless the value of SCa is positive. 

(iii) The value of SCa shall be rounded 

to the nearest ppm-gallon in accordance 

with the rounding procedure specified 

in § 80.9. 

(3) A refiner or importer may include 

any downstream added oxygenates 

included in its RFG or conventional 

gasoline volume under the provisions of 

§§ 80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectively, 

for the purpose of generating credits. 

(4) Prior to January 1, 2020, credits 

generated under this paragraph (c) by 

small refiners and owners of small 

volume refineries per paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section must be designated as 

subject to the requirements of subpart H 

of this part. Any remaining credits must 

be designated as subject to the 

requirements of this subpart O. 

§ 80.1616 Credit use and transfer. 

(a) Credit use. (1) Credits may be used 

to meet the applicable annual average 

sulfur standards of § 80.1603(a)(1). 

(2) Credits must have been generated 

pursuant to the requirements of 

§ 80.1615. 

(3) Only obligated parties under this 

subpart O may generate, use, transfer or 

own credits generated under this 

subpart O. 

(4) Credit life—Early Credits. (i) Early 

credits generated under § 80.1615(b) are 

valid for use for the 2017 through 2019 

compliance years. All early credits will 

expire and become invalid after 

February 29, 2020, when the 2019 

annual compliance report is due. 

(ii) Early credits may be used for 

compliance with the annual average 

sulfur standard of § 80.1603(a)(1) by 

refiners and importers. 

(5) Credit life—Standard Credits. (i) 

Standard credits generated under 

§ 80.1615(c) are valid for use for five 

years from the year in which they are 

generated. For example, standard credits 

generated in 2017 may be used for 

compliance through the 2022 

compliance period (they would expire 

and become invalid after February 28, 

2023, the 2022 annual compliance 

report due date). 

(ii) Standard credits may be used for 

compliance with the annual average 

sulfur standard of § 80.1603(a)(1) by 

refiners and importers. 

(6) A refiner or importer possessing 

credits must use all credits prior to 

falling into a compliance deficit. 

(7) In no case may a credit be 

transferred more than twice before being 

used or terminated. 

(b) Credit transfers. (1) Credits 

obtained from other obligated parties 

may be used to meet the annual average 

standards of this subpart O, if all of the 

following conditions are met: 

(i) The credits are generated and 

reported according to the requirements 

of this subpart O. 

(ii) The credits are used in 

compliance with the limitations 

regarding the appropriate periods for 

credit use pursuant to paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(iii) Any credit transfer takes place no 

later than February 28 following the 

calendar year averaging period when the 

credits are used. 

(iv) The credit has not been 

transferred more than twice. The first 

transfer by the refiner or importer who 

generated the credit may only be made 

to a refiner or importer who intends to 

use the credit; if the transferee cannot 

use the credit, it may make the second, 

and final, transfer only to a refiner or 

importer who intends to use the credit. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30027 

(v) The credit transferor must apply 

any credits necessary to meet the 

transferor’s applicable average standard 

before transferring credits to any other 

refiner or importer. 

(vi) The credit transferor does not 

create a negative credit balance as a 

result of the credit transfer. 

(vii) Each transferor must supply to 

the transferee records indicating all of 

the following: 

(A) The years the credits were 

generated. 

(B) The identity of the refiner or 

importer who generated the credits. 

(C) The identity of the transferring 

party (if it is not the same party that 

generated the credits). 

(2) In the case of credits that have 

been calculated or created improperly, 

or are otherwise determined to be 

invalid, all of the following provisions 

apply: 

(i) Invalid credits cannot be used to 

achieve compliance with the 

transferee’s averaging standard, 

regardless of the transferee’s good faith 

belief that the credits were valid. 

(ii) The refiner or importer who used 

the credits, and any transferor of the 

credits, must adjust their credit records 

and reports and sulfur calculations as 

necessary to reflect the proper credits. 

(iii) Any properly created credits 

existing in the transferor’s credit 

balance after correcting the credit 

balance, and after the transferor applies 

credits as needed to meet the average 

standard at the end of the compliance 

year, must first be applied to correct the 

invalid transfers before the transferor 

trades or banks the credits. 

§ 80.1620 Small refiner definition. 

(a) For the purposes of this subpart O, 

a gasoline small refiner is defined as any 

refiner who meets all of the following 

criteria and has been approved by EPA 

as a small refiner per § 80.1622: 

(1) Produces gasoline at its refineries 

by processing crude oil through refinery 

processing units. 

(2) Employed an average of no more 

than 1,500 people, based on the average 

number of employees for all pay periods 

for calendar year 2011 for all subsidiary 

companies, all parent companies, all 

subsidiaries of the parent companies, 

and all joint venture partners. 

(3) Had a corporate-average crude oil 

capacity less than or equal to 155,000 

barrels per calendar day (bpcd) for 2011. 

(b) For the purposes of this section, 

the term ‘‘refiner’’ shall include foreign 

refiners. 

(c) The number of employees and 

crude oil capacity under paragraph (a) 

of this section shall be determined as 

follows: 

(1) The refiner shall include the 

employees and crude oil capacity of any 

subsidiary companies, any parent 

company and subsidiaries of the parent 

company in which the parent has 50 

percent or greater ownership, and any 

joint venture partners. 

(2) For any refiner owned by a 

governmental entity, the number of 

employees and total crude oil capacity 

as specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section shall include all employees and 

crude oil production of the government 

to which the governmental entity is a 

part. 

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) of this section, 

a refiner that acquires or reactivates a 

refinery that was shut down or nonoperational during calendar year 2011, 

may apply for small refiner status under 

this subpart O. 

(e) The following are ineligible for 

small refiner provisions under this 

subpart: 

(1) Refiners with refineries built or 

started up on or after January 1, 2011. 

(2) Persons who exceed the employee 

or crude oil capacity criteria under this 

section on January 1, 2011, but who 

meet these criteria after that date, 

regardless of whether the reduction in 

employees or crude oil capacity is due 

to operational changes at the refinery or 

a company sale or reorganization. 

(3) Importers. 

(4) Refiners who produce gasoline 

other than by processing crude oil 

through refinery processing units. 

(f)(1) A refiner approved as a small 

refiner under § 80.1622 who 

subsequently ceases production of 

gasoline from processing crude oil 

through refinery processing units, 

employs more than 1,500 people, or 

exceeds the 155,000 bpcd crude oil 

capacity limit after January 1, 2011 as a 

result of merger with or acquisition of 

or by another entity, is disqualified as 

a small refiner, except as provided for 

under paragraph (f)(4) of this section. If 

such disqualification occurs, the refiner 

shall notify EPA in writing no later than 

20 days following the disqualifying 

event. 

(2) Except as provided under 

paragraph (f)(3) of this section, any 

refiner whose status changes under this 

paragraph (f) shall meet the applicable 

standards of § 80.1603 within a period 

of up to 30 months from the 

disqualifying event for any of its 

refineries that were previously subject 

to the small refiner standards of 

§ 80.1623. 

(3) A refiner may apply to EPA for up 

to an additional six months to comply 

with the standards of § 80.1603 if more 

than 30 months would be required for 

the necessary engineering, permitting, 

construction, and start-up work to be 

completed. Such applications must 

include detailed technical information 

supporting the need for additional time. 

EPA will base a decision to approve 

additional time on information provided 

by the refiner and on other relevant 

information. 

(4) Disqualification under this 

paragraph (f) of this section shall not 

apply in the case of a merger between 

two previously approved small refiners. 

(5) If a refiner receives a delay per 

paragraphs (f)(2) and/or (f)(3) of this 

section, the refiner may not generate 

gasoline sulfur credits under this 

subpart O during that 30 or 36 month 

period. 

(6) All written notifications to EPA 

should be submitted to the addresses 

listed in § 80.1622. 

§ 80.1621 Small volume refinery definition. 

(a) For the purposes of this subpart O, 

a gasoline small volume refinery is 

defined as any refinery that meets all of 

the following criteria, and has been 

approved by EPA as a small volume 

refinery per § 80.1622: 

(1) Produces gasoline by processing 

crude oil through refinery processing 

units. 

(2) The average aggregate daily crude 

oil throughput, including feedstocks 

derived from crude oil, for the calendar 

year 2011 (as determined by dividing 

the aggregate throughput for the 

calendar year by the number of days in 

the calendar year) does not exceed 

75,000 barrels. Throughput means the 

total crude oil feedstock input into the 

refinery less volumes injected into the 

crude oil supply after refinery 

processing. 

(b) The following are ineligible for the 

small volume refinery provisions under 

this subpart: 

(1) Refineries built or started up on or 

after January 1, 2012. 

(2) Persons who exceed the crude oil 

throughput under this section for 

calendar year 2011 but who meet these 

criteria after that date, regardless of 

whether the reduction in crude oil 

capacity is due to operational changes at 

the refinery or a company sale or 

reorganization. 

(3) Importers. 

(4) Refineries that produce gasoline 

other than by processing crude oil 

through refinery processing units. 

§ 80.1622 Approval for small refiner and 

small volume refinery status. 

(a) Applications for small refiner or 

small volume refinery status under this 

subpart must be submitted to EPA by 

March 31, 2014. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30028 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(b) To qualify for small refiner status 

under this subpart a refiner must submit 

an application to EPA containing all of 

the following information for the refiner 

and for all subsidiary companies, all 

parent companies, all subsidiaries of the 

parent companies, and all joint venture 

partners: 

(1)(i) A listing of the name and 

address of all company locations for the 

period January 1, 2011 through 

December 31, 2011. 

(ii) The average number of employees 

at each location, based on the number 

of employees for each pay period for the 

period January 1, 2011 through 

December 31, 2011. 

(iii) The type of business activities 

carried out at each location. 

(iv) For joint ventures, the total 

number of employees includes the 

combined employee count of all 

corporate entities in the venture. 

(v) For government-owned refiners, 

the total employee count includes all 

government employees. 

(2)(i) The total corporate crude oil 

capacity of each refinery as reported to 

the Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE), for the period January 1, 2011 

through December 31, 2011. The 

information submitted to EIA is 

presumed to be correct. In cases where 

a company disagrees with this 

information, the company may petition 

EPA with appropriate data to correct the 

record when the company submits its 

application. 

(ii) Foreign small refiners applying for 

approval under this section must send 

the total corporate crude oil capacity of 

each refinery for the period January 1, 

2011 through December 31, 2011, to one 

of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) 

of this section. 

(3) The application must be signed by 

the president, chief operating or chief 

executive officer of the company, or his/ 

her designee, stating that the 

information is true to the best of his/her 

knowledge, and that the company 

owned the refinery as of December 31, 

2011. 

(4) Name, address, phone number, 

facsimile number, and email address of 

a corporate contact person. 

(c) To qualify for small volume 

refinery status under this subpart, a 

refiner must submit an application to 

EPA containing all of the following 

information for the refinery, or 

refineries, for which the refiner is 

applying for small volume refinery 

status: 

(1) A listing of the name and address 

of each small volume refinery owned by 

the company. 

(2)(i) The total crude throughput of 

each small volume refinery, defined as 

the total crude oil feedstock input into 

the refinery less the volumes injected 

into the crude oil supply after refinery 

processing, as reported to EIA, for the 

period January 1, 2011 through 

December 31, 2011. The information 

submitted to EIA is presumed to be 

correct. In cases where a company 

disagrees with this information, the 

company may petition EPA with 

appropriate data to correct the record 

when the company submits its 

application. 

(ii) Foreign refiners applying for small 

volume refinery approval under this 

section must send the total crude 

throughput of each small volume 

refinery, defined as the total crude oil 

feedstock input into the refinery less the 

volumes injected into the crude oil 

supply after refinery processing of each 

refinery for the period January 1, 2011 

through December 31, 2011, to one of 

the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of 

this section. 

(3) The application must be signed by 

the president, chief operating or chief 

executive officer of the company, or his/ 

her designee, stating that the 

information is true to the best of his/her 

knowledge, and that the company 

owned the refinery as of December 31, 

2011. 

(4) Name, address, phone number, 

facsimile number, and email address of 

a corporate contact person. 

(d) For foreign refiners, the small 

refiner or small volume refinery status 

application must contain all of the 

elements required in paragraph (b) or (c) 

of this section, as applicable, must 

demonstrate compliance with § 80.1620, 

and must be submitted by March 31, 

2014 to one of the addresses listed in 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

(e) A refiner who qualifies as a small 

refiner or small volume refinery under 

this subpart and subsequently fails to 

meet all of the qualifying criteria as set 

out in §§ 80.1620 and 80.1621 will be 

disqualified pursuant to § 80.1620(f) or 

§ 80.1621(d). 

(1) In the event such disqualification 

occurs, the refiner shall notify EPA in 

writing no later than 20 days following 

the disqualifying event. 

(2) Disqualification under this 

paragraph (e) shall not apply in the case 

of a merger between two approved small 

refiners. 

(3) Any refiner that acquires a refinery 

from another refiner with approved 

small refiner or small volume refinery 

status under this subpart shall notify 

EPA in writing no later than 20 days 

following the acquisition. 

(f) If EPA finds that a refiner provided 

false or inaccurate information in its 

small refiner status or small volume 

refinery status application under this 

subpart, the refiner’s small refiner or 

small volume refinery status will be 

void as of the effective date of this 

subpart. 

(g) Small refiner and small volume 

refinery status applications, and any 

other correspondence required by this 

section, § 80.1620, and/or § 80.1621 

shall be sent to one of the following 

addresses: 

(1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA—Attn: 

Tier 3 Program (Small Refiner/Small 

Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

(2) For overnight or courier services: 

U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 Program (Small 

Refiner/Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 

1310 L Street NW., 6th floor, 

Washington, DC 20005. 

§§–80.1623 80.1624 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1625 Hardship provisions. 

EPA may, at its discretion, grant a 

refiner of gasoline that processes crude 

oil through refinery processing units, for 

one or more of its refineries, temporary 

relief from some or all of the provisions 

of this subpart. 

(a) Extreme hardship circumstances. 

(1) EPA may, at its discretion, grant a 

refiner of gasoline that processes crude 

oil through refinery processing units, for 

one or more of its refineries, temporary 

relief from some or all of the provisions 

of this subpart. EPA may grant such 

relief provided that the refiner 

demonstrates all of the following: 

(i) Unusual circumstances exist that 

impose extreme hardship and 

significantly affect the refiner’s ability to 

comply by the applicable date. 

(ii) It has made best efforts to comply 

with the requirements of this subpart. 

(2) The application must specify the 

factors that demonstrate a significant 

economic hardship and must provide a 

detailed discussion regarding the 

inability of the refinery to produce 

gasoline meeting the requirements of 

§ 80.1603. Such an application must 

include, at a minimum, all of the 

following information: 

(i) Documentation of efforts made to 

obtain necessary financing, including all 

the following: 

(A) Copies of loan applications for the 

necessary financing of the construction 

of appropriate sulfur reduction 

technology and other equipment 

procurements or improvements. 

(B) If financing has been disapproved 

or is otherwise unsuccessful, documents 

supporting the basis for that disapproval 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30029 

and evidence of efforts to pursue other 

means of financing. 

(ii) A detailed analysis of the reasons 

the refinery is unable to produce 

gasoline meeting the standards of this 

subpart O in 2017, including costs, 

specification of equipment still needed, 

potential equipment suppliers, and 

efforts already completed to obtain the 

necessary equipment. 

(iii) If unavailability of equipment is 

part of the reason for the inability to 

comply, a discussion of other options 

considered, and the reasons these other 

options are not feasible. 

(iv) If relevant, a demonstration that a 

needed or lower cost technology is 

immediately unavailable, but will be 

available in the near future, and full 

information regarding when and from 

what sources it will be available. 

(v) Schematic drawings of the refinery 

configuration as of January 1, 2011, and 

as of the date of the hardship extension 

application, and any planned future 

additions or changes. 

(vi) If relevant, a demonstration that a 

temporary unavailability exists of 

engineering or construction resources 

necessary for design or installation of 

the needed equipment. 

(vii) A detailed analysis of the reasons 

the refinery is unable to use credits to 

meet the gasoline standards of this 

subpart O, including all avenues 

pursued to generate and/or procure 

credits, their cost, and ability to finance 

them. 

(viii) A discussion of any sulfur 

reductions that can be achieved from 

current levels. 

(ix) The date the refiner anticipates 

compliance with the standards in 

§ 80.1603 can be achieved at its refinery. 

(x) An analysis of the economic 

impact of compliance on the refiner’s 

business (including financial statements 

from the last 5 years, or for any time 

period up to 10 years, at EPA’s request). 

(xi) Any other information regarding 

other strategies considered, including 

strategies or components of strategies 

that do not involve installation of 

equipment, and why meeting the 

standards in § 80.1603 beginning in 

2017 (or 2020 for approved small 

refiners and small volume refineries) is 

infeasible. 

(3) Hardship applications under this 

paragraph (a) must be submitted to EPA 

by March 31, 2014 to one of the 

addresses listed in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(b) Extreme unforeseen circumstances 

hardship. (1) In appropriate extreme, 

unusual, and unforeseen circumstances 

(for example, natural disaster or refinery 

fire) which are clearly outside the 

control of the refiner or importer and 

which could not have been avoided by 

the exercise of prudence, diligence, and 

due care, EPA may permit a refiner or 

importer, for a brief period, to distribute 

gasoline which does not meet the 

requirements of this subpart for all of 

the following reasons: 

(i) It is in the public interest to do so 

(e.g., distribution of the nonconforming 

gasoline is necessary to meet projected 

shortfalls which cannot otherwise be 

compensated for). 

(ii) The refiner or importer exercised 

prudent planning and was not able to 

avoid the violation and has taken all 

reasonable steps to minimize the extent 

of the nonconformity. 

(iii) The refiner or importer can show 

how the requirements for making 

compliant gasoline, and/or purchasing 

credits to partially or completely offset 

the nonconformity, will be 

expeditiously achieved. 

(iv) The refiner or importer agrees to 

make up any air quality detriment 

associated with the nonconforming 

gasoline, where practicable. 

(v) The refiner or importer pays to the 

U.S. Treasury an amount equal to the 

economic benefit of the nonconformity 

minus the amount expended pursuant 

to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, in 

making up the air quality detriment. 

(2) The hardship application must 

meet all other applicable requirements 

of this section, except paragraph (a) of 

this section. 

(c) The hardship extension 

application must contain a letter signed 

by the president or the chief operating 

officer or chief executive officer of the 

company, or his/her designee, stating 

that the information contained in the 

application is true to the best of his/her 

knowledge. 

(d) Hardship applications under this 

section must be submitted in writing to 

one of the following addresses: 

(1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA—Attn: 

Tier 3 Program (Hardship Application), 

6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

(2) For overnight or courier services: 

U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 Program 

(Hardship Application), 6406J, 1310 L 

Street NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 

20005. 

§ 80.1630 Sampling and testing 

requirements for refiners and importers. 

(a) Sample and test each batch of 

gasoline. (1) Refiners and importers 

shall collect a representative sample 

from each batch of gasoline produced or 

imported and test each sample to 

determine its sulfur content for 

compliance with requirements under 

this subpart prior to the gasoline leaving 

the refinery or import facility, using the 

sampling and testing methods provided 

in this section or §§ 80.8 (sampling) and 

80.47 (testing). 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, the requirements of 

this section apply beginning January 1, 

2017. 

(3)(i) Beginning January 1, 2017, any 

refiner who produces gasoline using 

computer-controlled in-line blending 

equipment is exempt from the 

requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section to obtain the test results 

required under paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section prior to the gasoline leaving the 

refinery, provided that the refiner 

obtains an exemption from this 

requirement from EPA. To obtain such 

exemption, the refiner must: 

(A) Have been granted an in-line 

blending exemption under § 80.65(f)(4); 

or 

(B) If the refiner has not been granted 

an exemption under § 80.65(f)(4), 

submit to EPA all of the information 

required under § 80.65(f)(4)(i)(A). A 

letter signed by the president, chief 

operating officer or chief executive 

officer of the company, or his/her 

designee, stating that the information 

contained in the submission is true to 

the best of his/her belief must 

accompany any submission under this 

paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B). 

(ii) Refiners who seek an exemption 

under paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section 

must comply with any EPA request for 

additional information or any other 

requirements that EPA includes as part 

of the exemption. 

(iii) Within 60 days of EPA’s receipt 

of a submission under paragraph 

(a)(3)(i)(B) of this section, EPA will 

notify the refiner if the exemption is not 

approved or of any deficiencies in the 

refiner’s submission, or if any additional 

information is required or other 

requirements are included in the 

exemption pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii) of this section. In the absence 

of such notification from EPA, the 

effective date of an exemption under 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section for 

refiners who do not hold an exemption 

under § 80.65(f)(4) is 60 days from 

EPA’s receipt of the refiner’s submission 

under paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B) of this 

section. 

(iv) EPA reserves the right to modify 

the requirements of an exemption under 

paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, in 

whole or in part, at any time, if EPA 

determines that the refiner’s operation 

does not effectively or adequately 

control, monitor or document the sulfur 

content of the refinery’s gasoline 

production, or if EPA determines that 

any other circumstances exist which 

merit modification of the requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30030 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

of an exemption, such as advancements 

in the state of the art for in-line blending 

measurement which allow for 

additional control or more accurate 

monitoring or documentation of sulfur 

content. If EPA finds that a refiner 

provided false or inaccurate information 

in any submission required for an 

exemption under this section, upon 

notification from EPA, the refiner’s 

exemption will be void ab initio. 

(b) Sampling methods. For purposes 

of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners 

and importers shall sample each batch 

of gasoline by using one of the methods 

specified in § 80.8. 

(c) Test method for measuring sulfur 

content of gasoline. (1) For purposes of 

paragraph (a) of this section, refiners 

and importers shall use the method 

provided in § 80.47, as applicable, to 

measure the sulfur content of gasoline 

they produce or import. 

(2) Sulfur content shall be reported to 

the nearest ppm. 

§ 80.1631 Sample retention requirements. 

(a) Sample retention requirements. 

Beginning January 1, 2017, or January 1 

of the first year credits are generated 

under § 80.1615, whichever is earlier, 

any refiner or importer shall do all of 

the following: 

(1) Collect a representative portion of 

each sample analyzed under § 80.1630, 

of at least 330 milliliters in volume. 

(2) Retain sample portions for the 

most recent 20 samples collected, or for 

each sample collected during the most 

recent 21 day period, whichever is 

greater, not to exceed 90 days for any 

given sample. 

(3) Comply with the gasoline sample 

handling and storage procedures under 

§ 80.1630 for each sample portion 

retained. 

(4) Comply with any request by EPA 

to: 

(i) Provide a retained sample portion 

to the Administrator’s authorized 

representative; and 

(ii) Ship a retained sample portion to 

EPA, within 2 working days of the date 

of the request, by an overnight shipping 

service or comparable means, to the 

address and following procedures 

specified by EPA, and accompanied 

with the sulfur test result for the sample 

determined under § 80.1630. 

(b) Sample retention requirement for 

samples subject to independent analysis 

requirements. (1) Any refiner or 

importer who meets the independent 

analysis requirements under § 80.65(f) 

for any batch of reformulated gasoline or 

RBOB will have met the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section, provided 

the independent laboratory meets the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section for the gasoline batch; except 

that the retained RBOB sample for 

purposes of this subpart O must be a 

sample of the RBOB prior to hand 

blending with oxygenate. 

(2) For samples retained by an 

independent laboratory under this 

paragraph (b), the test results required to 

be submitted under paragraph (a) of this 

section shall be the test results 

determined under § 80.65(e). 

(c) Sampling compliance certification. 

Any refiner or importer shall include 

with each annual report filed under 

§ 80.1652, the following statement, 

which must accurately reflect the facts 

and must be signed and dated by the 

same person who signs the annual 

report: 

I certify that I have made inquiries 

that are sufficient to give me knowledge 

of the procedures to collect and store 

gasoline samples, and I further certify 

that the procedures meet the 

requirements of the ASTM procedures 

required under 40 CFR 80.1630. 

(d) Prior to January 1, 2017, for 

purposes of complying with the 

requirements of this section, refiners 

who analyze composited samples under 

§ 80.1630 must retain portions of the 

composited samples. Portions of 

samples of each batch comprising the 

composited samples are not required to 

be retained. 

(e) For purposes of complying with 

the requirements of this section for 

RBOB, a sample of each RBOB batch 

produced must be retained. 

§ 80.1640 Standards and requirements that 

apply to refiners producing gasoline by 

blending blendstocks into previously 

certified gasoline (PCG). 

(a) Any refiner who produces gasoline 

by blending blendstock into PCG, as 

defined at § 80.2(d), must meet the 

requirements of § 80.1630 to sample and 

test every batch of gasoline as follows: 

(1) Exclude the PCG for purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

sulfur standards of this subpart O. 

(2) To accomplish the exclusion 

required in paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section, the refiner must determine the 

volume and sulfur content of the PCG 

used at the refinery and the volume of 

and sulfur content of the gasoline 

produced at the refinery, and use the 

compliance calculation procedures in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this 

section. 

(3) For each batch of PCG that is used 

to produce gasoline the refiner must 

include the volume and sulfur content 

of the PCG as a negative volume and a 

positive sulfur content in the refiner’s 

compliance calculations in accord with 

the requirements at § 80.1603. 

(4) For each batch of gasoline 

produced at the refinery using PCG and 

blendstock, the refiner must determine 

the volume and sulfur content of the 

combined product and include each 

batch of combined product for purposes 

of sulfur compliance in the refinery’s 

compliance calculations at § 80.1603 

without regard to the presence of 

previously certified gasoline in the 

batch. 

(5) The refiner must use any PCG that 

it includes as a negative batch in its 

compliance calculations pursuant to 

§ 80.1603 as a component in gasoline 

production during the annual averaging 

period in which the PCG was included 

as a negative batch in the refiner’s 

compliance calculations. 

(6) The refiner must also comply with 

§ 80.65(i) when producing RBOB or RFG 

and § 80.101(g)(9) when producing 

conventional gasoline or CBOB. 

(7) Any negative annual average 

sulfur value shall be reported as zero 

and not as a negative result. 

(b) In the alternative, a refiner may 

sample and test each batch of 

blendstock when received at the 

refinery to determine the volume and 

sulfur content, and treat each 

blendstock receipt as a separate batch 

for purposes of compliance calculations 

for the annual average sulfur standard 

and for reporting. This alternative 

applies only if every batch of blendstock 

used at a refinery during an averaging 

period has a sulfur content that is equal 

to, or less than, the applicable pergallon cap standard under § 80.1603. 

(c) Refiners who blend only butane 

into PCG may meet the sampling and 

testing requirements of this subpart O 

for sulfur by using sulfur test results of 

the butane supplier, provided that the 

requirements of § 80.82 are met. 

§ 80.1641 Alternative sulfur standards and 

requirements that apply to importers who 

transport gasoline by truck. 

Importers who import gasoline into 

the United States by truck may comply 

with the following requirements instead 

of the requirements to sample and test 

every batch of gasoline under § 80.1630, 

and the annual sulfur average and pergallon cap standards otherwise 

applicable to importers under § 80.1603: 

(a) Alternative standards. The 

imported gasoline must comply with the 

standard in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 

this section as follows: 

(1) The annual average standard of 10 

ppm and the per-gallon standard of 80 

ppm as provided by § 80.1603; or 

(2) A per-gallon standard of 10 ppm. 

(b) Terminal testing. The importer 

may use test results for sulfur content 

testing conducted by the terminal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30031 

operator, for gasoline contained in the 

storage tank from which trucks used to 

transport gasoline into the United States 

are loaded, for purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with the 

standards in paragraph (a) of this 

section, provided all the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) The sampling and testing shall be 

performed after each receipt of gasoline 

into the storage tank, or immediately 

before each transfer of gasoline to the 

importer’s truck. 

(2) The sampling and testing shall be 

performed using the methods specified 

in §§ 80.8 and 80.47, respectively. 

(3) At the time of each transfer of 

gasoline to the importer’s truck for 

import to the U.S., the importer must 

obtain a copy of the terminal test result 

that indicates the sulfur content of the 

truck load (or each compartment if fuel 

was loaded from different storage tanks). 

(c) Quality assurance program. The 

importer must conduct a quality 

assurance program, as specified in this 

paragraph, for each truck loading 

terminal. 

(1) Quality assurance samples must be 

obtained from the truck-loading 

terminal and tested by the importer, or 

by an independent laboratory, and the 

terminal operator must not know in 

advance when samples are to be 

collected. 

(2) The sampling and testing must be 

performed using the methods specified 

in §§ 80.8 and 80.47, respectively. 

(3) The quality assurance test results 

for sulfur must differ from the terminal 

test result by no more than the ASTM 

reproducibility of the terminal’s test 

results, as determined by the following 

equation: 

R = 105 × ((S +2)/104)0.4

Where: 

R = ASTM reproducibility. 

S = Sulfur content based on the terminal’s 

test result. 

(4) The frequency of the quality 

assurance sampling and testing must be 

at least one sample for each fifty of an 

importer’s trucks that are loaded at a 

terminal, or one sample per month, 

whichever is more frequent. 

(d) Party required to conduct quality 

assurance testing. The quality assurance 

program under paragraph (c) of this 

section shall be conducted by the 

importer. In the alternative, this testing 

may be conducted by an independent 

laboratory that meets the criteria under 

§ 80.65(f)(2)(iii), provided the importer 

receives, no later than 21 days after the 

sample was taken, copies of all results 

of tests conducted. 

(e) Assignment of batch numbers. The 

importer must treat each truck load of 

imported gasoline as a separate batch for 

purposes of assigning batch numbers 

and maintaining records under 

§ 80.1653, and reporting under 

§ 80.1652. 

(f) EPA inspections of terminals. EPA 

inspectors or auditors, and auditors 

conducting attest engagements under 

§ 80.1667, must be given full and 

immediate access to the truck-loading 

terminal and any laboratory at which 

samples of gasoline collected at the 

terminal are analyzed, and must be 

allowed to conduct inspections, review 

records, collect gasoline samples, and 

perform audits. These inspections or 

audits may be either announced or 

unannounced. 

(g) Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. This 

section does not apply to Certified 

Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(h) Reporting requirements. Any 

importer who elects to comply with the 

alternative standards in paragraph (a) of 

this section shall comply with the 

following requirements: 

(1) All importer recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements under 

§§ 80.1652 and 80.1653, except as 

provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this 

section. 

(2) An importer who elects to comply 

with the alternative standards in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section must 

certify in the annual report whether it 

is in compliance with the applicable 

per-gallon batch standard set forth in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, in lieu 

of providing the information required by 

§ 80.1652 regarding annual average 

sulfur content and compliance with the 

average standard under § 80.1603. 

(i) Effect of noncompliance. If any of 

the requirements of this section are not 

met, all gasoline imported by the truck 

importer during the time any 

requirements are not met is deemed in 

violation of the gasoline sulfur average 

and per-gallon cap standards in 

§ 80.1603. Additionally, if any 

requirement is not met, EPA may notify 

the importer of the violation and, if the 

requirement is not fulfilled within 10 

days of notification, the truck importer 

may not in the future use the sampling 

and testing provisions in this section in 

lieu of the provisions in § 80.1630. 

§§ 80.1642–80.1649 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1650 Registration. 

The following registration 

requirements apply under this subpart: 

(a) Registration with the EPA 

Administrator is required for any: 

(1) Gasoline refiner or importer 

having any refinery or import facility 

subject to the gasoline sulfur standards 

under this subpart O. 

(2) Oxygenate producer or importer 

having any oxygenate production 

facility or import facility subject to the 

oxygenate sulfur standards under 

§ 80.1610 unless already registered 

under § 80.1450. 

(3) Oxygenate blender who has any 

oxygenate blending facility that blends 

oxygenate into RBOB where the 

resulting gasoline is subject to the 

gasoline sulfur standards under this 

subpart O. 

(b) Registration dates. (1) Any 

gasoline refiner or importer required to 

register shall do so by March 31, 2014, 

or at least thirty days in advance of the 

first date that such person will produce 

or import reformulated gasoline, 

conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB, 

whichever is later. 

(2) Any oxygenate producer or 

importer required to register shall do so 

by December 1, 2017, or at least thirty 

days in advance of the first date that 

such person will produce or import 

oxygenate, whichever is later. 

(3) Any oxygenate blender required to 

register shall do so by March 31, 2014, 

or at least thirty days in advance of the 

first date that such person will blend 

oxygenate into RBOB, whichever is 

later. 

(c) Refiner registration. (1) 

Registration shall be on forms 

prescribed by the Administrator, and 

shall include all the following 

information: 

(i) The name, business address, 

contact name, email address, and 

telephone number of the refiner. 

(ii) For each separate refinery, the 

facility name, physical location, contact 

name, email address, telephone number, 

and type of facility. 

(iii) For each separate refinery: 

(A) Whether records are kept on-site 

or off-site of the refinery. 

(B) If records are kept off-site, the 

primary off-site storage facility name, 

physical location, contact name, email 

address, and telephone number. 

(iv) For each separate refinery that 

produces reformulated gasoline and/or 

RBOB, the name, address, contact name, 

email address, and telephone number of 

the independent laboratory used to meet 

the independent analysis requirements 

of § 80.65(f). 

(2) EPA will supply a company 

registration number to each refiner, and 

a facility registration number for each 

refinery that is identified. These 

registration numbers shall be used in all 

reports to the Administrator. 

(3) Updates to registration. (i) Any 

refiner shall submit updated registration 

information to the Administrator within 

thirty days of any occasion when the 

registration information previously 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

supplied becomes incomplete or 

inaccurate; except that 

(ii) EPA must be notified in writing of 

any change in designated independent 

laboratory under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of 

this section at least thirty days in 

advance of such change. 

(d) Gasoline importer registration. (1) 

Registration shall be on forms 

prescribed by the Administrator, and 

shall include all the following 

information: 

(i) The name, business address, 

contact name, email address, and 

telephone number of the importer. 

(ii) For each importer’s operations in 

a single PADD: 

(A) Whether records are kept on-site 

at the registered address or off-site. 

(B) If records are kept off-site, the 

primary off-site storage facility name, 

physical location, contact name, email 

address, and telephone number. 

(C) For importers that import 

reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB, the 

name, address, contact name and 

telephone number of the independent 

laboratory used to meet the independent 

analysis requirements of § 80.65(f). 

(2) EPA will supply a company 

registration number to each importer. 

This registration number shall be used 

in all reports to the Administrator. 

(3) Updates to registration. (i) Any 

importer shall submit updated 

registration information to the 

Administrator within thirty days of any 

occasion when the registration 

information previously supplied 

becomes incomplete or inaccurate; 

except that 

(ii) EPA must be notified in writing of 

any change in designated independent 

laboratory under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(C) 

of this section at least thirty days in 

advance of such change. 

(e) Oxygenate producer registration. 

(1) Registration shall be on forms 

prescribed by the Administrator, and 

shall include all the following 

information: 

(i) The name, business address, 

contact name, email address, and 

telephone number of the oxygenate 

producer. 

(ii) For each separate oxygenate 

production facility, the facility name, 

physical location, contact name, 

telephone number, and type of facility. 

(iii) For each separate oxygenate 

production facility: 

(A) Whether records are kept on-site 

or off-site of the refinery. 

(B) If records are kept off-site, the 

primary off-site storage facility name, 

physical location, contact name, and 

telephone number. 

(2) EPA will supply a company 

registration number to each oxygenate 

producer, and a facility registration 

number for each oxygenate production 

facility that is identified. These 

registration numbers or those provided 

under § 80.1450 shall be used in all 

reports to the Administrator. 

(3) Updates to registration. Any 

oxygenate producer shall submit 

updated registration information to the 

Administrator within thirty days of any 

occasion when the registration 

information previously supplied 

becomes incomplete or inaccurate. 

(f) Oxygenate importer registration. (1) 

Registration shall be on forms 

prescribed by the Administrator, and 

shall include all the following 

information: 

(i) The name, business address, 

contact name, and email address, 

telephone number of the importer. 

(ii) For each importer’s operations in 

a single PADD: 

(A) Whether records are kept on-site 

at the registered address or off-site. 

(B) If records are kept off-site, the 

primary off-site storage facility name, 

physical location, contact name, email 

address, and telephone number. 

(2) EPA will supply a company 

registration number to each importer. 

This registration number shall be used 

in all reports to the Administrator. 

(g) Oxygenate blender registration. (1) 

Registration shall be on forms 

prescribed by the Administrator, and 

shall include all the following 

information: 

(i) The name, business address, 

contact name, and email address, 

telephone number of the oxygenate 

blender. 

(ii) For each separate oxygenate 

blending facility, the facility name, 

physical location, contact name, 

telephone number, and type of facility. 

(iii) For each separate oxygenate 

blending facility: 

(A) Whether records are kept on-site 

or off-site of the refinery. 

(B) If records are kept off-site, the 

primary off-site storage facility name, 

physical location, contact name, email 

address, and telephone number. 

(2) EPA will supply a company 

registration number to each oxygenate 

blender, and a facility registration 

number for each oxygenate blending 

facility that is identified. These 

registration numbers or those provided 

under § 80.1450 shall be used in all 

reports to the Administrator. 

(3) Updates to registration. Any 

oxygenate producer shall submit 

updated registration information to the 

Administrator within thirty days of any 

occasion when the registration 

information previously supplied 

becomes incomplete or inaccurate. 

§ 80.1651 Product transfer document 

requirements. 

(a) On each occasion that any person 

transfers custody or title to any gasoline, 

RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate other than 

when gasoline is sold or dispensed for 

use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet 

or wholesale purchaser-consumer 

facility, the transferor shall provide to 

the transferee documents which include 

all the following information: 

(1) The name and address of the 

transferor. 

(2) The name and address of the 

transferee. 

(3) The volume of gasoline, RBOB, 

CBOB, or oxygenate which is being 

transferred. 

(4) The location of the gasoline, 

RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate at the time 

of the transfer. 

(5) The date of the transfer. 

(b) On each occasion when any 

person transfers custody or title to any 

gasoline for export or with an 

exemption under §§ 80.1654, 80.1655, 

80.1656, and/or 80.1658, any of the 

following statements must be included 

on the product transfer document: 

(1) For gasoline with a national 

security exemption under § 80.1655, 

‘‘This gasoline is for use in vehicles, 

engines, or equipment under an EPAapproved national security exemption 

only.’’. 

(2) For gasoline with a research, 

development, or testing exemption 

under § 80.1656, ‘‘This gasoline is for 

research, development, or testing 

purposes only.’’. 

(3) For gasoline for use in American 

Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands under 

§ 80.1658, ‘‘This is gasoline for use only 

in Guam, American Samoa, or the 

Northern Mariana Islands.’’. 

(4) For gasoline for export purposes, 

‘‘This gasoline is for export only.’’. 

(5) For gasoline for racing purposes, 

‘‘This gasoline is for racing purposes 

only.’’. 

(6) For California gasoline, pursuant 

to § 80.1654, ‘‘California gasoline’’. 

(c) On each occasion when any person 

transfers custody or title to any gasoline 

additive intended to be used at less than 

1 volume percent, other than when 

gasoline is sold or dispensed for use in 

motor vehicles at a retail outlet or 

wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, 

the transferor shall provide to the 

transferee documents which include 

information on the maximum 

recommended treatment level. 

§ 80.1652 Reporting requirements. 

Beginning with the 2017 averaging 

period or the first year credits are 

generated under § 80.1615 (whichever is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30033 

earlier), and continuing for each 

averaging period thereafter, any refiner 

or importer, and any oxygenate 

producer or importer, shall submit to 

EPA annual reports that contain the 

information required in this section, and 

any other information as EPA may 

require. 

(a) Refiner and importer annual 

reports. Any refiner, for each of its 

refineries, and any importer for the 

gasoline it imports, shall submit a report 

for each calendar year averaging period 

that includes all the following 

information: 

(1) The EPA importer, or refiner and 

refinery facility registration numbers. 

(2) The average standard under 

§ 80.1603, reported to two decimal 

places. 

(3) The total volume of gasoline 

produced or imported, reported to the 

nearest whole number. 

(4) The annual average sulfur level of 

the gasoline produced or imported, 

reported to two decimal places. 

(5) The annual average sulfur level 

after inclusion of any credits, reported 

to two decimal places. 

(6) Separately provided information 

for credits, and separately by year of 

creation, as follows: 

(i) The number of credits at the 

beginning of the averaging period, 

reported to the nearest whole number. 

(ii) The number of credits generated, 

reported to the nearest whole number. 

(iii) The number of credits used, 

reported to the nearest whole number. 

(iv) If any credits were obtained from 

or transferred to other parties; and for 

each other party, its name and EPA 

refiner or importer registration number, 

and the number of credits obtained from 

or transferred to the other party. 

(v) The number of credits that expired 

at the end of the averaging period, 

reported to the nearest whole number. 

(vi) The number of credits that will 

carry over into the subsequent averaging 

period, reported to the nearest whole 

number. 

(7) For each batch of gasoline 

produced or imported during the 

averaging period, all of the following: 

(i) The batch number assigned under 

§ 80.65(d)(3); except that if composite 

samples of conventional gasoline 

representing multiple batches produced 

subsequent to December 31, 2003, are 

tested under § 80.101(i)(2) for antidumping compliance purposes, for 

purposes of this subpart a separate batch 

number must be assigned to each batch 

using the batch numbering procedures 

under § 80.65(d)(3). 

(ii) The date the batch was produced. 

(iii) The volume of the batch, reported 

to the nearest whole number. 

(iv) The sulfur content of the batch, 

reported to two decimal places, along 

with identification of the test method 

used to determine the sulfur content of 

the batch, as determined under 

§ 80.1630. 

(8) All values measured or calculated 

pursuant to the requirements of this 

paragraph (a) shall be in accordance 

with the rounding procedure specified 

in § 80.9. 

(9) When submitting reports under 

this paragraph (a) from January 1, 2017 

through December 31, 2019, any 

importer shall exclude Certified SulfurFRGAS. 

(b) Additional reporting requirements 

for importers. From January 1, 2017 

through December 31, 2019, importers 

shall report all of the following 

information for Sulfur-FRGAS imported 

during an annual averaging period: 

(1) The EPA refiner and refinery 

registration numbers of each foreign 

refiner and refinery where the Certified 

Sulfur-FRGAS was produced. 

(2) The total gallons of Certified 

Sulfur-FRGAS and Non-Certified SulfurFRGAS imported from each foreign 

refiner and refinery, reported to one 

decimal place. 

(c) Oxygenate producer reports. On an 

annual basis, the producer of DFE or 

other oxygenate must submit a summary 

report to EPA which includes all of the 

following: 

(1) The facility identification 

information provided pursuant to 

§ 80.1650. 

(2) The total volume of all batches of 

DFE and other oxygenate produced. 

(3) An attestation that all of the 

batches of DFE and other oxygenate 

produced during the compliance period 

were in compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(d) Report submission. Any annual 

report required under this section shall 

be: 

(1) Signed and certified as meeting all 

of the applicable requirements of this 

subpart by the owner or a responsible 

corporate officer of the refiner or 

importer; and 

(2) Submitted to EPA no later than the 

March 31 each year for the prior 

calendar year averaging period. 

(e) Attest reports. Attest reports for 

refiner and importer attest engagements 

required under § 80.1667 shall be 

submitted to the Administrator by May 

31 of each year for the prior calendar 

year averaging period. 

§ 80.1653 Recordkeeping. 

(a) Records that must be kept. 

Beginning January 1, 2017 or January 1 

of the first year that credits are 

generated (whichever is earlier), any 

person who produces, imports, sells, 

offers for sale, dispenses, distributes, 

supplies, offers for supply, stores, or 

transports gasoline, shall keep records 

that contain all of the following 

information: 

(1) The product transfer document 

information required under § 80.1651. 

(2) All of the following information 

for any sampling and testing for sulfur 

content required under this subpart O: 

(i) The location, date, time, and 

storage tank or truck identification for 

each sample collected. 

(ii) The name and title of the person 

who collected the sample and the 

person who performed the test. 

(iii) The results of the test as 

originally printed by the testing 

apparatus, or where no printed result is 

produced, the results as originally 

recorded by the person who performed 

the test. 

(iv) Any record that contains a test 

result for the sample that is not identical 

to the result recorded under paragraph 

(a)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(v) The test methodology used. 

(b) Additional records that refiners 

and importers must keep. Beginning 

January 1, 2014, or January 1 of the first 

year credits are generated under 

§ 80.1615, whichever is earlier, any 

refiner for each of its refineries and any 

importer for the gasoline it imports, 

shall keep records that include all of the 

following information: 

(1) For each batch of gasoline 

produced or imported: 

(i) The batch volume. 

(ii) The batch number assigned under 

§ 80.65(d)(3) and the appropriate 

designation under paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of 

this section; except that for composite 

samples of conventional gasoline 

representing multiple batches, that are 

tested under § 80.101(i)(2) for purposes 

of this subpart, a separate batch number 

must be assigned to each batch using the 

batch numbering procedures under 

§ 80.65(d)(3). 

(iii) The date of production or 

importation. 

(iv) If appropriate, the designation of 

the batch as California gasoline under 

§ 80.1654, exempt gasoline for national 

security purposes under § 80.1655, 

exempt gasoline for research and 

development under § 80.1656, or for 

export outside the United States. 

(v) The test methodology used. 

(2) Information regarding credits, 

separately kept according to the year of 

creation; and for credit generation or use 

starting in 2014. Information shall be 

kept separately for different types of 

credits generated under § 80.1615: 

(i) The number of credits in the 

refiner’s or importer’s possession at the 

beginning of the averaging period. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) The number of credits generated. 

(iii) The number of credits used. 

(iv) If any credits were obtained from 

or transferred to other parties, all the 

following for each other party: 

(A) The party’s name. 

(B) The party’s EPA refiner or 

importer registration number. 

(C) The number of credits obtained 

from, or transferred to, the party. 

(v) The number of credits that expired 

at the end of the averaging period. 

(vi) The number of credits in the 

refiner’s or importer’s possession that 

will carry over into the subsequent 

averaging period. 

(vii) Contracts or other commercial 

documents that establish each transfer 

of credits from the transferor to the 

transferee. 

(3) The calculations used to determine 

compliance with the applicable sulfur 

average standards of § 80.1603 or 

§ 80.1604. 

(4) The calculations used to determine 

the number of credits generated under 

§ 80.1615. 

(5) A copy of all reports submitted to 

EPA under § 80.1652. 

(6) In the case of parties who process 

transmix, records of any sampling and 

testing required under § 80.1607. 

(c) Additional records importers must 

keep. Any importer shall keep records 

that identify and verify the source of 

each batch of certified Sulfur-FRGAS 

and non-certified Sulfur-FRGAS 

imported and demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements for importers 

under § 80.1666. 

(d) Records that producers of 

denatured fuel ethanol and other 

oxygenates must keep. 

(1) The date each batch was produced. 

(2) The batch volume and an 

identification of the test methodology 

used. 

(3) The test results on the sulfur 

content of each batch and the test 

methodology used. 

(4) The volume percent denaturant 

used in each batch if the oxygenate is 

denatured fuel ethanol. 

(5) The type and source of the 

denaturant used in each batch if the 

oxygenate is denatured fuel ethanol. 

(e) Records that parties that take 

custody of oxygenates must keep. All 

parties that take custody of oxygenate 

from the oxygenate producer through to 

the oxygenate blender must keep a copy 

of the product transfer document for 

each batch of oxygenate. 

(f) Length of time records must be 

kept. The records required under this 

subpart O shall be kept for five years 

from the date they were created; except 

in the following cases: 

(1) Transfers of credits. Except as 

provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this 

section, records relating to credit 

transfers shall be kept by the transferor 

for five years from the date the credits 

are transferred; and shall be kept by the 

transferee for five years from the date 

the credits were transferred, used, or 

terminated, whichever is later. 

(2) Early credits. (i) Where the party 

generating the credits does not transfer 

the credits, records must be kept for five 

years from the date of creation, use, or 

termination, whichever is later. 

(ii) Where early credits are 

transferred, records relating to such 

credits shall be kept by the transferor for 

five years from the date the credits are 

transferred; and shall be kept by the 

transferee for five years from the date 

the credits were transferred, used, or 

terminated, whichever is later. 

(g) Make records available to EPA. On 

request by EPA, the records required in 

this section shall be provided to the 

Administrator’s authorized 

representative. For records that are 

electronically generated or maintained, 

the equipment and software necessary 

to read the records shall be made 

available; or, if requested by EPA, 

electronic records shall be converted to 

paper documents which shall be 

provided to the Administrator’s 

authorized representative. 

§ 80.1654 California gasoline 

requirements. 

(a) California gasoline exemption. 

California gasoline that complies with 

all the requirements of this section is 

exempt from all other provisions of this 

subpart O. 

(b) Requirements for California 

gasoline. (1) Each batch of California 

gasoline must be designated as such by 

its refiner or importer. 

(2) Designated California gasoline 

must be kept segregated from gasoline 

that is not California gasoline, at all 

points in the distribution system. 

(3) Designated California gasoline 

must ultimately be used in the State of 

California and not used elsewhere. 

(4) For California gasoline produced 

outside the State of California, the 

transferors and transferees must meet 

the product transfer document 

requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section. 

(5)(i) Any refiner that operates a 

refinery located outside the State of 

California at which California gasoline 

(as defined in § 80.1600) is produced 

must provide to any person to whom 

custody or title of such gasoline has 

transferred, and each transferee must 

provide to any subsequent transferee, 

documents which include all the 

following information: 

(A) The name and address of the 

transferor. 

(B) The name and address of the 

transferee. 

(C) The volume of gasoline which is 

being transferred. 

(D) The location of the gasoline at the 

time of the transfer. 

(E) The date and time of the transfer. 

(F) The identification of the gasoline 

as California gasoline. 

(ii) Each refiner and transferee of 

California gasoline must maintain 

copies of the product transfer 

documents required to be provided by 

paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section for a 

period of five years from the date of 

creation and shall deliver such 

documents to the Administrator or to 

the Administrator’s authorized 

representative upon request. 

(6) Gasoline that is ultimately used in 

any part of the United States outside of 

the State of California must comply with 

the standards and requirements of this 

subpart, regardless of any designation as 

California gasoline. 

(c) Use of California test methods and 

offsite sampling procedures. In the case 

of any gasoline that is not California 

gasoline and that is either produced at 

a refinery located in the State of 

California or is imported from outside 

the United States into the State of 

California, the refiner or importer may, 

with regard to such gasoline: 

(1) Use the sampling and testing 

methods approved in Title 13 of the 

California Code of Regulations instead 

of the sampling and testing methods 

required under § 80.1630; and 

(2) Determine the sulfur content of 

gasoline at offsite tankage (which would 

otherwise be prohibited under 

§ 80.65(e)(1)). 

(i) Note that the requirements of 

§ 80.65(e)(1), regarding when the 

properties of a batch of reformulated 

gasoline must be determined, specify 

that the properties of a batch of gasoline 

be determined prior to the gasoline 

leaving the refinery or import facility; 

however, under this section, a refiner of 

California gasoline may determine the 

properties of gasoline as specified under 

§ 80.65(e)(1) at offsite tankage provided 

that: 

(A) The samples are properly 

collected under the terms of a current 

and valid protocol agreement between 

the refiner and the California Air 

Resources Board with regard to 

sampling at the offsite tankage and 

consistent with the requirements 

prescribed in Title 13, California Code 

of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 

1, 2003); and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30035 

(B) The refiner provides a copy of the 

protocol agreement to EPA upon 

request. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

§ 80.1655 National security exemption. 

(a) The standards of § 80.1603 do not 

apply to gasoline that is produced, 

imported, sold, offered for sale, 

supplied, offered for supply, stored, 

dispensed, or transported for use in any 

of the following: 

(1) Tactical military vehicles, engines, 

or equipment having an EPA national 

security exemption from the gasoline 

emission standards under 40 CFR part 

86. 

(2) Tactical military vehicles, engines, 

or equipment that are not subject to a 

national security exemption from 

vehicle or engine emissions standards as 

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section but, for national security 

purposes (for purposes of readiness for 

deployment oversees), need to be fueled 

on the same gasoline as the vehicles, 

engines, or equipment for which EPA 

has granted such a national security 

exemption. 

(b) The exempt fuel must meet all the 

following conditions: 

(1) It must be accompanied by 

product transfer documents as required 

under § 80.1651. 

(2) It must be segregated from nonexempt gasoline at all points in the 

distribution system. 

(3) It must be dispensed from a fuel 

pump stand, fueling truck, or tank that 

is labeled with the appropriate 

designation of the fuel. 

(4) It may not be used in any vehicles, 

engines, or equipment other than those 

referred to in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

§ 80.1656 Exemptions for gasoline used 

for research, development, or testing 

purposes. 

(a) Written request for a research and 

development exemption. Any person 

may receive an exemption from the 

provisions of this subpart for gasoline 

used for research, development, or 

testing (‘‘R&D’’) purposes by submitting 

the information listed in paragraph (c) 

of this section to EPA. Applications for 

R&D exemptions must be submitted to 

one of the addresses in paragraph (h) of 

this section. 

(b) Criteria for a research and 

development exemption. For a research 

and development exemption to be 

granted, the person requesting an 

exemption must do all of the following: 

(1) Demonstrate a purpose that 

constitutes an appropriate basis for 

exemption. 

(2) Demonstrate that an exemption is 

necessary. 

(3) Design a research and 

development program that is reasonable 

in scope. 

(4) Have a degree of control consistent 

with the purpose of the program and 

EPA’s monitoring requirements. 

(c) Information required to be 

submitted. To demonstrate each of the 

elements in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the person requesting an 

exemption must include all of the 

following information: 

(1) A concise statement of the purpose 

of the program demonstrating that the 

program has an appropriate research 

and development purpose. 

(2) An explanation of why the stated 

purpose of the program cannot be 

achieved in a practicable manner 

without performing one or more of the 

prohibited acts under this subpart O. 

(3) All of the following, to 

demonstrate the reasonableness of the 

scope of the program: 

(i) An estimate of the program’s 

beginning and ending dates. 

(ii) An estimate of the maximum 

number of vehicles or engines involved 

in the program and the number of miles 

and engine hours that will be 

accumulated on each. 

(iii) The sulfur content of the gasoline 

expected to be used in the program. 

(iv) The quantity of gasoline which 

does not comply with the requirements 

of § 80.1603. 

(v) The manner in which the 

information on vehicles and engines 

used in the program will be recorded 

and made available to the Administrator 

upon request. 

(4) With regard to control, a 

demonstration that the program affords 

EPA a monitoring capability, including 

all the following: 

(i) A description of the technical and 

operational aspects of the program. 

(ii) The site(s) of the program 

(including facility name, street address, 

city, county, state, and zip code). 

(iii) The manner in which information 

on the fuel used in the program 

(including quantity, fuel properties, 

name, address, telephone number and 

contact person of the supplier, and the 

date received from the supplier), will be 

recorded and made available to the 

Administrator upon request. 

(iv) The manner in which the party 

will ensure that the research and 

development fuel will be segregated 

from gasoline meeting the standards of 

this subpart and how fuel pumps will be 

labeled to ensure proper use of the 

research and development fuel. 

(v) The name, address, telephone 

number, and title of the person(s) in the 

organization requesting an exemption 

from whom further information on the 

application may be obtained. 

(vi) The name, address, telephone 

number, and title of the person(s) in the 

organization requesting an exemption 

who is responsible for recording and 

making available the information 

specified in this paragraph (c), and the 

location where such information will be 

maintained. 

(d) Additional requirements. (1) The 

product transfer documents associated 

with research and development gasoline 

must comply with requirements of 

§ 80.1651(c). 

(2) The research and development 

gasoline must be designated by the 

refiner or supplier, as applicable, as 

exempt research and development 

gasoline. 

(3) The research and development 

gasoline must be kept segregated from 

non-exempt gasoline at all points in the 

distribution system. 

(4) The research and development 

gasoline must not be sold, distributed, 

offered for sale or distribution, 

dispensed, supplied, offered for supply, 

transported to or from, or stored by a 

fuel retail outlet, or by a wholesale 

purchaser-consumer facility, unless the 

wholesale purchaser-consumer facility 

is associated with the research and 

development program that uses the 

gasoline. 

(5) At the completion of the program, 

any emission control systems or 

elements of design which are damaged 

or rendered inoperative shall be 

replaced on vehicles remaining in 

service, or the responsible person will 

be liable for a violation of the Clean Air 

Act section 203(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 7522 

(a)(3)) unless sufficient evidence is 

supplied that the emission controls or 

elements of design were not damaged. 

(e) Memorandum of exemption. The 

Administrator will grant an R&D 

exemption upon a demonstration that 

the requirements of this section have 

been met. The R&D exemption will be 

granted in the form of a memorandum 

of exemption signed by the applicant 

and the Administrator (or delegate), 

which may include such terms and 

conditions as the Administrator 

determines necessary to monitor the 

exemption and to carry out the purposes 

of this section, including restoration of 

emission control systems. 

(1) The volume of fuel subject to the 

approval shall not exceed the estimated 

amount under paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section, unless EPA grants a greater 

amount in writing. 

(2) Any exemption granted under this 

section will expire at the completion of 

the test program or three years from the 

date of approval, whichever occurs first, 

and may only be extended upon remstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

application consistent will all 

requirements of this section. 

(3) EPA may elect at any time to 

review the information contained in the 

request, and where appropriate may 

notify the responsible person of 

disapproval of the exemption. 

(4) In granting an exemption the 

Administrator may include terms and 

conditions, including replacement of 

emission control devices or elements of 

design, that the Administrator 

determines are necessary for monitoring 

the exemption and for assuring that the 

purposes of this subpart are met. 

(5) Any violation of a term or 

condition of the exemption, or of any 

requirement of this section, will cause 

the exemption to be void ab initio. 

(6) If any information required under 

paragraph (c) of this section should 

change after approval of the exemption, 

the responsible person must notify EPA 

in writing immediately. Failure to do so 

may result in disapproval of the 

exemption or may make it void ab 

initio, and may make the party liable for 

a violation of this subpart O. 

(f) Effects of exemption. Gasoline that 

is subject to a research and development 

exemption under this section is exempt 

from other provisions of this subpart O 

provided that the fuel is used in a 

manner that complies with the purpose 

of the program under paragraph (c) of 

this section and all other requirements 

of this section. 

(g) Notification of completion. The 

party shall notify EPA in writing within 

30 days after completion of the research 

and development program. 

(h) Submission. Requests for research 

and development exemptions shall be 

sent to one of the following addresses: 

(1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA—Attn: 

Tier 3 Program (R&D Exemption 

Request), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

(2) For overnight or courier services: 

U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 Program (R&D 

Exemption Request), 6406J, 1310 L 

Street NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 

20005. 

§ 80.1657 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1658 Requirements for gasoline for 

use in American Samoa, Guam, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. 

The gasoline sulfur standards of this 

subpart O do not apply to gasoline that 

is produced, imported, sold, offered for 

sale, supplied, offered for supply, 

stored, dispensed, or transported for use 

in the Territories of Guam, American 

Samoa or the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, provided that 

such gasoline meets all of the following 

requirements: 

(a) The gasoline is designated by the 

refiner or importer as high sulfur 

gasoline only for use in Guam, 

American Samoa, or the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

(b) The gasoline is used only in Guam, 

American Samoa, or the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

(c) The gasoline is accompanied by 

documentation that complies with the 

product transfer document requirements 

of § 80.1651(c)(3). 

(d) The gasoline is segregated from 

non-exempt high sulfur gasoline at all 

points in the distribution system from 

the point the fuel is designated as 

gasoline only for use in Guam, 

American Samoa, or the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, while 

the fuel is in the United States but 

outside these Territories. 

§ 80.1659 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1660 Prohibited acts. 

No person shall: 

(a) Averaging violation. Produce or 

import gasoline that does not comply 

with the applicable sulfur average 

standard under § 80.1603. 

(b) Cap standard violation. Produce, 

import, sell, offer for sale, dispense, 

supply, offer for supply, store or 

transport gasoline or oxygenate 

(including any denaturant) that does not 

comply with the applicable sulfur cap 

standards under § 80.1603, § 80.1604, or 

§ 80.1610. 

(c) Causing an averaging or cap 

standard violation. Cause another 

person to commit an act in violation of 

paragraph (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) 

of this section. 

(d) Causing violating gasoline to be in 

the distribution system. Cause gasoline 

to be in the distribution system which 

does not comply with an applicable 

sulfur cap standard under § 80.1603, 

§ 80.1604, or § 80.1610. 

(e) Oxygenate violation. Starting 

March 1, 2017, blend into gasoline, 

RBOB, or CBOB any oxygenate, 

including but not limited to denatured 

ethanol, that has a sulfur content higher 

than 10 ppm. 

(f) Additive blender violation. Unless 

acting in the capacity of a gasoline 

refiner or importer under § 80.1613, 

introduce an additive other than an 

oxygenate compound into gasoline, 

CBOB, or RBOB which contributes more 

than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the 

finished gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB. 

(g) Additive manufacturer violation. 

Cause or contribute to the introduction 

into commerce of a gasoline additive 

intended to be used at less than 1 

volume percent which does not comply 

with the requirements of § 80.1613. 

(h) Credit violation. Generate, transfer, 

or use invalid credits or improperly 

transfer or use credits. 

(i) Failure to meet a requirement. Fail 

to meet a requirement that applies to 

that person under this subpart. 

§ 80.1661 What evidence may be used to 

determine compliance with the prohibitions 

and requirements of this subpart and 

liability for violations of this subpart? 

(a) Compliance with the sulfur 

standards of this subpart O shall be 

determined based on the sulfur level, 

measured using the methodologies 

specified in §§ 80.47 and 80.1630. Any 

evidence or information, including the 

exclusive use of such evidence or 

information, may be used to establish 

the sulfur level of gasoline if the 

evidence or information is relevant to 

whether the sulfur level would have 

been in compliance with the standards 

if the appropriate sampling and testing 

methodology had been correctly 

performed. Such evidence may be 

obtained from any source or location 

and may include, but is not limited to, 

test results using methods other than 

those specified in §§ 80.47 and 80.1630, 

business records, and commercial 

documents. 

(b) Determinations of compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart 

other than the sulfur standards, and 

determinations of liability for any 

violation of this subpart, may be based 

on information obtained from any 

source or location. Such information 

may include, but is not limited to, 

business records and commercial 

documents. 

§ 80.1662 Liability for violations under 

subpart O. 

The following persons are liable for 

violations under this subpart: 

(a) Persons liable for violations of 

prohibited acts—(1) Averaging 

violation. Any refiner or importer who 

violates § 80.1660(a) is liable for the 

violation. 

(2) Causing an averaging violation. 

Any refiner, importer, distributor, 

reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale 

purchaser-consumer, or oxygenate 

blender who causes another party to 

violate § 80.1660(a), is liable for a 

violation of § 80.1660(c). 

(3) Cap standard violation. Any 

refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, 

carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaserconsumer, oxygenate producer, 

oxygenate blender, additive 

manufacturer, or additive blender who 

owned, leased, operated, controlled or 

supervised a facility where a violation 

of § 80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in 

violation of § 80.1660(b). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30037 

(4) Causing a cap standard violation. 

Any refiner, importer, distributor, 

reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale 

purchaser-consumer, oxygenate 

producer, oxygenate blender, additive 

manufacturer, or additive blender who 

produced, imported, sold, offered for 

sale, dispensed, supplied, offered for 

supply, stored, transported, or caused 

the transportation or storage of gasoline 

that violates § 80.1660(b), is deemed in 

violation of § 80.1660(c). 

(5) Branded refiner/importer liability. 

Any refiner or importer whose 

corporate, trade, or brand name, or 

whose marketing subsidiary’s corporate, 

trade, or brand name appeared at a 

facility where a violation of § 80.1660(b) 

occurred, is deemed in violation of 

§ 80.1660(b). 

(6) Causing violating gasoline to be in 

the distribution system. Any refiner, 

importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, 

oxygenate producer, oxygenate blender, 

additive manufacturer, or additive 

blender who owned, leased, operated, 

controlled or supervised a facility from 

which gasoline was released into the 

distribution system which does not 

comply with an applicable sulfur cap 

standard or a sulfur averaging standard 

is deemed in violation of § 80.1660(d). 

(7) Carrier causation. In order for a 

carrier to be liable under paragraph 

(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of this 

section, EPA must demonstrate, by 

reasonably specific showing by direct or 

circumstantial evidence, that the carrier 

caused the violation. 

(8) Oxygenate blender violation. Any 

oxygenate blender who violates 

§ 80.1660(e) is liable for the violation. 

(9) Additive manufacturer violation. 

Any additive manufacturer who violates 

§ 80.1660(g) is deemed liable for the 

violation. 

(10) Additive blender violation. Any 

additive blender who violates 

§ 80.1660(f) is deemed liable for the 

violation. 

(11) Credit violation. Any refiner or 

importer who violates § 80.1660(h) is 

liable for the violation. 

(12) Parent corporation liability. Any 

parent corporation is liable for any 

violations of this subpart that are 

committed by any of its wholly-owned 

subsidiaries. 

(13) Joint venture and joint owner 

liability. Each partner to a joint venture, 

or each owner of a facility owned by 

two or more owners, is jointly and 

severally liable for any violation of this 

subpart that occurs at the joint venture 

facility or facility owned by the joint 

owners, or is committed by the joint 

venture operation or any of the joint 

owners of the facility. 

(b) Persons liable for failure to meet 

other provisions of this subpart. Any 

person who: 

(1) Fails to comply with a provision 

of this subpart not addressed in 

paragraph (a) of this section is liable for 

a violation of that provision. 

(2) Causes another person to fail to 

meet a requirement of this subpart not 

addressed in paragraph (a) of this 

section, is liable for causing a violation 

of that provision. 

§ 80.1663 Defenses for a violation of a 

prohibited act under subpart O. 

(a) Any person deemed liable for a 

violation of a prohibition under 

§ 80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10), will not 

be deemed in violation if the person 

demonstrates all the following: 

(1) The violation was not caused by 

the person or the person’s employee or 

agent. 

(2) In cases where product transfer 

document requirements under this 

subpart apply, the product transfer 

documents account for the fuel found to 

be in violation and indicate that the 

violating product was in compliance 

with the applicable requirements while 

in that person’s control; and 

(3) The person conducted a quality 

assurance sampling and testing 

program, as described in paragraph (d) 

of this section. A carrier may rely on the 

quality assurance program carried out 

by another party, including the party 

who owns the gasoline in question, 

provided that the quality assurance 

program is carried out properly. 

Retailers and wholesale purchaserconsumers are not required to conduct 

sampling and testing of gasoline as part 

of their quality assurance programs. 

(b) In the case of a violation found at 

a facility operating under the corporate, 

trade or brand name of a refiner or 

importer, or a refiner’s or importer’s 

marketing subsidiary, the refiner or 

importer must show, in addition to the 

defense elements required under 

paragraphs (a)(1)through (a)(3) of this 

section, that the violation was caused by 

any of the following: 

(1) An act in violation of law (other 

than the Clean Air Act or this part 80), 

or an act of sabotage or vandalism. 

(2) The action of any refiner, importer, 

retailer, distributor, reseller, oxygenate 

blender, carrier, retailer or wholesale 

purchaser-consumer in violation of a 

contractual agreement between the 

branded refiner or importer and the 

person designed to prevent such action, 

and despite periodic sampling and 

testing by the branded refiner or 

importer to ensure compliance with 

such contractual obligation. 

(3) The action of any carrier or other 

distributor not subject to a contract with 

the refiner or importer, but engaged for 

transportation of gasoline, despite 

specifications or inspections of 

procedures and equipment which are 

reasonably calculated to prevent such 

action. 

(c) Under paragraph (a) of this section, 

for any person to show that a violation 

was not caused by that person, or under 

paragraph (b) of this section to show 

that a violation was caused by any of the 

specified actions, the person must 

demonstrate by reasonably specific 

showings, by direct or circumstantial 

evidence, that the violation was caused 

or must have been caused by another 

person and that the person asserting the 

defense did not contribute to that other 

person’s causation. 

(d) To demonstrate an acceptable 

quality assurance and testing program 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a 

person must present evidence of all of 

the following: 

(1) A periodic sampling and testing 

program to ensure the gasoline the 

person sold, dispensed, supplied, 

stored, or transported, meets the 

applicable sulfur standard. 

(2) On each occasion when gasoline is 

found not in compliance with the 

applicable sulfur standard: 

(i) The person immediately ceases 

selling, offering for sale, dispensing, 

supplying, offering for supply, storing or 

transporting the non-complying 

product; and 

(ii) The person promptly remedies the 

violation and the factors that caused the 

violation (for example, by removing the 

non-complying product from the 

distribution system until the applicable 

standard is achieved and taking steps to 

prevent future violations of a similar 

nature from occurring). 

(3) For any carrier who transports 

gasoline in a tank truck, the quality 

assurance program required under this 

paragraph (d) need not include periodic 

sampling and testing of gasoline in the 

tank truck, but in lieu of such tank truck 

sampling and testing, the carrier shall 

demonstrate evidence of an oversight 

program for monitoring compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart 

relating to the transport or storage of 

gasoline by tank truck, such as 

appropriate guidance to drivers 

regarding compliance with the 

applicable sulfur standard and product 

transfer document requirements, and 

the periodic review of records received 

in the ordinary course of business 

concerning gasoline quality and 

delivery. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 80.1664 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1665 Penalties. 

(a) Any person liable for a violation 

under § 80.1662 is subject to civil 

penalties as specified in section 205 of 

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7524) for 

every day of each such violation and the 

amount of economic benefit or savings 

resulting from each violation. 

(b) Any person liable under 

§ 80.1662(a)(1) or (a)(2) for a violation of 

the applicable sulfur averaging standard 

or causing another party to violate that 

standard during any averaging period, is 

subject to a separate day of violation for 

each and every day in the averaging 

period. Any person liable under 

§ 80.1662(a)(11) or (b) for a failure to 

fulfill any requirement for credit 

generation, transfer, use, banking, or 

deficit correction, is subject to a 

separate day of violation for each and 

every day in the averaging period in 

which invalid credits are generated or 

used. 

(c)(1) Any person liable under 

§ 80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10) for a 

violation of an applicable sulfur per 

gallon cap standard under this subpart 

O or of causing another party to violate 

a cap standard, is subject to a separate 

day of violation for each and every day 

the non-complying gasoline remains any 

place in the gasoline distribution 

system. 

(2) Any person liable under 

§ 80.1662(a)(6) for causing gasoline to be 

in the distribution system which does 

not comply with an applicable sulfur 

cap standard, or a sulfur averaging 

standard, is subject to a separate day of 

violation for each and every day that the 

non-complying gasoline remains any 

place in the gasoline distribution 

system. 

(3) For purposes of this paragraph (c), 

the length of time the gasoline in 

question remained in the gasoline 

distribution system is deemed to be 

twenty-five days, unless a person 

subject to liability or EPA demonstrates 

by reasonably specific showings, by 

direct or circumstantial evidence, that 

the non-complying gasoline remained in 

the gasoline distribution system for 

fewer than or more than twenty-five 

days. 

(d) Any person liable under 

§ 80.1662(b) for failure to meet, or 

causing a failure to meet, a provision of 

this subpart is liable for a separate day 

of violation for each and every day such 

provision remains unfulfilled. 

§ 80.1666 Additional requirements for 

foreign small refiners and foreign small 

volume refineries. 

The provisions of this section apply to 

certain foreign refiners and importers 

during the period January 1, 2017 

through December 31, 2019. After 

December 31, 2019, foreign refiners are 

not subject to compliance requirements 

under subpart H of this part, or this 

subpart O; instead, the importer of any 

foreign-produced gasoline shall be 

responsible for compliance with the 

standards and requirements of this 

subpart O that relate to importers. 

(a) Definitions—(1) Foreign small 

refiner is a foreign refiner that meets the 

definition of a small refiner under 

§ 80.1620. 

(2) Foreign small volume refinery is a 

foreign refinery that meets the definition 

of a small volume refinery under 

§ 80.1621. 

(3) Sulfur-FRGAS, for this subpart, 

means gasoline produced from January 

1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, at 

a foreign refinery of a refiner that has 

been approved as a small refiner or a 

small volume refinery under § 80.1622, 

and that is imported into the United 

States. 

(4) Non-Sulfur-FRGAS means gasoline 

that is produced at a foreign refinery 

that has not been approved as a small 

refiner refinery or small volume refinery 

under § 80.1622, gasoline produced at a 

foreign refinery of an approved small 

refiner or at an approved small volume 

refinery under § 80.1622 that is not 

imported into the United States, and 

gasoline produced at a foreign refinery 

that is approved during a year when the 

foreign refiner has opted to not 

participate in the Sulfur-FRGAS 

program under paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. 

(5) Certified Sulfur-FRGAS means 

Sulfur-FRGAS the foreign refiner 

intends to include in the foreign 

refinery’s sulfur compliance 

calculations under §§ 80.195 and 80.205 

and does include in these compliance 

calculations when reported to EPA. 

(6) Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 

means Sulfur-FRGAS that is not 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(b) Petition for approval of small 

refiner or small volume refinery status. 

To be approved for small refiner status 

or small volume refinery status a foreign 

refiner must submit a petition for 

approval as provided under § 80.1622 

and this section. If small refiner status 

or small volume refinery status is 

approved, the foreign refiner may 

produce gasoline for export to the 

United States, during the period starting 

January 1, 2017 and ending December 

31, 2019, that is subject to the sulfur 

content standards of subpart H of this 

part at § 80.195 that were applicable to 

refiners from 2006 through 2016. A 

foreign refiner is not eligible to generate 

sulfur credits under subpart H of this 

part or this subpart O, as this occurs 

through the importer. 

(c) General requirements for foreign 

refiners approved as small refiners or 

small volume refinery status. A foreign 

refiner of a refinery that has been 

approved as a small refiner refinery or 

a small volume refinery must designate 

all gasoline produced at the foreign 

refinery that is exported to the United 

States as either Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 

or as Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, 

except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of 

this section. 

(1) In the case of Certified SulfurFRGAS, the foreign refiner must meet 

the sulfur standards of subpart H of this 

part as described in paragraph (b) of this 

section and the requirements of this 

section. 

(2) In the case of Non-Certified SulfurFRGAS, the foreign refiner shall meet all 

the following provisions, except the 

foreign refiner shall substitute the name 

Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS for the 

names ‘‘reformulated gasoline’’ or 

‘‘RBOB’’ wherever they appear in the 

following provisions: 

(i) The designation requirements in 

this section. 

(ii) The recordkeeping requirements 

under § 80.1653. 

(iii) The reporting requirements in 

§ 80.1652 and this section. 

(iv) The product transfer document 

requirements in § 80.1651 and this 

section. 

(v) The prohibitions in § 80.1660 and 

this section. 

(vi) The independent audit 

requirements under § 80.415 and 

paragraph (h) of this section; and the 

attest engagement provisions of 

§§ 80.125 through 80.127, § 80.128(a), 

(b), (c), and (g) through (i), and § 80.130. 

(3)(i) Any foreign refiner that has been 

approved as a small refiner or whose 

refinery has been approved as a small 

volume refinery under this subpart O 

may elect to classify no gasoline 

imported into the United States as 

Sulfur-FRGAS, provided the foreign 

refiner notifies EPA of the election no 

later than November 1 of the prior 

calendar year. 

(ii) An election under paragraph 

(c)(3)(i) of this section shall meet all of 

the following requirements: 

(A) Apply to an entire calendar year 

averaging period, and apply to all 

gasoline produced during the calendar 

year at the foreign refinery that is used 

in the United States. 

(B) Remain in effect for each 

succeeding calendar year averaging 

period, unless and until the foreign 

refiner notifies EPA of a termination of 

the election. The change in election 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30039 

shall take effect at the beginning of the 

next calendar year. 

(d) Designation, product transfer 

documents, and foreign refiner 

certification. (1) Any approved foreign 

small refiner or any foreign refiner 

having an approved small volume 

refinery under this subpart O must 

designate each batch of Sulfur-FRGAS 

as such at the time the gasoline is 

produced, unless the refinery has 

elected to classify no gasoline exported 

to the United States as Sulfur-FRGAS 

under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section. 

(2) On each occasion when any 

person transfers custody or title to any 

Sulfur-FRGAS prior to its being 

imported into the United States, it must 

include all the following information as 

part of the product transfer document 

information in this section: 

(i) Identification of the gasoline as 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as NonCertified Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(ii) The name and EPA refinery 

registration number of the refinery 

where the Sulfur-FRGAS was produced. 

(3) On each occasion when SulfurFRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or other 

transportation mode for transport to the 

United States, the foreign refiner shall 

prepare a certification for each batch of 

the Sulfur-FRGAS that meets all of the 

following requirements: 

(i) The certification shall include the 

report of the independent third party 

under paragraph (f) of this section, and 

all of the following additional 

information: 

(A) The name and EPA registration 

number of the refinery that produced 

the Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(B) The identification of the gasoline 

as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or NonCertified Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(C) The volume of Sulfur-FRGAS 

being transported, in gallons. 

(D) In the case of Certified SulfurFRGAS: 

(1) The sulfur content as determined 

under paragraph (f) of this section; and 

(2) A declaration that the SulfurFRGAS is being included in the 

compliance calculations under § 80.205 

for the refinery that produced the 

Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(ii) The certification shall be made 

part of the product transfer documents 

for the Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(e) Transfers of Sulfur-FRGAS to nonUnited States markets. The foreign 

refiner is responsible to ensure that all 

gasoline classified as Sulfur-FRGAS is 

imported into the United States. A 

foreign refiner may remove the SulfurFRGAS classification, and the gasoline 

need not be imported into the United 

States, but only if: 

(1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes the 

volume and sulfur content of the 

gasoline from the compliance 

calculations under § 80.205. 

(ii) The exclusions under paragraph 

(e)(1)(i) of this section shall be on the 

basis of the sulfur content and volumes 

determined under paragraph (f) of this 

section; and 

(2) The foreign refiner obtains 

sufficient evidence in the form of 

documentation that the gasoline was not 

imported into the United States. 

(f) Load port independent sampling, 

testing and refinery identification. (1) 

On each occasion Sulfur-FRGAS is 

loaded onto a vessel for transport to the 

United States a foreign refiner shall 

have an independent third party do all 

of the following: 

(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading 

and determine the volume of any tank 

bottoms. 

(ii) Determine the volume of SulfurFRGAS loaded onto the vessel 

(exclusive of any tank bottoms present 

before vessel loading). 

(iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned 

registration number of the foreign 

refinery. 

(iv) Determine the name and country 

of registration of the vessel used to 

transport the Sulfur-FRGAS to the 

United States. 

(v) Determine the date and time the 

vessel departs the port serving the 

foreign refinery. 

(2) On each occasion Certified SulfurFRGAS is loaded onto a vessel for 

transport to the United States a foreign 

refiner shall have an independent third 

party: 

(i) Collect a representative sample of 

the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS from each 

vessel compartment subsequent to 

loading on the vessel and prior to 

departure of the vessel from the port 

serving the foreign refinery. 

(ii) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel 

composite sample from the 

compartment samples, and determine 

the value for sulfur in accordance with 

the methodology and requirements 

specified in § 80.1630, by either of the 

following: 

(A) The third party analyzing the 

sample. 

(B) The third party observing the 

foreign refiner analyzing the sample. 

(iii) Review original documents that 

reflect movement and storage of the 

certified Sulfur-FRGAS from the 

refinery to the load port, and from this 

review determine all of the following: 

(A) The refinery at which the SulfurFRGAS was produced. 

(B) That the Sulfur-FRGAS remained 

segregated from all of the following: 

(1) Non-Sulfur-FRGAS and NonCertified Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(2) Other Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 

produced at a different refinery. 

(3) The independent third party shall 

submit a report: 

(i) To the foreign refiner containing 

the information required under 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, 

to accompany the product transfer 

documents for the vessel; and 

(ii) To the Administrator containing 

the information required under 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, 

within thirty days following the date of 

the independent third party’s 

inspection. This report shall include a 

description of the method used to 

determine the identity of the refinery at 

which the gasoline was produced, 

assurance that the gasoline remained 

segregated as specified in paragraph 

(m)(1) of this section, and a description 

of the gasoline’s movement and storage 

between production at the source 

refinery and vessel loading. 

(4) The independent third party must 

do all of the following: 

(i) Be approved in advance by EPA, 

based on a demonstration of ability to 

perform the procedures required in this 

paragraph (f). 

(ii) Be independent under the criteria 

specified in § 80.65(f)(2)(iii). 

(iii) Sign a commitment that contains 

the provisions specified in paragraph (i) 

of this section with regard to activities, 

facilities and documents relevant to 

compliance with the requirements of 

this paragraph (f). 

(g) Comparison of load port and port 

of entry testing. (1)(i) Except as 

described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this 

section, any foreign refiner and any 

United States importer of Certified 

Sulfur-FRGAS shall compare the results 

from the load port testing under 

paragraph (f) of this section, with the 

port of entry testing as reported under 

paragraph (o) of this section, for the 

volume of gasoline and the sulfur value. 

(ii) Where a vessel transporting 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS off loads this 

gasoline at more than one United States 

port of entry, and the conditions of 

paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met 

at the first United States port of entry, 

the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of 

this section do not apply at subsequent 

ports of entry if the United States 

importer obtains a certification from the 

vessel owner, meeting the requirements 

of paragraph (r) of this section that the 

vessel has not loaded any gasoline or 

blendstock between the first United 

States port of entry and the subsequent 

port of entry. 

(2)(i) The requirements of this 

paragraph (g)(2) apply if: 

(A) The temperature-corrected 

volumes determined at the port of entry 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and at the load port differ by more than 

one percent; or 

(B) The sulfur value determined at the 

port of entry is higher than the sulfur 

value determined at the load port, and 

the amount of this difference is greater 

than the reproducibility amount 

specified for the port of entry test result 

by ASTM ASTM. 

(ii) The United States importer and 

the foreign refiner shall treat the 

gasoline as Non-Certified SulfurFRGAS, and the foreign refiner shall 

exclude the gasoline volume and 

properties from its gasoline sulfur 

compliance calculations under § 80.205. 

(h) Attest requirements. All of the 

following additional procedures shall be 

carried out by any foreign refiner of 

Sulfur-FRGAS as part of the applicable 

attest engagement for each foreign 

refinery under § 80.415: 

(1) The inventory reconciliation 

analysis under the attest engagement 

provisions of § 80.128(b) and the tender 

analysis under § 80.128(c) shall include 

Non-Sulfur-FRGAS in addition to the 

gasoline types listed in § 80.128(b) and 

(c). 

(2) Obtain separate listings of all 

tenders of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, and 

of Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. Agree 

the total volume of tenders from the 

listings to the gasoline inventory 

reconciliation analysis in the attest 

engagement provisions of § 80.128(b), 

and to the volumes determined by the 

third party under paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section. 

(3) For each tender under paragraph 

(h)(2) of this section where the gasoline 

is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as 

a finding the name and country of 

registration of each vessel, and the 

volumes of Sulfur-FRGAS loaded onto 

each vessel. 

(4) Select a sample from the list of 

vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of 

this section used to transport Certified 

Sulfur-FRGAS, in accordance with the 

attest engagement guidelines in 

§ 80.127, and for each vessel selected 

perform all of the following: 

(i) Obtain the report of the 

independent third party, under 

paragraph (f) of this section, and of the 

United States importer under paragraph 

(n) of this section. 

(A) Agree the information in these 

reports with regard to vessel 

identification, gasoline volumes and test 

results. 

(B) Identify, and report as a finding, 

each occasion the load port and port of 

entry parameter and volume results 

differ by more than the amounts 

allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, 

and determine whether the foreign 

refiner adjusted its refinery calculations 

as required in paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

(ii) Obtain the documents used by the 

independent third party to determine 

transportation and storage of the 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS from the 

refinery to the load port, under 

paragraph (f) of this section. Obtain tank 

activity records for any storage tank 

where the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS is 

stored, and pipeline activity records for 

any pipeline used to transport the 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, prior to being 

loaded onto the vessel. Use these 

records to determine whether the 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS was produced 

at the refinery that is the subject of the 

attest engagement, and whether the 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS was mixed with 

any Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, NonSulfur-FRGAS, or any Certified SulfurFRGAS produced at a different refinery. 

(5) Select a sample from the list of 

vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of 

this section used to transport certified 

and Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, in 

accordance with the attest engagement 

guidelines of § 80.127, and for each 

vessel selected perform the following: 

(i) Obtain a commercial document of 

general circulation that lists vessel 

arrivals and departures, and that 

includes the port and date of departure 

of the vessel, and the port of entry and 

date of arrival of the vessel. 

(ii) Agree the vessel’s departure and 

arrival locations and dates from the 

independent third party and United 

States importer reports to the 

information contained in the 

commercial document. 

(6) Obtain separate listings of all 

tenders of Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, and 

perform all of the following: 

(i) Agree the total volume of tenders 

from the listings to the gasoline 

inventory reconciliation analysis in 

§ 80.128(b). 

(ii) Obtain a separate listing of the 

tenders under paragraph (h)(6) of this 

section where the gasoline is loaded 

onto a marine vessel. Select a sample 

from this listing in accordance with the 

guidelines in § 80.127, and obtain a 

commercial document of general 

circulation that lists vessel arrivals and 

departures, and that includes the port 

and date of departure and the ports and 

dates where the gasoline was off loaded 

for the selected vessels. Determine and 

report as a finding the country where 

the gasoline was off loaded for each 

vessel selected. 

(7) In order to complete the 

requirements of this paragraph (h) an 

auditor must: 

(i) Be independent of the foreign 

refiner. 

(ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public 

Accountant in the United States and a 

citizen of the United States, or be 

approved in advance by EPA based on 

a demonstration of ability to perform the 

procedures required in the attest 

engagement provisions of §§ 80.125 

through 80.130, 80.415 and this 

paragraph (h). 

(iii) Sign a commitment that contains 

the provisions specified in paragraph (h) 

of this section with regard to activities 

and documents relevant to compliance 

with the requirements of the attest 

engagement provisions of §§ 80.125 

through 80.130, 80.415 and this 

paragraph (h). 

(i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any 

foreign refiner shall commit to and 

comply with the provisions contained 

in this paragraph (i) as a condition to 

being approved for small refiner status 

or small volume refinery status. 

(1) Any United States Environmental 

Protection Agency inspector or auditor 

will be given full, complete and 

immediate access to conduct 

inspections and audits of the foreign 

refinery. 

(i) Inspections and audits may be 

either announced in advance by EPA, or 

unannounced. 

(ii) Access will be provided to any 

location where: 

(A) Gasoline is produced; 

(B) Documents related to refinery 

operations are kept; 

(C) Gasoline or blendstock samples 

are tested or stored; and 

(D) Sulfur-FRGAS is stored or 

transported between the foreign refinery 

and the United States, including storage 

tanks, vessels and pipelines. 

(iii) Inspections and audits may be by 

EPA employees or contractors to EPA. 

(iv) Any documents requested that are 

related to matters covered by 

inspections and audits will be provided 

to an EPA inspector or auditor on 

request. 

(v) Inspections and audits by EPA 

may include review and copying of any 

documents related to all of the 

following: 

(A) Approval of the refiner as a small 

refiner or approval of the refinery as a 

small volume refinery. 

(B) The volume and sulfur content of 

Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(C) The proper classification of 

gasoline as being Sulfur-FRGAS or as 

not being Sulfur-FRGAS, or as Certified 

Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-Certified 

Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(D) Transfers of title or custody to 

Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(E) Sampling and testing of SulfurFRGAS. 

(F) Work performed and reports 

prepared by independent third parties 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30041 

and by independent auditors under the 

requirements of this section and 

§ 80.415, including work papers. 

(G) Reports prepared for submission 

to EPA, and any work papers related to 

such reports. 

(vi) Inspections and audits by EPA 

may include taking samples of gasoline 

or blendstock, and interviewing 

employees. 

(vii) Any employee of the foreign 

refiner must be made available for 

interview by the EPA inspector or 

auditor, on request, within a reasonable 

time period. 

(viii) English language translations of 

any documents must be provided to an 

EPA inspector or auditor, on request, 

within 10 working days. 

(ix) English language interpreters 

must be provided to accompany EPA 

inspectors and auditors, on request. 

(2) An agent for service of process 

located in the District of Columbia will 

be named, and service on this agent 

constitutes service on the foreign refiner 

or any employee of the foreign refiner 

for any action by EPA or otherwise by 

the United States related to the 

requirements of this subpart O. 

(3) The forum for any civil or criminal 

enforcement action related to the 

provisions of this section for violations 

of the Clean Air Act or regulations 

promulgated thereunder shall be 

governed by the Clean Air Act, 

including the EPA administrative forum 

where allowed under the Clean Air Act. 

(4) United States substantive and 

procedural laws shall apply to any civil 

or criminal enforcement action against 

the foreign refiner or any employee of 

the foreign refiner related to the 

provisions of this section. 

(5) Submitting a petition for approval 

as a small refiner or for small volume 

refinery status, producing and exporting 

gasoline under such approval, and all 

other actions to comply with the 

requirements of this subpart O 

constitute actions or activities that 

satisfy the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

1605(a)(2), but solely with respect to 

actions instituted against the foreign 

refiner, its agents and employees in any 

court or other tribunal in the United 

States for conduct that violates the 

requirements applicable to the foreign 

refiner under this subpart O, including 

conduct that violates 18 U.S.C. 1001 or 

Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2) (42 

U.S.C. 7413(c)(2)). 

(6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or 

employees, must not seek to detain or to 

impose civil or criminal remedies 

against EPA inspectors or auditors, 

whether EPA employees or EPA 

contractors, for actions performed 

within the scope of EPA employment 

related to the provisions of this section. 

(7) The commitment required by this 

paragraph (i) must be signed by the 

owner or president of the foreign refiner 

business. 

(8) In any case where FRGAS 

produced at a foreign refinery is stored 

or transported by another company 

between the refinery and the vessel that 

transports the Sulfur-FRGAS to the 

United States, the foreign refiner shall 

obtain from each such other company a 

commitment that meets the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(i)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting 

a petition for approval as a small refiner 

or approval of a small volume refinery 

under this subpart O and this section, or 

by producing and exporting gasoline to 

the United States under such an 

approval under this section, the foreign 

refiner, its agents and employees, 

without exception, become subject to 

the full operation of the administrative 

and judicial enforcement powers and 

provisions of the United States without 

limitation based on sovereign immunity, 

with respect to actions instituted against 

the foreign refiner, its agents and 

employees in any court or other tribunal 

in the United States for conduct that 

violates the requirements applicable to 

the foreign refiner under this subpart O, 

including conduct that violates Title 18 

U.S.C. section 1001 or Clean Air Act 

section 113(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2)). 

(k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner 

must meet the requirements of this 

paragraph (k) as a condition to being 

approved for small refiner or small 

volume refinery status. 

(l) The foreign refiner shall post a 

bond of the amount calculated using the 

following equation: 

Bond = G × $0.01 

Where: 

Bond = Amount of the bond in U. S. dollars. 

G = The largest volume of gasoline produced 

at the foreign refinery and exported to 

the United States, in gallons, during a 

single calendar year among the most 

recent of the following calendar years, 

up to a maximum of three calendar 

years: The calendar year immediately 

preceding the date the approval petition 

is submitted, the calendar year the 

approval petition is submitted, and each 

succeeding calendar year. 

(2) Bonds shall be posted by 

performing any of the following: 

(i) Paying the amount of the bond to 

the Treasurer of the United States. 

(ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper 

amount from a third party surety agent 

that is payable to satisfy United States 

administrative or judicial judgments 

against the foreign refiner, provided 

EPA agrees in advance as to the third 

party and the nature of the surety 

agreement. 

(iii) An alternative commitment that 

results in assets of an appropriate 

liquidity and value being readily 

available to the United States, provided 

EPA agrees in advance as to the 

alternative commitment. 

(3) If the bond amount for a foreign 

refinery increases, the foreign refiner 

shall increase the bond to cover the 

shortfall within 90 days of the date the 

bond amount changes. If the bond 

amount decreases, the foreign refiner 

may reduce the amount of the bond 

beginning 90 days after the date the 

bond amount changes. 

(4) Bonds posted under this paragraph 

(k) shall: 

(i) Be used to satisfy any judicial 

judgment that results from an 

administrative or judicial enforcement 

action for conduct in violation of this 

subpart O, including where such 

conduct violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 

1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2) 

(42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2)); 

(ii) Be provided by a corporate surety 

that is listed in the United States 

Department of the Treasury Circular 570 

‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of 

Authority as the Acceptable Sureties on 

Federal Bonds and Acceptable 

Reinsuring Companies’’ (Available from 

the U.S. Department of the Treasury, 

Financial Management Service, Surety 

Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, 

Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD, 20782. 

Also available on the internet at 

http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/ 

c570.html); and 

(iii) Include a commitment that the 

bond will remain in effect for at least 

five years following the end of latest 

averaging period that the foreign refiner 

produces gasoline pursuant to the 

requirements of this subpart O. 

(5) On any occasion a foreign refiner 

bond is used to satisfy any judgment, 

the foreign refiner shall increase the 

bond to cover the amount used within 

90 days of the date the bond is used. 

(l) English language reports. Any 

report or other document submitted to 

EPA by any foreign refiner must be in 

English, or must include an English 

language translation. 

(m) Prohibitions. (1) No person may 

combine Certified Sulfur-FRGAS with 

any Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or 

Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, and no person may 

combine Certified Sulfur-FRGAS with 

any Certified Sulfur-FRGAS produced at 

a different refinery, until the importer 

has met all the requirements of 

paragraph (n) of this section, except as 

provided in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30042 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(2) No foreign refiner or other person 

may cause another person to commit an 

action prohibited in paragraph (m)(1) of 

this section, or that otherwise violates 

the requirements of this section. 

(n) United States importer 

requirements. Any United States 

importer shall meet the following 

requirements: 

(1) Each batch of imported gasoline 

shall be classified by the importer as 

being Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-SulfurFRGAS, and each batch classified as 

Sulfur-FRGAS shall be further classified 

as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as Noncertified Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(2) Gasoline shall be classified as 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as NonCertified Sulfur-FRGAS according to the 

designation by the foreign refiner if this 

designation is supported by product 

transfer documents prepared by the 

foreign refiner as required in paragraph 

(d) of this section, unless the gasoline is 

classified as Non-Certified SulfurFRGAS under paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

(3) For each gasoline batch classified 

as Sulfur-FRGAS, any United States 

importer shall perform the following 

procedures: 

(i) In the case of both Certified and 

Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, have an 

independent third party: 

(A) Determine the volume of gasoline 

in the vessel. 

(B) Use the foreign refiner’s SulfurFRGAS certification to determine the 

name and EPA-assigned registration 

number of the foreign refinery that 

produced the Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(C) Determine the name and country 

of registration of the vessel used to 

transport the Sulfur-FRGAS to the 

United States. 

(D) Determine the date and time the 

vessel arrives at the United States port 

of entry. 

(ii) In the case of Certified SulfurFRGAS, have an independent third 

party: 

(A) Collect a representative sample 

from each vessel compartment 

subsequent to the vessel’s arrival at the 

United States port of entry and prior to 

off loading any gasoline from the vessel. 

(B) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel 

composite sample from the 

compartment samples. 

(C) Determine the sulfur value using 

the methodologies specified in 

§ 80.1630, by: 

(1) The third party analyzing the 

sample; or 

(2) The third party observing the 

importer analyzing the sample. 

(4) Any importer shall submit reports 

within thirty days following the date 

any vessel transporting Sulfur-FRGAS 

arrives at the United States port of entry: 

(i) To the Administrator containing 

the information determined under 

paragraph (n)(3) of this section; and 

(ii) To the foreign refiner containing 

the information determined under 

paragraph (n)(3) of this section. 

(5) Any United States importer shall 

meet the applicable requirements of this 

subpart O, including sulfur content 

standards specified in § 80.1603, for any 

imported gasoline that is not classified 

as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS under 

paragraph (n)(2) of this section. 

(o) Truck imports of Certified SulfurFRGAS produced by a foreign small 

refiner or foreign small volume refinery. 

(1) Any refiner whose Certified SulfurFRGAS is transported into the United 

States by truck may petition EPA to use 

alternative procedures to meet all of the 

following requirements: 

(i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5) 

of this section. 

(ii) Load port and port of entry 

sampling and testing under paragraphs 

(f) and (g) of this section. 

(iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this 

section. 

(iv) Importer testing under paragraph 

(n)(3) of this section. 

(2) These alternative procedures must 

ensure Certified Sulfur-FRGAS remains 

segregated from Non-Certified SulfurFRGAS and from Non-Sulfur-FRGAS 

until it is imported into the United 

States. The petition will be evaluated 

based on whether it adequately 

addresses all of the following: 

(i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline 

shipments, if applicable, from the 

refinery, that ensure segregation of 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS from that 

refinery from all other gasoline. 

(ii) Contracts with any terminals and/ 

or pipelines that receive and/or 

transport Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, that 

prohibit the commingling of such 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS with any of the 

following: 

(A) Other Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 

from other refineries. 

(B) All Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. 

(C) All Non-Sulfur-FRGAS 

(iii) Procedures for obtaining and 

reviewing truck loading records and 

United States import documents for 

Certified Sulfur-FRGAS to ensure that 

such gasoline is only loaded into trucks 

making deliveries to the United States. 

(iv) Attest procedures to be conducted 

annually by an independent third party 

that review loading records and import 

documents based on volume 

reconciliation, or other criteria, to 

confirm that all Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 

remains segregated throughout the 

distribution system and is only loaded 

into trucks for import into the United 

States. 

(3) The petition required by this 

section must be submitted to EPA along 

with the application for small refiner 

status or small volume refinery status 

under § 80.1622 and this section. 

(p) Withdrawal or suspension of a 

foreign refinery’s small refiner or small 

volume refinery status approval. EPA 

may withdraw or suspend approval 

where any of the following occur: 

(1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any 

requirement of this section. 

(2) A foreign government fails to 

allow EPA inspections as provided in 

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. 

(3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, 

or a right to claim, sovereign immunity 

in an action to enforce the requirements 

in this subpart O. 

(4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil 

or criminal penalty that is not satisfied 

using the foreign refiner bond specified 

in paragraph (k) of this section. 

(q) [Reserved] 

(r) Additional requirements for 

petitions, reports and certificates. Any 

petition for approval, any alternative 

procedures under paragraph (o) of this 

section, and any certification under 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be: 

(1) Submitted in accordance with 

procedures specified by the 

Administrator, including use of any 

forms that may be specified by the 

Administrator; and 

(2) Be signed by the president or 

owner of the foreign refiner company, or 

by that person’s immediate designee, 

and shall contain the following 

declaration: 

I hereby certify: (1) That I have actual 

authority to sign on behalf of and to 

bind [insert name of foreign refiner] 

with regard to all statements contained 

herein; (2) that I am aware that the 

information contained herein is being 

certified, or submitted to the United 

States Environmental Protection 

Agency, under the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR Part 80, 

subparts H and O, and that the 

information is material for determining 

compliance under these regulations; and 

(3) that I have read and understand the 

information being certified or 

submitted, and this information is true, 

complete and correct to the best of my 

knowledge and belief after I have taken 

reasonable and appropriate steps to 

verify the accuracy thereof. 

I affirm that I have read and 

understand the provisions of 40 CFR 

Part 80, subpart O, including 40 CFR 

80.1666 [insert name of foreign refiner]. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c) 

and Title 18, United States Code, 

section 1001, the penalty for furnishing 

false, incomplete or misleading 

information in this certification or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30043 

submission is a fine of up to $10,000, 

and/or imprisonment for up to five 

years. 

§ 80.1667 Attest engagement 

requirements. 

In addition to the requirements for 

attest engagements that apply to refiners 

and importers under §§ 80.125 through 

80.130, and 80.1666, the attest 

engagements for importers and refiners 

must include the following procedures 

and requirements each year. 

(a) Refiners subject to national 

standards and Small refiner and Small 

Volume Refinery Status. (1) If the refiner 

asserts small refinery status or small 

volume refinery status for the refinery, 

obtain the EPA approval letter for the 

refinery to determine the refinery’s 

applicable annual average standard and 

credit generation status. 

(2) Determine whether the refinery 

applied the correct annual average 

sulfur standard and whether it was 

eligible to generate credits and report 

the finding. 

(3) If the annual average sulfur 

standard is incorrect or credit 

generation was inappropriate, 

recalculate compliance using the 

appropriate sulfur standard and using 

appropriate credits and report as a 

finding. 

(b) EPA reports. (1) Obtain and read 

a copy of the refinery’s or importer’s 

annual sulfur reports filed with EPA for 

the year. 

(2) Agree the yearly volume of 

gasoline reported to EPA in the sulfur 

reports with the inventory 

reconciliation analysis under the attest 

engagement provisions of § 80.128. 

(3) Calculate the annual average sulfur 

level for all gasoline and agree that 

value with the value reported to EPA. 

(4) Obtain and read a copy of the 

refinery’s or importer’s sulfur credit 

report. 

(5) Agree the information in the 

refinery’s or importer’s batch reports 

filed with EPA under §§ 80.75 and 

80.105, and any laboratory test results, 

with the information contained in the 

annual sulfur report required under 

§ 80.1652. 

(c) Credit generation before 2017. In 

the case of a refinery that generates 

credits during 2014 through 2016: 

(1) Obtain a written representation 

from the company representative stating 

the refinery produces gasoline from 

crude oil. 

(2) Obtain the annual average sulfur 

level from paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(3) Compute and report as a finding 

the total number of sulfur credits 

generated, and agree this value with the 

value reported to EPA. 

(d) Credit generation in 2017 and 

thereafter. The following procedures 

shall be completed for a refinery or 

importer that generates credits in 2017 

and thereafter: 

(1) Obtain the annual average sulfur 

level for gasoline from paragraph (b)(3) 

of this section. 

(2) If the sulfur value under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section is less than 10 ppm, 

compute and report as a finding the 

difference between the sulfur level 

under paragraph (d)(1) of this section 

and 10 ppm. 

(3) Compute and report as a finding 

the total number of sulfur credits 

generated, and agree this number with 

the number reported to EPA. 

(e) Credit purchases and sales. The 

following attest procedures shall be 

completed for a refinery or importer that 

is a transferor or transferee of credits 

during an averaging period: 

(1) Obtain contracts or other 

documents for all credits transferred to 

another refinery or importer during the 

year being reviewed; compute and 

report as a finding the number and year 

of creation of credits represented in 

these documents as being transferred 

away; and agree with the report to EPA. 

(2) Obtain contracts or other 

documents for all credits received 

during the year being reviewed; 

compute and report as a finding the 

number and year of creation of credits 

represented in these documents as being 

received; and agree with the report to 

EPA. 

(f) Credit expiration. A refinery or 

importer that possesses credits during 

an averaging period must obtain a list of 

all credits in the refiner’s or importer’s 

possession at any time during the year 

being reviewed, identified by the year of 

creation of the credits. 

(g) Credit reconciliation. The 

following attest procedures shall be 

completed each year credits were in the 

refiner’s or importer’s possession at any 

time during the year: 

(1) Obtain the credits remaining or the 

credit deficit from the previous year 

from the refiner’s or importer’s report to 

EPA for the previous year. 

(2) Compute and report as a finding 

the net credits remaining at the 

conclusion of the year being reviewed 

by totaling: 

(i) Credits remaining from the 

previous year; plus 

(ii) Credits generated under in an 

averaging period; plus 

(iii) Credits purchased; minus 

(iv) Credits sold; minus 

(v) Credits used; minus 

(vi) Credits expiring; minus 

(vii) Credit deficit from the previous 

year. 

(3) Agree the credits remaining or the 

credit deficit at the conclusion of the 

year being reviewed with the report to 

EPA. 

(4) If the refinery or importer had a 

credit deficit for both the previous year 

and the year being reviewed, report this 

fact as a finding. 

§§ 80.1668–80.1674 [Reserved] 

§ 80.1675 Incorporation by reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) must publish notice of change in 

the Federal Register and the material 

must be available to the public. All 

approved material is available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030 or 

go to: http://www/archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. This material is also 

available for inspection at the EPA 

Docket Center, Docket No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2005–0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. Also, this material is available 

from the source listed in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(b) ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C–700, West 

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 

(1–800–262–1373, www.astm.org). 

(1) ASTM D 4814–11 (‘‘ASTM D 

4814’’), Standard Specification for 

Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, 

Approved 2011; IBR approved for 

§ 80.177. 

(2) ASTM D 4057–95 (‘‘ASTM D 

4507’’), Approved 1995; IBR approved 

for § 80.1630. 

(3) ASTM D 4177–95 (‘‘ASTM D 

4177’’), Approved 1995; IBR approved 

for § 80.1630. 

(4) ASTM D 5842–95 (‘‘ASTM D 

5842’’), Approved 1995; IBR approved 

for § 80.1630. 

PART 85—CONTROL OF AIR 

POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES 

■ 38. The authority citation for part 85 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

■ 39. Section 85.510 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30044 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 85.510 Exemption provisions for new 

and relatively new vehicles/engines. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(9) OBD requirements. (i) The OBD 

system must properly detect and 

identify malfunctions in all monitored 

emission-related powertrain systems or 

components including any new 

monitoring capability necessary to 

identify potential emission problems 

associated with the new fuel. 

(ii) Conduct all OBD testing necessary 

to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 

86.010–18 or 86.1806–05. 

(iii) Submit the applicable OBD 

reporting requirements set forth in 40 

CFR part 86, subparts A and S, and 

submit the following statement of 

compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines 

were required to be OBD-equipped: 

The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has fully 

functional OBD systems and therefore 

meets the OBD requirements specified 

in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the 

alternative fuel. 

* * * * * 

■ 40. Section 85.515 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(9)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 85.515 Exemption provisions for 

intermediate age vehicles/engines. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(9) * * * 

(iii) In addition to conducting OBD 

testing described in this paragraph 

(b)(9), you must submit to EPA the 

following statement of compliance if the 

OEM vehicles/engines were required to 

be OBD-equipped: 

The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has fully 

functional OBD systems and therefore 

meets the OBD requirements specified 

in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the 

alternative fuel. 

* * * * * 

■ 41. Section 85.520 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 85.520 Exemption provisions for outside 

useful life vehicles/engines. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) In addition to conducting OBD 

testing described in this paragraph 

(b)(4), you must submit to EPA the 

following statement of compliance if the 

OEM vehicles/engines were required to 

be OBD-equipped: 

The test group/engine family 

converted to an alternative fuel has fully 

functional OBD systems and therefore 

meets the OBD requirements specified 

in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the 

alternative fuel. 

* * * * * 

Subpart P—[Amended] 

■ 42. Section 85.1515 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 85.1515 Emission standards and test 

procedures applicable to imported 

nonconforming motor vehicles and motor 

vehicle engines. 

(a) Notwithstanding any other 

requirements of this subpart, any motor 

vehicle or motor vehicle engine 

conditionally imported pursuant to 

§ 85.1505 or § 85.1509 and required to 

be emission tested shall be tested using 

the FCT at 40 CFR part 86 applicable to 

current model year motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle engines at the time of 

testing or reduced testing requirements 

as follows: 

(1) ICIs are eligible for reduced testing 

under this paragraph (a) subject to the 

following conditions: 

(i) The OEM must have a valid 

certificate of conformity covering the 

vehicle. 

(ii) The vehicle must be in its original 

configuration as certified by the OEM. 

This applies for all emission-related 

components, including the electronic 

control module, engine calibrations, and 

all evaporative/refueling control 

hardware. It also applies for OBD 

software and hardware, including all 

sensors and actuators. 

(iii) The vehicle modified as 

described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section must fully comply with all 

applicable emission standards and 

requirements. 

(iv) Vehicles must have the proper 

OBD systems installed and operating. 

When faults are present, the ICI must 

test and verify the system’s ability to 

find the faults (such as disconnected 

components), set codes, and illuminate 

the light, and set readiness codes as 

appropriate for each vehicle. When no 

fault is present, the ICI must verify that 

after sufficient prep driving (typically 

one FTP test cycle), all OBD readiness 

codes are set and the OBD system does 

not indicate a malfunction (i.e., no 

codes set and no light illuminated). 

(v) The ICI may not modify more than 

300 vehicles in any given model year 

using reduced testing provisions in this 

paragraph (a). 

(vi) The ICI must state in the 

application for certification that it will 

meet all the conditions in this paragraph 

(a)(1). 

(2) The following provisions allow for 

ICIs to certify vehicles with reduced 

testing: 

(i) In addition to the test waivers 

specified in 40 CFR 86.1829, you may 

provide a statement in the application 

for certification, supported by 

engineering analysis, that vehicles 

comply with any of the following 

standards that apply instead of 

submitting test data: 

(A) Cold temperature CO and NMHC 

emission standards specified in 40 CFR 

86.1811. 

(B) SFTP emission standards specified 

in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816 for all 

pollutants. 

(C) For anything other than dieselfueled vehicles, PM emission standards 

specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 

86.1816. 

(D) Any running loss, refueling, 

spitback, bleed emissions, and leak 

standards specified in 40 CFR part 86, 

subparts A and S. 

(ii) You must perform testing and 

submit test data as follows to 

demonstrate compliance with emission 

standards: 

(A) Exhaust and fuel economy tests. 

You must measure emissions over the 

FTP driving cycle and the highway fuel 

economy driving cycle as specified in 

40 CFR 600.109 to meet the fuel 

economy requirements in 40 CFR part 

600 and demonstrate compliance with 

the exhaust emission standards in 40 

CFR part 86 (other than PM). Measure 

exhaust emissions and fuel economy 

with the same test procedures used by 

the original manufacturer to test the 

vehicle for certification. However, you 

must use an electric dynamometer 

meeting the requirements of § 86.108 or 

40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, unless we 

approve a different dynamometer based 

on excessive compliance costs. If you 

certify based on testing with a different 

dynamometer, you must state in the 

application for certification that all 

vehicles in the emission family will 

comply with emission standards if 

tested on an electric dynamometer. 

(B) Evaporative emission test. You 

may measure evaporative emissions as 

specified in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

evaporative emission standards in 40 

CFR part 86 instead of the otherwise 

specified procedures. Use measurement 

equipment for evaporative 

measurements specified in 40 CFR part 

86, subpart B, except that the 

evaporative emission enclosure does not 

need to accommodate varying ambient 

temperatures. The evaporative 

measurement procedure is integral to 

the procedure for measuring exhaust 

emissions over the FTP driving cycle as 

described in paragraph (a)(ii)(2)(A) of 

this section. Perform canister 

preconditioning using the same 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30045 

procedure used by the original 

manufacturer to certify the vehicle; 

perform this canister loading before the 

initial preconditioning drive. Perform a 

diurnal emission test at the end of the 

stabilization period before the exhaust 

emission test by heating the fuel from 60 

to 84 °F, either by exposing the vehicle 

to increasing ambient temperatures or 

by applying heat directly to the fuel 

tank. Measure hot soak emissions as 

described in 40 CFR 86.138–96(k). We 

may approve alternative measurement 

procedures that are equivalent to or 

more stringent than the specified 

procedures if the specified procedures 

are impractical for particular vehicle 

models or measurement facilities. The 

sum of the measured diurnal and hot 

soak values must meet the appropriate 

emission standard as specified in this 

section. 

(b) The emission standards applicable 

to nonconforming light-duty vehicles 

and light-duty trucks imported pursuant 

to this subpart are outlined in tables 1 

and 2 of this section, respectively. The 

useful life as specified in tables 1 and 

2 of this section is applicable to 

imported light-duty vehicles and lightduty trucks, respectively. 

(c)(1) Nonconforming motor vehicles 

or motor vehicle engines of 1994 OP 

year and later conditionally imported 

pursuant to § 85.1505 or § 85.1509 shall 

meet all of the emission standards 

specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP 

year of the vehicle or motor vehicle 

engine. The useful life specified in 40 

CFR part 86 for the OP year of the motor 

vehicle or motor vehicle engine is 

applicable where useful life is not 

designated in this subpart. 

(2)(i) Nonconforming light-duty 

vehicles and light light-duty trucks 

(LDV/LLDTs) originally manufactured 

in OP years 2004, 2005 or 2006 must 

meet the FTP exhaust emission 

standards of bin 9 in Tables S04–1 and 

S04–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811–04 and the 

evaporative emission standards for 

light-duty vehicles and light light-duty 

trucks specified in 40 CFR 86.1811– 

01(e)(5). 

(ii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s 

(HLDTs) and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles (MDPVs) originally 

manufactured in OP years 2004 through 

2006 must meet the FTP exhaust 

emission standards of bin 10 in Tables 

S04–1 and S04–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811–04 

and the applicable evaporative emission 

standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811– 

04(e)(5). For 2004 OP year HLDTs and 

MDPVs where modifications commence 

on the first vehicle of a test group before 

December 21, 2003, this requirement 

does not apply to the 2004 OP year. ICIs 

opting to bring all of their 2004 OP year 

HLDTs and MDPVs into compliance 

with the exhaust emission standards of 

bin 10 in Tables S04–1 and S04–2 in 40 

CFR 86.1811–04, may use the optional 

higher NMOG values for their 2004– 

2006 OP year LDT2s and 2004–2008 

LDT4s. 

(iii) Nonconforming LDT3s and 

LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally 

manufactured in OP years 2007 and 

2008 must meet the FTP exhaust 

emission standards of bin 8 in Tables 

S04–1 and S04–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811–04 

and the applicable evaporative 

standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811– 

04(e)(5). 

(iv) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs 

originally manufactured in OP years 

2007 through 2021 and nonconforming 

HLDTs and MDPVs originally 

manufactured in OP year 2009 through 

2021 must meet the FTP exhaust 

emission standards of bin 5 in Tables 

S04–1 and S04–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811–04, 

and the evaporative standards specified 

in 40 CFR 86.1811–04(e)(1) through (4). 

(v) ICIs are exempt from the Tier 2 

and the interim non-Tier2 phase-in 

intermediate percentage requirements 

for exhaust, evaporative, and refueling 

emissions described in 40 CFR 86.1811– 

04. 

(vi) In cases where multiple standards 

exist in a given model year in 40 CFR 

part 86 due to phase-in requirements of 

new standards, the applicable standards 

for motor vehicle engines required to be 

certified to engine-based standards are 

the least stringent standards applicable 

to the engine type for the OP year. 

(vii) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs 

originally manufactured in OP years 

2009 through 2021 must meet the 

evaporative emission standards in Table 

S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e). 

However, LDV/LLDTs originally 

manufactured in OP years 2009 and 

2010 and imported by ICIs who qualify 

as small volume manufacturers as 

defined in 40 CFR 86.1838–01 are 

exempt from the LDV/LLDT evaporative 

emission standards in Table S09–1 in 40 

CFR 86.1811–09(e), but must comply 

with the Tier 2 evaporative emission 

standards in Table S04–3 in 40 CFR 

86.1811–04(e). 

(viii) Nonconforming HLDTs and 

MDPVs originally manufactured in OP 

years 2010 through 2021 must meet the 

evaporative emission standards in Table 

S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e). 

However, HLDTs and MDPVs originally 

manufactured in OP years 2010 and 

2011 and imported by ICIs, who qualify 

as small volume manufacturers as 

defined in 40 CFR 86.1838–01, are 

exempt from the HLDTs and MDPVs 

evaporative emission standards in Table 

S09–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811–09(e), but 

must comply with the Tier 2 

evaporative emission standards in Table 

S04–3 in 40 CFR 86.1811–04(e). 

(ix) Nonconforming LDVs, LDTs, 

MDPVs, and complete heavy-duty 

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR originally manufactured in OP 

years 2022 and later must meet the Tier 

3 exhaust and evaporative emission 

standards in 40 CFR 86.1811 through 

86.1816. 

(3)(i) As an option to the requirements 

of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, 

independent commercial importers may 

elect to meet lower bins in Tables S04– 

1 and S04–2 of 40 CFR 86.1811–04 than 

specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section and bank or sell NOx credits as 

permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860–04 and 40 

CFR 86.1861–04. An ICI may not meet 

higher bins in Tables S04–1 and S04–2 

of 40 CFR 86.1811–04 than specified in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section unless it 

demonstrates to the Administrator at the 

time of certification that it has obtained 

appropriate and sufficient NOx credits 

from another manufacturer, or has 

generated them in a previous model 

year or in the current model year and 

not transferred them to another 

manufacturer or used them to address 

other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 

86.1860–04 and 40 CFR 86.1861–04. 

(ii) Where an ICI desires to obtain a 

certificate of conformity using a bin 

higher than specified in paragraph (c)(2) 

of this section, but does not have 

sufficient credits to cover vehicles 

produced under such certificate, the 

Administrator may issue such certificate 

if the ICI has also obtained a certificate 

of conformity for vehicles certified 

using a bin lower than that required 

under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

The ICI may then produce vehicles to 

the higher bin only to the extent that it 

has generated sufficient credits from 

vehicles certified to the lower bin 

during the same model year. 

(4) [Reserved] 

(5) Except for the situation where an 

ICI desires to bank, sell or use NOx 

credits as described in paragraph (c)(3) 

of this section, the requirements of 40 

CFR 86.1811–04 related to fleet average 

NOx standards and requirements to 

comply with such standards do not 

apply to vehicles modified under this 

subpart. 

(6) ICIs using bins higher than those 

specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section must monitor their production 

so that they do not produce more 

vehicles certified to the standards of 

such bins than their available credits 

can cover. ICIs must not have a credit 

deficit at the end of a model year and 

are not permitted to use the deficit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30046 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

carryforward provisions provided in 40 

CFR 86.1860–04(e). 

(7) The Administrator may condition 

the certificates of conformity issued to 

ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles 

subject to paragraph (c) of this section 

comply with the appropriate average 

NOx standard for each model year. 

(8)(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs 

originally manufactured in OP years 

2010 and later must meet the cold 

temperature NHMC emission standards 

in Table S10–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811– 

10(g). 

(ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and 

MDPVs originally manufactured in OP 

years 2012 and later must meet the cold 

temperature NHMC emission standards 

in Table S10–1 in 40 CFR 86.1811– 

10(g). 

(iii) ICIs, which qualify as small 

volume manufacturers, are exempt from 

the cold temperature NMHC phase-in 

intermediate percentage requirements 

described in 40 CFR 86.1811–10(g)(3). 

See 40 CFR 86.1811–04(k)(5)(vi) and 

(vii). 

(iv) As an alternative to the 

requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and 

(ii) of this section, ICIs may elect to 

meet a cold temperature NMHC family 

emission level below the cold 

temperature NMHC fleet average 

standards specified in Table S10–1 of 40 

CFR 86.1811–10 and bank or sell credits 

as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864–10. An 

ICI may not meet a higher cold 

temperature NMHC family emission 

level than the fleet average standards in 

Table S10–1 of 40 CFR 86.1811–10 as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) 

of this section, unless it demonstrates to 

the Administrator at the time of 

certification that it has obtained 

appropriate and sufficient NMHC 

credits from another manufacturer, or 

has generated them in a previous model 

year or in the current model year and 

not traded them to another 

manufacturer or used them to address 

other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 

86.1864–10. 

(v) Where an ICI desires to obtain a 

certificate of conformity using a higher 

cold temperature NMHC family 

emission level than specified in 

paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, but does not have sufficient 

credits to cover vehicles imported under 

such certificate, the Administrator may 

issue such certificate if the ICI has also 

obtained a certificate of conformity for 

vehicles certified using a cold 

temperature NMHC family emission 

level lower than that required under 

paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. The ICI may then import 

vehicles to the higher cold temperature 

NMHC family emission level only to the 

extent that it has generated sufficient 

credits from vehicles certified to a 

family emission level lower than the 

cold temperature NMHC fleet average 

standard during the same model year. 

(vi) ICIs using cold temperature 

NMHC family emission levels higher 

than the cold temperature NMHC fleet 

average standards specified in 

paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this 

section must monitor their imports so 

that they do not import more vehicles 

certified to such family emission levels 

than their available credits can cover. 

ICIs must not have a credit deficit at the 

end of a model year and are not 

permitted to use the deficit carryforward 

provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1864– 

10. 

(vii) The Administrator may condition 

the certificates of conformity issued to 

ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles 

subject to this paragraph (c)(8) comply 

with the applicable cold temperature 

NMHC fleet average standard for each 

model year. 

(d) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, ICI’s must not 

participate in emission-related programs 

for emissions averaging, banking and 

trading, or nonconformance penalties. 

TABLE 1 TO § 85.1515—EMISSION STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO IMPORTED LIGHT-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES 123

OP Year Hydrocarbon Carbon 

monoxide 

Oxides of 

nitrogen 

Diesel 

particulate 

Evaporative 

hydrocarbon 

Useful life 

(years/miles) 

1968–76 ............................................ 1.5 gpm .......... 15 gpm ........... 3.1 gpm ........... ......................... 6.0 g/test ......... 5/50,000 

1977–79 ............................................ 1.5 gpm .......... 15 gpm ........... 2.0 gpm ........... ......................... 6.0 g/test ......... 5/50,000 

1980 .................................................. 0.41 gpm ........ 7.0 gpm ........... 2.0 gpm ........... ......................... 6.0 g/test ......... 5/50,000 

1981 .................................................. 0.41 gpm ........ 3.4 gpm ........... 1.0 gpm ........... ......................... 2.0 g/test ......... 5/50,000 

1982–86 ............................................ 0.41 gpm ........ 3.4 gpm ........... 1.0 gpm ........... 0.60 gpm ........ 2.0 g/test ......... 5/50,000 

1987–93 ............................................ 0.41 gpm ........ 3.4 gpm ........... 1.0 gpm ........... 0.20 gpm ........ 2.0 g/test ......... 5/50,000 

1994 and later ................................... (4) .................... (4) .................... (4) .................... (4) .................... (4) .................... (4) 

1 Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty vehicles. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled 

light-duty vehicles. For alternative fueled light-duty vehicles, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon 

equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable. 2 No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty vehicle. 

3All light-duty vehicles shall meet the applicable emission standards at both low and high-altitudes according to the procedures specified in 40 

CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing. 4Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section. 

TABLE 2 TO § 85.1515—EMISSION STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO IMPORTED LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS 12345

OP year Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Oxides of nitrogen Diesel particulate Evaporative hydrocarbon 

Useful life (years/ 

miles) 

1968–78 ................ 2.0 gpm 20 gpm 3.1 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 

1979–80 ................ 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 

1981 ...................... 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 

1982–83 ................ 1.7 gpm (2.0) 18 gpm (26) 2.3 gpm (2.3) 0.60 gpm (0.60) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 5/50,000 

1984 ...................... 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 2.3 gpm (2.3) 0.60 gpm (0.60) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 5/50,000 

1985–86 ................ 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 2.3 gpm (2.3) 0.60 gpm (0.60) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000 

1987 ...................... 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 2.3 gpm (2.3) 0.26 gpm (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000 

1988–89 ................ 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 1.2 gpm6 (1.2) 0.26 gpm7 (2.0) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000 

0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 1.7 gpm6 (1.7) 0.45 gpm7 (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000 

0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 2.3 gpm6 (2.3) 0.45 gpm7 (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000 

1990–93 ................ 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 1.2 gpm8 (1.2) 0.26 gpm7 (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000 

0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm (14) 1.7 gpm8 (1.7) 0.45 gpm7 (0.26) 2.0 g/test (2.6) 11/120,000 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30047 

TABLE 2 TO § 85.1515—EMISSION STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO IMPORTED LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS 12345—Continued 

OP year Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Oxides of nitrogen Diesel particulate Evaporative hydrocarbon 

Useful life (years/ 

miles) 

1994 and later ...... (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) 

1 Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty trucks. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled 

light-duty trucks. For alternative fueled light-duty trucks, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon 

equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable. 2 No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty truck. 

3A carbon monoxide standard of 0.50% of exhaust flow at curb idle is applicable to all 1984 and later model year light-duty trucks sold to, or 

owned by, an importer for principal use at other than a designated high-altitude location. This requirement is effective for light-duty trucks sold to, 

or owned by an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location beginning with the 1988 model year. 4All 1982 OP year and later light-duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location shall 

meet high-altitude emission standards according to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year light-duty trucks at the 

time of testing. 5Standards in parentheses apply to motor vehicles sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location. 

These standards must be met at high-altitude according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at 

the time of testing. 6The oxides of nitrogen standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 

pounds GVWR. The 1.7 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks above 3,750 pound loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds 

GVWR; the 2.3 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks above 6,000 pounds GVWR. 7The diesel particulate standard of 0.26 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 0.45 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight. 8The NOx standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 1.7 gpm standard applies to 

light-duty trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight. 9Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section. 

■ 43. Subpart W, is revised to consist of 

§§ 85.2201, 85.2207, 85.2222, 85.2223, 

and 85.2231, to read as follows: 

Subpart W—Emission Control System 

Performance Warranty Short Tests 

Sec. 

85.2201 Applicability. 

85.2207 Onboard diagnostic test standards. 

85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test 

procedures. 

85.2223 Onboard diagnostic test report. 

85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test equipment 

requirements. 

Subpart W—Emission Control System 

Performance Warranty Short Tests 

§ 85.2201 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart describes the test 

provisions to be employed in 

conjunction with the Emissions 

Performance Warranty in subpart V of 

this part. These provisions generally 

rely on a vehicle’s onboard diagnostic 

system (OBD) to indicate whether a 

vehicle passes or fails the test. 

(b) The provisions of this subpart may 

be used to establish warranty eligibility 

for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

and medium-duty passenger vehicles 

when tested during the useful life as 

prescribed in subpart V of this part. 

§ 85.2207 Onboard diagnostic test 

standards. 

(a) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if 

it is a 1996 or newer vehicle and the 

vehicle connector is missing, has been 

tampered with, or is otherwise 

inoperable. 

(b) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test 

if the malfunction indicator light (MIL) 

is commanded to be illuminated and it 

is not visually illuminated according to 

visual inspection. 

(c) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if 

the MIL is commanded to be 

illuminated for one or more diagnostic 

trouble codes (DTCs), as described in 40 

CFR 86.1806. 

§ 85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test 

procedures. 

The test sequence for the OBD 

inspection shall consist of the following 

steps: 

(a) The OBD inspection shall be 

conducted with the key-on/engine 

running, with the exception of 

inspecting for MIL illumination as 

required in paragraph (d)(4) of this 

section, during which the inspection 

shall be conducted with the key-on/ 

engine off. 

(b) The inspector shall locate the 

vehicle connector and plug the test 

system into the connector. 

(c) The test system shall send a Mode 

$01, PID $01 request in accordance with 

40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the OBD 

evaluation status. The test system shall 

determine what monitors are supported 

by the OBD system, and perform the 

readiness evaluation for applicable 

monitors in accordance with the 

requirements and specifications in 40 

CFR 86.1806. 

(1) Coincident with the beginning of 

mandatory testing, repair, and retesting 

based upon the OBD test, if the 

readiness evaluation indicates that any 

onboard tests are not complete, the 

customer shall be instructed to return 

after the vehicle has been run under 

conditions that allow completion of all 

applicable onboard tests. If the 

readiness evaluation again indicates that 

any onboard test is not complete, the 

vehicle shall be failed. 

(2) An exception to paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section is allowed for MY 1996 to 

MY 2000 vehicles, inclusive, with two 

or fewer unset readiness monitors, and 

for MY 2001 and newer vehicles with 

no more than one unset readiness 

monitor. Vehicles from those model 

years which would otherwise pass the 

OBD inspection, but for the unset 

readiness code in question, may be 

issued a passing certificate without 

being required to operate the vehicle in 

such a way as to activate those 

particular monitors. Vehicles from those 

model years with an unset readiness 

code that also have a DTC stored 

resulting in an illuminated MIL must be 

failed, though setting the unset 

readiness flag in question shall not be a 

prerequisite for passing the retest. 

(d) The test system shall evaluate the 

MIL status bit and record status 

information in the vehicle test record. 

(1) If the MIL status bit indicates that 

the MIL has been commanded to be 

illuminated, the test system shall send 

a Mode $03 request in accordance with 

40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the stored 

DTCs. The system shall repeat this cycle 

until the number of codes reported 

equals the number expected based on 

the Mode $01 response. All DTCs 

resulting in MIL illumination shall be 

recorded in the vehicle test record and 

the vehicle shall fail the OBD 

inspection. 

(2) If the MIL bit is not commanded 

to be illuminated the vehicle shall pass 

the OBD inspection, even if DTCs are 

present. 

(3) If the MIL bit is commanded to be 

illuminated, the inspector shall visually 

inspect the MIL to determine if it is 

illuminated. If the MIL is commanded to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30048 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

be illuminated but is not, the vehicle 

shall fail the OBD inspection. 

(4) If the MIL does not illuminate at 

all when the vehicle is in the key-on/ 

engine-off condition, the vehicle shall 

fail the OBD inspection, even if no DTCs 

are present and the MIL has not been 

commanded on. 

§ 85.2223 Onboard diagnostic test report. 

(a) Motorists whose vehicles fail the 

OBD test described in § 85.2222 shall be 

provided with the OBD test results, 

including the codes retrieved, the name 

of the component or system associated 

with each fault code, the status of the 

MIL illumination command, and the 

customer alert statement as stated in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) In addition to any codes that were 

retrieved, the test report shall include 

the following language: 

Your vehicle’s computerized selfdiagnostic system (OBD) registered the 

faults listed below. The faults are 

probably an indication of a malfunction 

of an emission component. However, 

multiple and/or seemingly unrelated 

faults may be an indication of an 

emission-related problem that occurred 

previously, but upon further evaluation 

by the OBD system was determined to 

be only temporary. Therefore, proper 

diagnosis by a qualified technician is 

required to positively identify the 

source of any emission-related problem. 

§ 85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test 

equipment requirements. 

(a) The test system interface to the 

vehicle shall include a plug that 

conforms to the requirements and 

specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806. 

(b) The test system shall be capable of 

communicating with the standard data 

link connector of vehicles with certified 

OBD systems. 

(c) The test system shall be capable of 

checking for OBD monitors and the 

evaluation status of supported monitors 

(test complete/test not complete) in 

Mode $01 PID $01, as well as be able to 

request the DTCs, consistent with the 

requirements and specifications of 40 

CFR 86.1806. 

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY 

VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

■ 44. The authority citation for part 86 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

■ 45. Section 86.1 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) and (g)(2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.1 Reference materials. 

* * * * * 

(d) California Air Resources Board, 

1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95812, 

(916) 322–2884, http://www.arb.ca.gov. 

(1) California Requirements 

Applicable to the LEV III Program, Title 

13, § 1961.2 and § 1976(b)1)(G) of the 

California Code of Regulations, 

approved on March 22, 2012, IBR 

approved for § 86.1803–01. 

(2) California Regulatory 

Requirements Applicable to the 

National Low Emission Vehicle 

Program, October 1996, IBR approved 

for §§ 86.113–04 and 86.612–97. 

(3) California Regulatory 

Requirements known as On-board 

Diagnostics II (OBD–II), Approved on 

April 21, 2003, Title 13, California Code 

of Regulations, Section 1968.2, 

Malfunction and Diagnostic System 

Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent 

Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and 

Engines (OBD–II), IBR approved for 

§ 86.1806–05. 

(4) California Regulatory 

Requirements known as On-board 

Diagnostics II (OBD–II), Approved on 

November 9, 2007, Title 13, California 

Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, 

Malfunction and Diagnostic System 

Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent 

Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and 

Engines (OBD–II), IBR approved for 

§§ 86.007–17, 86.1806–05. 

(5) California Regulatory 

Requirements known as On-board 

Diagnostics II (OBD–II), Approved on 

June 17, 2010, Title 13, California Code 

of Regulations, Section 1968.2, 

Malfunction and Diagnostic System 

Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent 

Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty 

Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and 

Engines (OBD–II), IBR approved for 

§ 86.1806–17. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) SAE J1634, Revised October 2012, 

Battery Electric Vehicle Energy 

Consumption and Range Test 

Procedure, IBR approved for § 86.1811– 

04(n). 

* * * * * 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 46. Section 86.000–7 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising the introductory text. 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (h)(1). 

■ c. By revising paragraph (h)(6). 

■ d. By removing paragraph (h)(7). 

§ 86.000–7 Maintenance of records; 

submittal of information; right of entry. 

Section 86.000–7 includes text that 

specifies requirements that differ from 

§ 86.091–7 or § 86.094–7. Where a 

paragraph in § 86.091–7 or § 86.094–7 is 

identical and applicable to § 86.000–7, 

this may be indicated by specifying the 

corresponding paragraph and the 

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see 

§ 86.091–7.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For 

guidance see § 86.094–7.’’ 

* * * * * 

■ (h) * * * 

■ (6) EPA may void ab initio a certificate 

for a vehicle certified to Tier 1 

certification standards or to the 

respective evaporative and/or refueling 

test procedure and accompanying 

evaporative and/or refueling standards 

as set forth or otherwise referenced in 

§ 86.098–10 for which the manufacturer 

fails to retain the records required in 

this section or to provide such 

information to the Administrator upon 

request. 

* * * * * 

§§ 86.000–8, 86.000–9, 86.000–16 

[Removed] 

■ 47. Remove §§ 86.000–8, 86.000–9, 

and 86.000–16. 

§ 86.000–24 [Amended] 

■ 48. Section 86.000–24 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing the introductory text. 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a), (b)(1) introductory text, 

and (b)(1)(iii) through (f). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2). 

■ d. By removing paragraph (h). 

§§ 86.000–26, 86.000–28, 86.001–9, 86.001– 

22 [Removed] 

■ 49. Remove §§ 86.000–26, 86.000–28, 

86.001–9, and 86.001–22. 

■ 50. Section 86.001–23 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

adding a heading to paragraph (c), and 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(c)(1), (f), and (g) to read as follows: 

§ 86.001–23 Required data. 

Section 86.001–23 includes text that 

specifies requirements that differ from 

§ 86.098–23. Where a paragraph in 

§ 86.098–23 is identical and applicable 

to § 86.001–23, this may be indicated by 

specifying the corresponding paragraph 

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For 

guidance see § 86.098–23.’’ 

* * * * * 

(c) Emission data— 

* * * * * 

§§ 86.001–25, 86.001–26, 86.001–28, 86.001– 

30, 86.004–9 [Removed] 

■ 51. Remove §§ 86.001–25, 86.001–26, 

86.001–28, 86.001–30, and 86.004–9. 

■ 52. Section 86.004–21 is amended as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30049 

■ a. By revising the introductory text. 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(4)(i). 

■ c. By removing paragraph (b)(5)(v). 

■ d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (k) and (l). 

§ 86.004–21 Application for certification. 

Section 86.004–21 includes text that 

specifies requirements that differ from 

§ 86.094–21. Where a paragraph in 

§ 86.094–21 is identical and applicable 

to § 86.004–21, this may be indicated by 

specifying the corresponding paragraph 

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For 

guidance see § 86.094–21.’’ 

* * * * * 

§ 86.004–25 [Amended] 

■ 53. Section 86.004–25 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iv). 

■ 54. Section 86.004–26 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing the introductory text. 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a) and (b). 

■ c. By revising paragraph (d). 

§ 86.004–26 Mileage and service 

accumulation; emission measurements. 

* * * * * 

(d)(1) This paragraph (d) applies for 

heavy-duty engines. 

(2)(i) The results of all emission 

testing shall be supplied to the 

Administrator. The manufacturer shall 

furnish to the Administrator 

explanation for voiding any test. The 

Administrator will determine if voiding 

the test was appropriate based upon the 

explanation given by the manufacturer 

for the voided test. Tests between test 

points may be conducted as required by 

the Administrator. Data from all tests 

(including voided tests) may be 

submitted weekly to the Administrator, 

but shall be delivered to the 

Administrator within 7 days after 

completion of the test. In addition, all 

test data shall be compiled and 

provided to the Administrator in 

accordance with § 86.007–23. Where the 

Administrator conducts a test on a 

durability data vehicle at a prescribed 

test point, the results of that test will be 

used in the calculation of the 

deterioration factor. 

(ii) The results of all emission tests 

shall be recorded and reported to the 

Administrator. These test results shall 

be rounded as specified in 40 CFR part 

1065 to the number of decimal places 

contained in the applicable emission 

standard expressed to one additional 

significant figure. 

(3) Whenever a manufacturer intends 

to operate and test a vehicle (or engine) 

that may be used for emission data, the 

manufacturer shall retain in its records 

all information concerning all emission 

tests and maintenance, including 

vehicle (or engine) alterations to 

represent other vehicle (or engine) 

selections. This information shall be 

submitted, including the vehicle (or 

engine) description and specification 

information required by the 

Administrator, to the Administrator 

following the emission data test. 

(4) Emission testing of any type with 

respect to any certification vehicle or 

engine other than that specified in this 

subpart is not allowed except as such 

testing may be specifically authorized 

by the Administrator. 

§ 86.004–28 [Amended] 

■ 55. Section 86.004–28 is amended by 

removing the introductory text and by 

removing and reserving paragraphs (a), 

(b), (f), and (g). 

■ 56. Section 86.004–30 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising the introductory text. 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(10)(i), and 

(a)(11)(i) and (a)(12) through (a)(16). 

■ c. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) 

through (a)(21). 

■ d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii). 

■ e. By removing paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) 

and (b)(1)(ii)(D). 

■ f. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(4). 

§ 86.004–30 Certification. 

Section 86.004–30 includes text that 

specifies requirements that differ from 

§ 86.094–30. Where a paragraph in 

§ 86.094–30 is identical and applicable 

to § 86.004–30, this may be indicated by 

specifying the corresponding paragraph 

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For 

guidance see § 86.094–30.’’ 

* * * * * 

■ 57. Section 86.004–38 is amended by 

removing the introductory text, 

removing and reserving paragraph (g), 

and adding paragraph (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.004–38 Maintenance instructions. 

* * * * * 

(i) For each new diesel-fueled engine 

subject to the standards prescribed in 

§ 86.007–11, as applicable, the 

manufacturer shall furnish or cause to 

be furnished to the ultimate purchaser 

a statement that ‘‘This engine must be 

operated only with ultra low-sulfur 

diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications 

for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 

ppm sulfur cap).’’ 

■ 58. Section 86.005–10 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 86.005–10 Emission standards for 2005 

and later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty 

engines and vehicles. 

Section 86.005–10 includes text that 

specifies requirements that differ from 

§ 86.099–10. Where a paragraph in 

§ 86.099–10 is identical and applicable 

to § 86.005–10, this may be indicated by 

specifying the corresponding paragraph 

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For 

guidance see § 86.099–10.’’ 

* * * * * 

(c) No crankcase emissions shall be 

discharged into the ambient atmosphere 

from any new 1998 or later model year 

Otto-cycle heavy-duty engine. 

* * * * * 

■ 59. Section 86.007–17 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.007–17 On-board diagnostics for 

engines used in applications less than or 

equal to 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

Heavy-duty engines intended to be 

installed in heavy duty vehicles at or 

below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are 

subject to standards under this subpart 

must meet on-board diagnostic 

requirements as specified in § 86.1806– 

17(a), (c), and (d). 

§ 86.007–21 [Amended] 

■ 60. Section 86.007–21 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(4)(i). 

■ b. By removing paragraphs (b)(9) and 

(b)(10). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (k) and (l). 

■ 61. Section 86.007–23 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(b)(2), (f), (g), and (l) and revising the 

introductory text and paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.007–23 Required data. 

Section 86.007–23 includes text that 

specifies requirements that differ from 

§ 86.098–23 or § 86.001–23. Where a 

paragraph in § 86.098–23 or § 86.001–23 

is identical and applicable to § 86.007– 

23, this may be indicated by specifying 

the corresponding paragraph and the 

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see 

§ 86.098–23.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For 

guidance see § 86.001–23.’’. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(c) Emission data from certification 

vehicles and engines. The manufacturer 

shall submit emission data for each 

applicable emission standard from 

vehicles and engines tested in 

accordance with applicable test 

procedures and in such numbers as 

specified. These data shall include zeromstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30050 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

mile or zero-hour data, if generated, and 

emission data generated for certification 

as required under § 86.004–26. 

However, manufacturers may provide a 

statement in the application for 

certification that vehicles and engines 

comply with the following standards 

instead of submitting test data, provided 

that the statement is supported by 

previous emission tests, development 

tests, or other appropriate information, 

and good engineering judgment: 

(1) Idle CO, smoke, or particulate 

matter emissions from methanol-fueled 

or gaseous-fueled diesel-cycle 

certification engines. 

(2) Particulate matter emissions from 

Otto-cycle certification engines or 

gaseous-fueled certification engines. 

(3) CO emissions from diesel-cycle 

certification engines. 

(4) Formaldehyde emissions from 

petroleum-fueled engines. 

(5) Particulate matter and 

formaldehyde emissions when 

conducting Selective Enforcement Audit 

testing of Otto-cycle engines. 

(6) Smoke from methanol-fueled or 

petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle 

certification engines. 

(7) Smoke when conducting Selective 

Enforcement Audit testing of dieselcycle engines. 

(8) Evaporative emissions from 

vehicles fueled by natural gas, liquefied 

petroleum gas, or hydrogen. 

* * * * * 

(f) through (g) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(l) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

§ 86.007–30 [Amended] 

■ 62. Section 86.007—30 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(10)(i), 

(a)(11)(i), and (a)(12) through (a)(16). 

■ b. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) 

through (a)(21). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(4). 

■ d. By removing paragraph (f). 

■ 63. Section 86.007–35 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (a) 

introductory text. 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

■ c. By revising paragraph (c). 

■ d. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (d), (f), and (i). 

§ 86.007–35 Labeling. 

* * * * * 

(a) The manufacturer of any motor 

vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) subject 

to the applicable emission standards 

(and family emission limits, as 

appropriate) of this subpart, shall, at the 

time of manufacture, affix a permanent 

legible label, of the type and in the 

manner described below, containing the 

information hereinafter provided, to all 

production models of such vehicles (or 

engines) available for sale to the public 

and covered by a Certificate of 

Conformity under § 86.007–30(a). 

* * * * * 

(c) Vehicles powered by model year 

2007 through 2013 diesel-fueled engines 

must include permanent, readily visible 

labels on the dashboard (or instrument 

panel) and near all fuel inlets that state 

‘‘Use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel 

Only’’; or ‘‘Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel 

Only’’. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.007–38 [Removed] 

■ 64. Remove § 86.007–38. 

■ 65. Section 86.008–10 is amended by 

removing the introductory text and 

revising paragraphs (b) introductory text 

and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 86.008–10 Emission standards for 2008 

and later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty 

engines and vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(b) This paragraph (b) applies through 

model year 2013. See 40 CFR 1037.103 

for provisions that apply in 2014 and 

later model years. Evaporative 

emissions from heavy-duty vehicles 

shall not exceed the following standards 

when measured using the test 

procedures specified in 40 CFR 

1037.501. The standards apply equally 

to certification and in-use vehicles. The 

spitback standard also applies to newly 

assembled vehicles. For certification 

vehicles only, manufacturers may 

conduct testing to quantify a level of 

nonfuel background emissions for an 

individual test vehicle. Such a 

demonstration must include a 

description of the source(s) of emissions 

and an estimated decay rate. The 

demonstrated level of nonfuel 

background emissions may be 

subtracted from emission test results 

from certification vehicles if approved 

in advance by the Administrator. 

* * * * * 

(e) The standards described in this 

section do not apply to Otto-cycle 

medium-duty passenger vehicles 

(MDPVs) that are subject to regulation 

under subpart S of this part, except as 

specified in subpart S of this part. The 

standards described in this section also 

do not apply to Otto-cycle engines used 

in such MDPVs, except as specified in 

subpart S of this part. The term 

‘‘medium-duty passenger vehicle’’ is 

defined in § 86.1803. 

* * * * * 

■ 66. Section 86.010–38 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (g) and (i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.010–38 Maintenance instructions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Emission control diagnostic service 

information. Manufacturers are subject 

to the requirements of § 86.1808–01(f) 

beginning in the 2005 model year for 

manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles 

and heavy-duty engines weighing 

14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight 

(GVW) and less that are subject to the 

OBD requirements of this part. 

* * * * * 

(i) Through model year 2013, the 

manufacturer shall furnish or cause to 

be furnished to the ultimate purchaser 

the following statement for each new 

diesel-fueled engine subject to the 

standards prescribed in § 86.007–11, as 

applicable: ‘‘This engine must be 

operated only with ultra low-sulfur 

diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications 

for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 

ppm sulfur cap).’’ 

* * * * * 

■ 67. Section 86.016–1 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and 

adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.016–1 General applicability. 

(a) Applicability. The provisions of 

this subpart apply for certain types of 

new heavy-duty engines and vehicles as 

described in this paragraph (a). Note 

that this subpart does not apply for 

light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, or 

medium-duty passenger vehicles (see 

subpart S of this part for requirements 

that apply for those vehicles). In some 

cases, manufacturers of heavy-duty 

engines and vehicles can choose 

whether to meet the requirements of this 

subpart or the requirements of subpart 

S of this part; those provisions are 

therefore considered optional, but only 

to the extent that manufacturers comply 

with the other set of requirements. In 

cases where a provision applies only for 

a certain vehicle group based on its 

model year, vehicle class, motor fuel, 

engine type, or other distinguishing 

characteristics, the limited applicability 

is cited in the appropriate section. The 

provisions of this subpart apply for 

certain heavy-duty engines and vehicles 

as follows: 

(1) The provisions of this subpart 

related to exhaust emission standards 

apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle 

heavy-duty engines installed in vehicles 

above 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30051 

(2) The provisions of this subpart 

related to exhaust emission standards 

apply as follows for engines that will be 

installed in incomplete vehicles at or 

below 14,000 pounds GVWR: 

(i) These provisions apply for dieselcycle engines. 

(ii) These provisions are optional for 

Otto-cycle engines. 

(3) Diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle 

complete heavy-duty vehicles at or 

below 14,000 pounds GVWR and the 

corresponding engines are not subject to 

the provisions of this subpart related to 

exhaust emission standards, except that 

these provisions are optional for dieselcycle engines installed in such vehicles 

through model year 2018. 

(4) The provisions of this subpart 

related to evaporative emission 

standards apply for diesel-cycle and 

Otto-cycle heavy-duty vehicles as 

follows: 

(i) These provisions do not apply for 

complete vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR. 

(ii) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds 

GVWR and all sizes of incomplete 

heavy-duty vehicles must meet 

evaporative emission standards as 

specified in § 86.008–10 through model 

year 2017, and as specified in 40 CFR 

part 1037 in later model years. 

(iii) Note that diesel-fueled vehicles 

are not subject to evaporative emissions 

under this part. 

(5) The provisions of this subpart 

related to onboard diagnostics apply for 

diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty 

engines and vehicles as follows: 

(i) Engines installed in vehicles above 

14,000 pounds GVWR must meet the 

onboard diagnostic requirements 

specified in § 86.010–18. 

(ii) Engines installed in vehicles at or 

below 14,000 pounds GVWR may 

optionally comply with the onboard 

diagnostic requirements specified in 

§ 86.007–17, in which case those 

vehicles are not subject to separate 

onboard diagnostic requirements under 

this part. 

(b) Relationship to subpart S of this 

part. Unless specified otherwise, if 

engines are not subject to provisions of 

this subpart or if manufacturers choose 

not to meet optional provisions of this 

subpart as described in paragraph (a) of 

this section, those engines must be 

installed in vehicles meeting the 

corresponding requirements under 

subpart S of this part. If a vehicle and 

its installed engine comply with a mix 

of provisions from this subpart and from 

subpart S of this part, the vehicle must 

be certified under subpart S of this part, 

and the engine does not need to be 

certified separately. 

(c) Greenhouse gas emission 

standards. See 40 CFR parts 1036 and 

1037 for greenhouse gas emission 

standards that apply for heavy-duty 

engines and vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(g) Clean alternative fuel conversions. 

The provisions of this subpart also 

apply for clean alternative fuel 

conversions as defined in 40 CFR 85.502 

of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(h) Turbine engines. Turbine engines 

are deemed to be compression-ignition 

engines for purposes of this part. 

§ 86.079–36 [Removed] 

■ 68. Remove § 86.079–36. 

■ 69. Section 86.082–2 is amended by 

adding definitions for ‘‘Round’’ and 

‘‘United States’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows. 

§ 86.082–2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Round has the meaning given in 40 

CFR 1065.1001, unless otherwise 

specified. 

* * * * * 

United States has the meaning given 

in 40 CFR 1068.30. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.085–20 [Removed] 

■ 70. Remove § 86.085–20. 

§ 86.085–37 [Amended] 

■ 71. Section 86.085–37 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b). 

§ 86.087–2 [ Removed] 

■ 72. Remove § 86.087–2. 

§ 86.091–29 [Amended] 

■ 73. Section 86.091–29 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a). 

Section 86.094–7 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.094–7 Maintenance of records; 

submittal of information; right of entry. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(6) EPA may void ab initio a 

certificate for a vehicle certified to Tier 

1 certification standards or to the 

respective evaporative and/or refueling 

test procedure and accompanying 

evaporative and/or refueling standards 

as set forth or otherwise referenced in 

§ 86.098–10 for which the manufacturer 

fails to retain the records required in 

this section or to provide such 

information to the Administrator upon 

request. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.094–13 [Removed] 

■ 75. Remove § 86.094–13. 

§ 86.094–14 [Amended] 

■ 76. Section 86.094–14 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(c)(5) and (c)(7)(i)(A)(1). 

§ 86.094–16 [Removed] 

■ 77. Remove § 86.094–16. 

§ 86.094–21 [Amended] 

■ 78. Section 86.094–21 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) and by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(iii)(B), (b)(8), (d), and (g). 

§ 86.094–25 [Amended] 

■ 79. Section 86.094–25 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a), (b)(3)(i)(A), and (b)(3)(ii). 

■ b. By removing paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) 

through (b)(3)(vii). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6), (d), and 

(g). 

§§ 86.094–26 and 86.094–28 [Removed] 

■ 80. Remove §§ 86.094–26 and 86.094– 

28. 

§ 86.094–30 [Amended] 

■ 81. Section 86.094–30 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(4), (a)(5), and 

(a)(7). 

■ b. By removing paragraphs (a)(9) 

through (a)(14). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(4). 

■ d. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (d). 

§§ 86.095–23, 86.095–26, and 86.095–30 

[Removed] 

■ 82. Remove §§ 86.095–23, 86.095–26, 

and 86.095–30. 

■ 83. Section 86.095–35 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(4) 

introductory text. 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (d), (e), and (f). 

■ d. By revising paragraph (g) 

introductory text. 

§ 86.095–35 Labeling. 

(a) * * * 

(1)–(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(4) Heavy-duty vehicles employing a 

fuel or fuels covered by evaporative 

emission standards. This paragraph 

(a)(4) applies through model year 2013. 

See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that 

apply in 2014 and later model years. 

* * * * * 

(d)–(f) [Reserved] 

(g) Incomplete vehicle fuel tank 

capacity. This paragraph (g) applies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30052 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

through model year 2013. See 40 CFR 

part 1037 for provisions that apply in 

2014 and later model years. 

* * * * * 

§§ 86.096–7, 86.096–8, and 86.096–21 

[Removed] 

■ 84. Remove §§ 86.096–7, 86.096–8, 

and 86.096–21. 

§ 86.096–24 [Amended] 

■ 85. Section 86.096–24 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(11) 

■ b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(14)(ii), (a)(14)(iii), and 

(a)(14)(vii). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d). 

■ d. By removing paragraphs (g) and (h). 

§§ 86.096–26, 86.096–30, 86.096–35, 86.096– 

38, and 86.097–9 [Removed] 

■ 86. Remove §§ 86.096–26, 86.096–30, 

86.096–35, 86.096–38, and 86.097–9. 

§ 86.098–23 [Amended] 

■ 87. Section 86.098–23 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i), (e)(2), and (e)(3). 

§§ 86.098–24, 86.098–25, 86.098–26, 86.098– 

28, 86.098–30, 86.098–35, 86.099–8, 86.099– 

9, and 86.099–17 [Removed] 

■ 88. Remove §§ 86.098–24, 86.098–25, 

86.098–26, 86.098–28, 86.098–30, 

86.098–35, 86.099–8, 86.099–9, and 

86.099–17. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 89. Section 86.101 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.101 General applicability. 

(a) General provisions. This subpart 

describes test procedures for measuring 

exhaust, evaporative, and refueling 

emissions from motor vehicles subject 

to emission standards under subpart S 

of this part. This generally includes 

light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 

and complete heavy-duty vehicles at or 

below 14,000 pounds GVWR. The 

following provisions apply for all 

testing under this subpart: 

(1) Provisions of this subpart apply to 

tests performed by both the 

Administrator and manufacturers. 

(2) References in this subpart to 

engine families and emission control 

systems are deemed to apply to 

durability groups and test groups as 

applicable. 

(3) Except as noted, heavy-duty 

vehicles are subject to all the same 

provisions of this subpart that apply to 

light-duty trucks. 

(4) The procedures in this subpart 

apply for testing vehicles powered by 

any fuel, except as specified in subpart 

S of this part. 

(5) All emission control systems 

designed for production vehicles must 

be functioning during testing. 

Maintenance to correct component 

malfunction or failure must be 

authorized in accordance with 

§ 86.1834. 

(6) Evaporative emission 

measurement procedures of this subpart 

include specifications for testing 

methanol-fueled vehicles. For vehicles 

fueled with other oxygenated fuels, use 

good engineering judgment to apply 

these procedures. For example, if you 

are testing an ethanol-fueled vehicle, 

calibrate your evaporative emission 

enclosure with ethanol and propane. 

(b) Migration to 40 CFR part 1066. 

This subpart transitions to rely on the 

test procedure specifications in 40 CFR 

parts 1065 and 1066 as follows: 

(1) Through model year 2021, 

manufacturers may use the test 

procedures specified in paragraph (c) or 

(d) of this section. For any EPA testing 

before model year 2022, EPA will use 

the manufacturer’s selected procedures 

for determining road load parameters 

and applying cycle-verification criteria. 

For any other parameters, EPA may 

conduct testing using either of the 

specified procedures. As allowed under 

this part, manufacturers may use 

carryover data from previous model 

years to demonstrate compliance with 

emission standards, without regard to 

the provisions of this section. 

(2) Manufacturers must use the 

following procedures before model year 

2022: 

(i) For vehicles certified to any of the 

Tier 3 emission standards specified in 

subpart S of this part, verify overall 

driver accuracy based on driven cycle 

energy and report information as 

described in 40 CFR 1066.430(j). 

(ii) The equipment specifications and 

measurement procedures related to PM 

emissions from 40 CFR part 1066 apply 

for any vehicles certified to the Tier 3 

PM emission standards specified in 

subpart S of this part. 

(3) For model years 2022 and later, 

manufacturers must use the test 

procedures specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(c) Interim procedures. Test vehicles 

as described in this subpart for the 

appropriate model year, through model 

year 2021, as follows: 

(1) Sections 86.106 through 86.115 set 

forth general testing specifications and 

equipment requirements. Sections 

86.116 through 86.126 discuss 

calibration methods and frequency. 

Sections 86.127 through 86.145 describe 

procedures for measuring exhaust and 

evaporative emissions. Sections 86.146 

through 86.157 lay out refueling test 

procedures. Sections 86.158 through 

86.166 cover procedures related to the 

Supplemental Federal Test Procedure 

and testing related to air conditioning 

systems. The test procedure for 

measuring fuel system leaks is described 

in 40 CFR 1066.840. 

(2) Alternate equipment, procedures, 

and calculation methods may be used if 

shown to yield equivalent or superior 

results, and if approved in advance by 

the Administrator. 

(d) Long-term procedures. Test 

vehicles as described in this subpart and 

in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as 

follows: 

(1) Use fuel for testing and service 

accumulation as specified in § 86.113. 

(2) For exhaust emission testing, 

measure emissions for all pollutants 

with an applicable emission standard. 

Calculate emission results as described 

in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart G. 

(3) The test sequence for the Federal 

Test Procedure (FTP) includes steps to 

precondition vehicles for evaporative 

emission measurements; these steps are 

required for exhaust testing whether or 

not testing includes evaporative 

emission measurements. 

(4) Perform evaporative emission tests 

as follows: 

(i) Use evaporative testing equipment 

meeting the specifications in § 86.107. 

This equipment must meet calibration 

requirements as specified in § 86.117. 

(ii) Generate fuel test temperature 

profiles as described in § 86.129–94(d). 

(iii) Follow the general provisions and 

driving schedules described in 40 CFR 

part 1066, subpart I. Evaporative testing 

consists of vehicle preconditioning as 

described in § 86.132, diurnal 

measurement as described in § 86.133, 

running loss testing as described in 

§ 86.134, and hot soak testing as 

described in § 86.138. 

(iv) Calculate emission results as 

described in § 86.143. 

(v) Test fuel systems for leaks as 

described in 40 CFR 1066.840. 

(5) Keep records as described in 

§ 86.142. 

(6) Perform refueling emission tests, 

calculate emission results, and keep 

associated records as described in 

§ 86.146 through 86.157. 

■ 90. Section 86.102 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.102 Definitions. 

The definitions in § 86.1803 apply to 

this subpart. 

■ 91. Section 86.106–96 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30053 

§ 86.106–96 Equipment required; 

overview. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Fuel, analytical gas, and driving 

schedule specifications. Fuel 

specifications for exhaust and 

evaporative emission testing and for 

mileage accumulation for petroleumfueled and methanol-fueled vehicles are 

specified in § 86.113. Analytical gases 

are specified in § 86.114. The Urban 

Dynamometer Driving Schedule 

(UDDS), US06, and SC03 driving 

schedules, for use in exhaust emission 

tests, and the New York City Cycle 

(NYCC), for use with the UDDS in 

running loss tests, are specified in 

§§ 86.115, 86.130, 86.159, 86.160, and 

appendix I to this part. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.106–00 [Removed] 

■ 92. Section 86.106–00 is removed. 

§ 86.107–96 [Amended] 

■ 93. Section 86.107–96 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (e). 

§§ 86.108–79, 86.110–90 [Removed] 

■ 94. Sections 86.108–79 and 86.110–90 

are removed. 

■ 95. Section 86.110–94 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.110–94 Exhaust gas sampling 

system; diesel-cycle vehicles, and Ottocycle vehicles requiring particulate 

emissions measurements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Filters, particulate sampling. Use 

fluorocarbon-coated glass fiber filters or 

fluorocarbon-based (membrane) filters 

to collect particulate matter, as follows: 

(1) Use primary and back-up test 

filters as follows for particulate 

measurements: 

(i) During each phase of the UDDS, 

sample dilute exhaust simultaneously 

with paired primary and back-up test 

filters. 

(ii) Position the back-up filter holder 

3 to 4 inches downstream of the primary 

filter holder. 

(iii) Determine the net weight of 

particulate material collected on each 

primary test filter and each back-up test 

filter using the procedure described in 

§ 86.139. 

(iv) Determine a ratio of net weights 

using the following formula: 

(v) If the ratio is greater than 0.95, 

base the particulate emission 

calculations on the net weight of the 

primary filter only. 

(vi) If the ratio is less than 0.95, base 

the particulate emission calculations on 

the combined net weights of the backup test filter and the primary test filter. 

(2) The particulate filter must have a 

47 mm diameter (37 mm stain area). 

§§ 86.111–90 and 86.115–00 [Removed] 

■ 96. Sections 86.111–90 and 86.115–00 

are removed. 

■ 97. Section 86.113–04 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.113–04 Fuel specifications. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) Manufacturers may use California 

test fuels, as follows: 

(i) For model year 2014 and earlier 

vehicles certified for 50-state sale, 

manufacturers may perform exhaust 

emission tests using California Phase 2 

gasoline as specified in Chapter 4 of the 

California Regulatory Requirements 

Applicable to the National Low 

Emission Vehicle Program, October 

1996 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 86.1). However, the Administrator may 

use or require the use of test fuel 

meeting the specifications in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section for certification 

confirmatory testing, selective 

enforcement auditing and in-use testing. 

(ii) For model year 2015 and later, 

manufacturers may certify 50-state 

vehicles based on testing used to meet 

California’s LEV III standards, including 

the use of California Phase 3 gasoline 

(E10), subject to the following 

provisions: 

(A) The Administrator will also use 

this E10 fuel for any testing to confirm 

that vehicles meet the LEV III standards. 

Note that all evaporative testing with 

the E10 fuel must be conducted with 

temperatures meeting the specifications 

adopted by the California Air Resources 

Board. 

(B) The manufacturer must also use 

this E10 fuel for fuel economy 

measurements, with any appropriate 

corrections related to ethanol content in 

the fuel. 

(C) The vehicles must also meet 

standards at high-altitude conditions. 

The high-altitude standards for a given 

vehicle are the LEV III standards that 

apply for low-altitude testing, except 

that testing is based on the fuel 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. Note that heavy-duty vehicles 

certified under this paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii)(C) are not subject to SFTP 

standards at high-altitude conditions. 

Manufacturers may alternatively use the 

E15 test fuel specified in § 86.113–07 for 

high-altitude testing. 

(D) The vehicle must meet the 

applicable cold-temperature standards 

using the fuel specified in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(E) Such vehicles are considered to be 

Tier 2 vehicles for EPA certification; 

however, manufacturers must exclude 

them from the fleet-average NOX

calculation in subpart S of this part. 

(3) * * * 

(i) Unless otherwise approved by the 

Administrator, unleaded gasoline 

representative of commercial gasoline 

that will be generally available through 

retail outlets must be used in service 

accumulation. Unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator, where 

the vehicle is to be used for evaporative 

emission durability demonstration, such 

fuel must contain ethanol as required by 

§ 86.1824–08(f)(1) . Leaded gasoline 

must not be used in service 

accumulation. 

* * * * * 

■ 98. Section 86.113–07 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 86.113–07 Fuel specifications. 

Section 86.113–07 includes text that 

specifies requirements that differ from 

§ 86.113–94. Where a paragraph in 

§ 86.113–94 is identical and applicable 

to § 86.113–07, this may be indicated by 

specifying the corresponding paragraph 

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For 

guidance see § 86.113–94.’’ 

(a) Gasoline fuel. This paragraph (a) 

describes how to transition to an 

ethanol-blend test fuel for vehicles 

certified under subpart S of this part. 

You may use the test fuels specified in 

§ 86.113–04(a) for vehicles that are not 

yet subject to testing with the new fuel. 

You may use the specified ethanolblend test fuel anytime earlier than we 

specify. Manufacturers must certify 

using service accumulation fuel and E15 

test fuel as specified in 40 CFR 1065, 

subpart H, on the following schedule: 

(1) Use the E15 test fuel to 

demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards as 

specified in § 86.1813. Use the E15 test 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.140</GPH>
30054 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

fuel to demonstrate compliance with the 

Tier 3 exhaust emission standards as 

specified in § 86.1811 and 86.1816. 

Where testing with E15 test fuel is 

required, this applies for all testing for 

demonstrating compliance with exhaust 

emission standards and fuel economy 

requirements. For vehicles certified for 

50-state sale through model year 2019, 

you may instead use California Phase 3 

gasoline (E10) as adopted in California’s 

LEV III program for exhaust and 

evaporative emission testing at lowaltitude conditions; the Administrator 

will also use this E10 fuel for any lowaltitude testing with such vehicles. In 

the case of evaporative emission tests 

with California Phase 3 gasoline, 

perform tests based on the temperatures 

specified by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

(2) Use the E15 test fuel to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

evaporative emission standards 

specified in § 86.1811–10 starting in 

model year 2020. You may not certify 

these vehicles using carryover data 

based on measurements with E0 test 

fuel. 

(3) Use the E15 test fuel to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

refueling emission standards for any 

vehicles that must be certified to meet 

the diurnal plus hot soak standards with 

E15 test fuel under paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. 

(4) For any vehicles that require 

testing to demonstrate compliance with 

the refueling spitback standard, use the 

E15 test fuel starting in model year 

2022. 

(5) If a vehicle uses E15 test fuel for 

evaporative emission testing and E0 or 

E10 is the applicable test fuel for 

exhaust emission testing, or vice versa, 

exhaust measurement and reporting 

requirements apply over the course of 

the evaporative emission test, but the 

vehicle need not meet the exhaust 

emission standards during the 

evaporative emission test run. 

(6) Use service accumulation fuel as 

described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart 

H, with the additional provisions 

specified in § 86.113–04(a)(3). 

* * * * * 

§ 86.113–94 [Amended] 

■ 99. Section 86.113–94 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a). 

■ 100. Section 86.115–78 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.115–78 EPA dynamometer driving 

schedules. 

(a) The driving schedules for the 

Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule, 

US06, SC03, and the New York City 

Cycles are specified in appendix I of 

this part. The driving schedules are 

defined by a smooth trace drawn 

through the specified speed vs. time 

relationships. They each consist of a 

distinct non-repetitive series of idle, 

acceleration, cruise, and deceleration 

modes of various time sequences and 

rates. 

(b) The driver should attempt to 

follow the target schedule as closely as 

possible (refer to § 86.128 for additional 

cycle driving instructions). The speed 

tolerance at any given time for these 

schedules, or for a driver’s aid chart 

approved by the Administrator, are as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

■ 101. Section 86.117–96 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (c)(1)(ix) to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.117–96 Evaporative emission 

enclosure calibrations. 

The calibration of evaporative 

emission enclosures consists of three 

parts: initial and periodic determination 

of enclosure background emissions 

(hydrocarbons and methanol); initial 

determination of enclosure internal 

volume; and periodic hydrocarbon and 

methanol retention check and 

calibration. Ethanol retention checks 

may be performed instead of methanol 

retention checks. Alcohol retentions 

may be omitted if no alcohol-fueled 

vehicles will be tested in the 

evaporative enclosure. Alternate 

calibration methods may be used if 

shown to yield equivalent or superior 

results, and if approved in advance by 

the Administrator; specifically, more 

extreme temperatures may be used for 

determining calibration without 

affecting the validity of test results. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) Inject into the enclosure 0.5 to 

1.0 grams of pure methanol at a 

recommended temperature of at least 

150 °F (65 °C) and/or 0.5 to 1.0 grams 

of pure propane at lab ambient 

temperature. The injected quantity may 

be measured by volume flow or by mass 

measurement. The method used to 

measure the quantity of methanol and 

propane must have an accuracy of ±0.5 

percent of the measured value (less 

accurate methods may be used with the 

advance approval of the Administrator). 

* * * * * 

(ix) To verify the enclosure 

calibration, calculate the mass of 

propane and the mass of methanol using 

the measurements taken in paragraphs 

(c)(1)(vi) and (viii) of this section. See 

paragraph (d) of this section. This 

quantity must be within ±5 percent of 

that measured in paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of 

this section. Evaluate long-term trends 

using good engineering judgment to 

minimize measurement bias. Keep 

records to document such evaluations 

and make them available to EPA upon 

request. 

* * * * * 

§§ 86.118–78, 86.127–96, and 86.128–00 

[Removed] 

■ 102. Sections 86.118–78, 86.127–96, 

and 86.128–00 are removed. 

■ 103. Section 86.128–79 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.128–79 Transmissions. 

* * * * * 

(d) The vehicle shall be driven with 

appropriate accelerator pedal movement 

necessary to achieve the speed versus 

time relationship prescribed by the 

driving schedule. Both smoothing of 

speed variations and excessive 

accelerator pedal perturbations are to be 

avoided. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.129–80 [Amended] 

■ 104. Section 86.129–80 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a). 

§ 86.130–00 [Removed] 

■ 105. Section 86.130–00 is removed. 

■ 106. Section 86.130–96 is amended by 

adding introductory text, revising 

paragraph (e), and adding paragraph (f) 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.130–96 Test sequence; general 

requirements. 

Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 

section are applicable to vehicles tested 

for the FTP test. Paragraph (e) of this 

section is applicable to vehicles tested 

for the SFTP supplemental tests of air 

conditioning (SC03) and aggressive 

driving (US06). Paragraph (f) of this 

section is applicable to all emission 

testing. 

* * * * * 

(e) The supplemental tests for exhaust 

emissions related to aggressive driving 

(US06) and air conditioning (SC03) use 

are conducted as stand-alone tests as 

described in §§ 86.158 through 86.160. 

These tests may be performed in any 

sequence that maintains the appropriate 

preconditioning requirements as 

specified in § 86.132. 

(f) If tests are invalidated after 

collection of emission data from 

previous test segments, the test may be 

repeated to collect only those data 

points needed to complete emission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30055 

measurements. Compliance with 

emission standards may be determined 

by combining emission measurements 

from different test runs. If any emission 

measurements are repeated, the new 

measurements supersede previous 

values. 

§ 86.131–00 [Removed] 

■ 107. Section 86.131–00 is removed. 

■ 108. Section 86.131–96 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.131–96 Vehicle preparation. 

* * * * * 

(f) For vehicles to be tested for 

aggressive driving emissions (US06), 

provide a throttle position sensing 

signal that is compatible with the test 

dynamometer. This signal provides the 

input information that controls 

dynamometer dynamic inertia weight 

adjustments (see §§ 86.108–00(b)(2)(ii) 

and 86.129–00(f)(2)). If a manufacturer 

chooses not to implement dynamic 

inertia adjustments for a portion or all 

of their product line, this requirement is 

not applicable. 

(g) You may disable any AECDs that 

have been approved solely for 

emergency vehicle applications under 

paragraph (4) of the definition of defeat 

device in § 86.1803. The emission 

standards do not apply when any of 

these AECDs are active. 

§ 86.132–96 [Amended] 

■ 109. Section 86.132–96 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (k). 

■ 110. Section 86.133–96 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.133–96 Diurnal emission test. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Manufacturers may use a 

pressurized fuel system if they 

demonstrate that fuel vapor would not 

be vented to the atmosphere if there is 

a leak in the fuel system or if the fuel 

cap is removed. Without this 

demonstration, tank pressure must not 

exceed 10 inches of water during the 

diurnal emission test. 

* * * * * 

■ 111. Section 86.134–96 is amended by 

revising paragraph (g)(1)(xvi) and 

adding paragraph (g)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.134–96 Running loss test. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(xvi) Manufacturers may use a 

pressurized fuel system if they 

demonstrate that fuel vapor would not 

be vented to the atmosphere if there is 

a leak in the fuel system or if the fuel 

cap is removed. Without this 

demonstration, tank pressure must not 

exceed 10 inches of water during the 

running loss test, except that temporary 

exceedances are allowed for vehicles 

whose tank pressure remained below 10 

inches of water during the entire 

outdoor driving period specified in 

§ 86.129. These temporary pressure 

exceedances may not occur for more 

than 10 percent of the total driving time. 

* * * * * 

(4) High-altitude testing. For testing 

under high-altitude conditions, decrease 

the target ambient and fuel temperatures 

by 5 °F. For example, the fuel 

temperature profile should be adjusted 

downward based on a nominal starting 

temperature of 90 °F, and the nominal 

temperature in the enclosure should be 

90 °F. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.135–00 [Removed] 

■ 112. Section 86.135–00 is removed. 

■ 113. Section 86.135–90 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.135–90 Dynamometer procedure. 

(a) The dynamometer run consists of 

two tests—a ‘‘cold’’ start test, after a 

minimum 12-hour and a maximum 36- 

hour soak according to the provisions of 

§§ 86.132 and 86.133, and a ‘‘hot’’ start 

test following the ‘‘cold’’ start by 10 

minutes. Engine startup (with all 

accessories turned off), operation over 

the UDDS and engine shutdown make a 

complete cold start test. Engine startup 

and operation over the first 505 seconds 

of the driving schedule complete the hot 

start test. The exhaust emissions are 

diluted with ambient air in the dilution 

tunnel as shown in Figure B94–5 and 

Figure B94–6. A dilution tunnel is not 

required for testing vehicles waived 

from the requirement to measure 

particulate matter. Six particulate 

samples are collected on filters for 

weighing; the first sample plus backup 

is collected during the first 505 seconds 

of the cold start test; the second sample 

plus backup is collected during the 

remainder of the cold start test 

(including shutdown); the third sample 

plus backup is collected during the hot 

start test. Continuous or batch 

proportional samples of gaseous 

emissions are collected for analysis 

during each test phase. Use the 

following measurement procedures for 

each type of engine: 

(1) For gasoline-fueled, natural gasfueled and liquefied petroleum gasfueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the 

composite samples collected in bags are 

analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and 

NOX. 

(2) For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle 

vehicles (optional for natural gas-fueled, 

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled and 

methanol-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles), 

THC is sampled and analyzed 

continuously according to the 

provisions of § 86.110. Parallel samples 

of the dilution air are similarly analyzed 

for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX. 

(3) For natural gas-fueled, liquefied 

petroleum gas-fueled and methanolfueled vehicles, bag samples are 

collected and analyzed for THC (if not 

sampled continuously), CO, CO2, CH4, 

and NOX. 

(4) For methanol-fueled vehicles, 

methanol and formaldehyde samples are 

taken for both exhaust emissions and 

dilution air (a single dilution air 

formaldehyde sample, covering the total 

test period may be collected). Parallel 

bag samples of dilution air are analyzed 

for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX. 

* * * * * 

(d) Practice runs over the prescribed 

driving schedule may be performed at 

test point, provided an emission sample 

is not taken, for the purpose of finding 

the appropriate throttle action to 

maintain the proper speed-time 

relationship, or to permit sampling 

system adjustment. Both smoothing of 

speed variations and excessive 

accelerator pedal perturbations are to be 

avoided. When using two-roll 

dynamometers a truer speed-time trace 

may be obtained by minimizing the 

rocking of the vehicle in the rolls; the 

rocking of the vehicle changes the tire 

rolling radius on each roll. This rocking 

may be minimized by restraining the 

vehicle horizontally (or nearly so) by 

using a cable and winch. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.135–94 and 86.137–90 [Removed] 

■ 114. Sections 86.135–94 and 86.137– 

90 are removed. 

■ 115. Section 86.137–94 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(16) through 

(b)(24) to read as follows: 

§ 86.137–94 Dynamometer test run, 

gaseous and particulate emissions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(16) Immediately after the end of the 

sample period, turn off the cooling fan 

and close the engine compartment 

cover. 

(17) Turn off the CVS or disconnect 

the exhaust tube from the tailpipe(s) of 

the vehicle. 

(18) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(b)(2) through (b)(12) of this section for 

the hot start test, except only two 

evacuated sample bags, two methanol 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30056 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

sample impingers, two formaldehyde 

sample impingers, and one pair of 

particulate sample filters, as 

appropriate, are required. The step in 

paragraph (b)(9) of this section shall 

begin between 9 and 11 minutes after 

the end of the sample period for the 

cold start test. 

(19) At the end of the deceleration 

scheduled to occur at 505 seconds, 

simultaneously turn off gas flow 

measuring device No. 1 (and the 

petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon 

integrator No. 1; mark the petroleumfueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder 

chart and turn off the No. 1 particulate 

sample pump, if applicable) and 

position the sample selector valve to the 

‘‘standby’’ position. (Engine shutdown 

is not part of the hot start test sample 

period.) Record the measured roll or 

shaft revolutions (and the No. 1 gas 

meter reading or flow measurement 

instrument). Carefully remove the third 

pair of particulate sample filters from 

the holder and place in a clean petri 

dish and cover, if applicable. 

(20) As soon as possible, transfer the 

hot start ‘‘transient’’ exhaust and 

dilution air samples to the analytical 

system and process the samples 

according to § 86.140, obtaining a 

stabilized reading of the exhaust bag 

sample on all analyzers within 20 

minutes of the end of the sample 

collection phase of the test. Obtain 

methanol and formaldehyde sample 

analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours 

of the end of the sample period. If it is 

not possible to perform analysis on the 

methanol and formaldehyde samples 

within 24 hours, the samples should be 

stored in a dark, cold (4–10 °C) 

environment until analysis. Analyze the 

samples within fourteen days. 

(21) As soon as possible, and in no 

case longer than one hour after the end 

of the hot start phase of the test, transfer 

the six particulate filters to the weighing 

chamber for post-test conditioning, if 

applicable. 

(22) Disconnect the exhaust tube from 

the vehicle tailpipe(s) and drive the 

vehicle from dynamometer. 

(23) The CVS or CFV may be turned 

off, if desired. 

(24) Vehicles to be tested for 

evaporative emissions proceed 

according to § 86.134; vehicles to be 

tested with the supplemental twodiurnal test sequence for evaporative 

emissions proceed according to 

§ 86.138–96(k). For all others, this 

completes the test sequence. 

§ 86.137–96 [Removed] 

■ 116. Section 86.137–96 is removed. 

■ 117. Section 86.142–90 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.142–90 Records required. 

* * * * * 

(d) Test results. Also include a 

comparison of drive cycle energy and 

target cycle energy relative to both 

inertia and road load forces as specified 

in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle 

or test phase, as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

■ 118. Section 86.143–96 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 86.143–96 Calculations; evaporative 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

(c) If the test fuel contains at least 

25% oxygenated compounds by volume, 

use the following equation to calculate 

a hydrocarbon equivalent mass for 

comparing to the standard: 

Where: 

MTHCE = the C1-equivalent sum of the 

concentration of carbon mass 

contributions of non-oxygenated 

hydrocarbons, alcohols, and aldehydes. 

mHC = the mass contribution from 

nonoxygenated hydrocarbons. 

ni = the number of carbon atoms in the 

molecular representation of the 

oxygenated emission component i. For 

example, for methanol (CH3OH), n = 1 

and for ethanol (C2H5OH), n = 2. 

MWi = the molecular weight of the 

oxygenated emission component i, as 

described in 40 CFR 1065.1005. 

* * * * * 

§§ 86.162–00 and 86.167–17 [Removed] 

■ 119. Sections 86.162–00 and 86.167– 

17 are removed. 

■ 120 . Subpart C is revised to consist 

of §§ 86.201 and 86.213 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart C—Emission Regulations for 1994 

and Later Model Year Gasoline-Fueled New 

Light-Duty Vehicles, New Light-Duty Trucks 

and New Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles; 

Cold Temperature Test Procedures 

Sec. 

86.201 General applicability. 

86.213 Fuel specifications. 

Subpart C—Emission Regulations for 

1994 and Later Model Year GasolineFueled New Light-Duty Vehicles, New 

Light-Duty Trucks and New MediumDuty Passenger Vehicles; Cold 

Temperature Test Procedures 

§ 86.201 General applicability. 

(a) Vehicles are subject to cold-testing 

requirements as described in subpart S 

of this part and 40 CFR part 600. 

Perform testing to measure CO and 

NMHC emissions and determine fuel 

economy as described in 40 CFR part 

1066; see especially 40 CFR 1066.710. 

(b) Manufacturers may certify vehicles 

using carryover data based on 

previously published cold-testing 

procedures. In addition, we may 

approve the use of previously published 

cold-testing procedures as an alternative 

procedure under 40 CFR 1066.10(c). 

(c) Section 86.213 describes special 

provisions related to test fuel 

specifications. 

§ 86.213 Fuel specifications. 

(a) Gasoline. Use a gasoline test fuel 

with ethanol (low-level blend only) or 

without ethanol as follows: 

(1) You must certify using service 

accumulation fuel and E15 test fuel as 

specified in § 86.113 for any vehicles 

required to use an ethanol-blend test 

fuel for measuring exhaust emissions. 

You may use this test fuel any time 

earlier than we specify. 

(2) You may use the test fuel specified 

in this paragraph (a)(2) for vehicles that 

are not yet subject to exhaust testing 

with an ethanol-blend test fuel under 

§ 86.113. Manufacturers may certify 

based on this fuel using carryover data 

until testing with the ethanol-blend test 

fuel is required. The following 

specifications apply for gasoline test 

fuel without ethanol: 

TABLE 1 OF § 86.213–COLD TEMPERATURE TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOLINE WITHOUT ETHANOL

Item Regular Premium 1 Reference 

procedure 2

(RON+MON)/2 3 .......................................................................... 87.8±0.3 ................................... 92.3±0.5 ................................... ASTM 

D2699. 

Sensitivity3 .................................................................................. 7.5 ............................................ 7.5.

Distillation Range (°F) ................................................................ .................................................. .................................................. ASTM D86 

Evaporated initial boiling point ............................................ 76–96 ....................................... 76–96.

10% evaporated .................................................................. 98–118 ..................................... 105–125.


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30057 

TABLE 1 OF § 86.213–COLD TEMPERATURE TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR GASOLINE WITHOUT ETHANOL—Continued 

Item Regular Premium 1 Reference 

procedure 2

50% evaporated .................................................................. 179–214 ................................... 195–225.

90% evaporated .................................................................. 316–346 ................................... 316–346.

Evaporated final boiling point .............................................. 413 Maximum .......................... 413 Maximum.

Hydrocarbon composition (vol %) .............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ASTM 

D1319. 

Olefins ................................................................................. 12.5±0.5 ................................... 10.5±0.5.

Aromatics ............................................................................ 26.4±4.0 ................................... 32.0±4.0.

Saturates ............................................................................. Remainder ............................... Remainder.

Lead, g/gallon ............................................................................. 0.01, Maximum ........................ 0.01, Maximum ........................ ASTM 

D3237. 

Phosphorous, g/gallon ................................................................ 0.005 Maximum ....................... 0.005 Maximum ....................... ASTM 

D3231. 

Total sulfur, wt. % ...................................................................... 0.0015–0.008 ........................... 0.0015–0.008 4 ......................... ASTM 

D3120. 

RVP, psi ..................................................................................... 11.5±0.3 ................................... 11.5±0.3 ................................... ASTM 

D4953. 

1 The premium fuel specifications apply for vehicles designed to use high-octane premium fuel. 2 ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 86.1. 3 Octane specifications are optional for manufacturer testing. 4 Sulfur concentration will not exceed 0.0045 weight percent for EPA testing. 

(3) Manufacturers may use the E0 

gasoline test fuel specified in § 86.113 

for certification instead of the fuel 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, as long as the change in test fuel 

does not cause cold NMHC, CO, or CO2

emissions to decrease; manufacturers 

must keep records documenting these 

emission effects and make them 

available to EPA upon request. 

(4) We may approve alternate fuel 

specifications that are substantially 

equivalent to those in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section for a manufacturer’s testing. 

(b) Diesel fuel. Diesel fuel for testing 

under this subpart must meet the 

specifications for low-temperature test 

fuel in 40 CFR 1065.703. 

Subpart D—[Removed and reserved] 

■ 121. Subpart D, consisting of 

§§ 86.301–79 through 86.348–79, is 

removed and resereved. 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

§ 86.505–78—[Removed] 

■ 122. Remove § 86.505–78. 

§ 86.513–94—[Amended] 

■ 123. Section 86.513–94 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a) 

and by removing and reserving 

paragraphs (e) and (f). 

■ 124. Section 86.515–78 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.515–78 EPA urban dynamometer 

driving schedule. 

(a) The dynamometer driving 

schedules are listed in appendix I. The 

driving schedules are defined by a 

smooth trace drawn through the 

specified speed vs. time relationships. 

They consist of a nonrepetitive series of 

idle, acceleration, cruise, and 

deceleration modes of various time 

sequences and rates. Appropriate 

driving schedules are as follows: 

(1) Class I—Appendix I(b). 

(2) Class II—Appendix I(a)(2). 

(3) Class III—Appendix I(a)(2). 

* * * * * 

(d) For motorcycles with an engine 

displacement less than 50 cc and a top 

speed less than 58.7 km/hr (36.5 mph), 

the speed indicated for each second of 

operation on the applicable Class I 

driving trace (speed versus time 

sequence) specified in appendix I(b) 

shall be adjusted downward by the ratio 

of actual top speed to specified 

maximum test speed. Calculate the ratio 

with three significant figures by 

dividing the top speed of the motorcycle 

in km/hr by 58.7. For example, for a 

motorcycle with a top speed of 48.3 km/ 

hr (30 mph), the ratio would be 48.3/ 

58.7 = 0.823. The top speed to be used 

under this section shall be indicated in 

the manufacturer’s application for 

certification, and shall be the highest 

sustainable speed of the motorcycle 

with an 80 kg rider on a flat paved 

surface. If the motorcycle is equipped 

with a permanent speed governor that is 

unlikely to be removed in actual use, 

measure the top speed in the governed 

configuration; otherwise measure the 

top speed in the ungoverned 

configuration. 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

■ 125. Section 86.608–98 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 86.608–98 Test procedures. 

(a) The prescribed test procedures are 

the Federal Test Procedure, as described 

in subpart B of this part, and the cold 

temperature CO test procedure as 

described in subpart C of this part. For 

purposes of Selective Enforcement 

Audit testing, the manufacturer shall 

not be required to perform any of the 

test procedures in subpart B of this part 

relating to evaporative emission testing, 

other than refueling emissions testing, 

except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section. 

(1) The Administrator may omit any 

of the testing procedures described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. Further, 

the Administrator may, on the basis of 

a written application by a manufacturer, 

approve optional test procedures other 

than those in subparts B and C of this 

part for any motor vehicle which is not 

susceptible to satisfactory testing using 

the procedures in subparts B and C of 

this part. 

(2) The following exceptions to the 

test procedures in subpart B of this part 

are applicable to Selective Enforcement 

Audit testing: 

(i) For mileage accumulation, the 

manufacturer may use test fuel meeting 

the specifications for mileage and 

service accumulation fuels of § 86.113. 

Otherwise, the manufacturer may use 

fuels other than those specified in this 

section only with the advance approval 

of the Administrator. 

(ii) The manufacturer may measure 

the temperature of the test fuel at other 

than the approximate mid-volume of the 

fuel tank, as specified in § 86.131–96(a) 

with only a single temperature sensor, 

and may drain the test fuel from other 

than the lowest point of the tank, as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30058 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

specified in §§ 86.131–96(b) and 

86.152–98(a), provided an equivalent 

method is used. Equivalency 

documentation shall be maintained by 

the manufacturers and shall be made 

available to the Administrator upon 

request. Additionally, for any test 

vehicle that has remained under 

laboratory ambient temperature 

conditions for at least 6 hours prior to 

testing, the vehicle soak described in 

§ 86.132–96(c) may be eliminated upon 

approval of the Administrator. In such 

cases, the vehicle shall be operated 

through the preconditioning drive 

described in § 86.132–96(c) immediately 

following the fuel drain and fill 

procedure described in § 86.132–96(b). 

(iii) The manufacturer may perform 

additional preconditioning on Selective 

Enforcement Audit test vehicles other 

than the preconditioning specified in 

§ 86.132 only if the additional 

preconditioning was performed on 

certification test vehicles of the same 

configuration. 

(iv) [Reserved] 

(v) The manufacturer may substitute 

slave tires for the drive wheel tires on 

the vehicle as specified in § 86.135– 

90(e): Provided, that the slave tires are 

the same size. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

(vii) In performing exhaust sample 

analysis under § 86.140–94. 

(A) When testing diesel vehicles, or 

methanol-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the 

manufacturer shall allow a minimum of 

20 minutes warm-up for the HC 

analyzer, and for diesel vehicles, a 

minimum of two hours warm-up for the 

CO, CO2. and NOx analyzers. (Power is 

normally left on infrared and 

chemiluminescent analyzers. When not 

in use, the chopper motors of the 

infrared analyzers are turned off and the 

phototube high voltage supply to the 

chemiluminescent analyzers is placed 

in the standby position.) 

(B) The manufacturer shall exercise 

care to prevent moisture from 

condensing in the sample collection 

bags. 

(viii) The manufacturer need not 

comply with § 86.142 or § 86.155, since 

the records required therein are 

provided under other provisions of this 

subpart G. 

(ix) If a manufacturer elects to 

perform the background determination 

procedure described in paragraph 

(a)(2)(xi) of this section in addition to 

performing the refueling emissions test 

procedure, the elapsed time between the 

initial and final FID readings shall be 

recorded, rounded to the nearest second 

rather than minute as described in 

§ 86.154–98(e)(8). In addition, the 

vehicle soak described in § 86.153–98(e) 

shall be conducted with the windows 

and luggage compartment of the vehicle 

open. 

(x) The Administrator may elect to 

perform a seal test, described in 

§ 86.153–98(b), of both integrated and 

non-integrated systems instead of the 

full refueling test. When testing nonintegrated systems, a manufacturer may 

conduct the canister purge described in 

§ 86.153–98(b)(1) directly following the 

preconditioning drive described in 

§ 86.132–96(e) or directly following the 

exhaust emissions test described in 

§ 86.137–96. 

(xi) In addition to the refueling test, 

a manufacturer may elect to perform the 

following background emissions 

determination immediately prior to the 

refueling measurement procedure 

described in § 86.154, provided EPA is 

notified of this decision prior to the start 

of testing in an SEA. 

(A) The SHED shall be purged for 

several minutes immediately prior to 

the background determination. Warning: 

If at any time the concentration of 

hydrocarbons, of methanol, or of 

methanol and hydrocarbons exceeds 

15,000 ppm C, the enclosure should be 

immediately purged. This concentration 

provides a 4:1 safety factor against the 

lean flammability limit. 

(B) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon 

analyzer shall be zeroed and spanned 

immediately prior to the background 

determination. If not already on, the 

enclosure mixing fan and the spilled 

fuel mixing blower shall be turned on at 

this time. 

(C) Place the vehicle in the SHED. The 

ambient temperature level encountered 

by the test vehicle during the entire 

background emissions determination 

shall be 80 °F ±3 °F. The windows and 

luggage compartment of the vehicle 

must be open and the gas cap must be 

secured. 

(D) Seal the SHED. Immediately 

analyze the ambient concentration of 

hydrocarbons in the SHED and record. 

This is the initial background 

hydrocarbon concentration. 

(E) Soak the vehicle for ten minutes 

±1 minute. 

(F) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon 

analyzer shall be zeroed and spanned 

immediately prior to the end of the 

background determination. 

(G) Analyze the ambient 

concentration of hydrocarbons in the 

SHED and record. This is the final 

background hydrocarbon concentration. 

(H) The total hydrocarbon mass 

emitted during the background 

determination is calculated according to 

§ 86.156. To obtain a per-minute 

background emission rate, divide the 

total hydrocarbon mass calculated in 

this paragraph by the duration of the 

soak, rounded to the nearest second, 

described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi)(G) of 

this section. 

(I) The background emission rate is 

multiplied by the duration of the 

refueling measurement obtained in 

paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this section. This 

number is then subtracted from the total 

grams of emissions calculated for the 

refueling test according to § 86.156– 

98(a) to obtain the adjusted value for 

total refueling emissions. The final 

results for comparison with the 

refueling emission standard shall be 

computed by dividing the adjusted 

value for total refueling mass emissions 

by the total gallons of fuel dispensed in 

the refueling test as described in 

§ 86.156–98(b). 

(xii) In addition to the requirements of 

subpart B of this part, the manufacturer 

shall prepare gasoline-fueled and 

methanol-fueled vehicles as follows 

prior to emission testing: 

(A) The manufacturer shall inspect 

the fuel system to ensure the absence of 

any leaks of liquid or vapor to the 

atmosphere by applying a pressure of 

14.5±0.5 inches of water (3.6±0.1 kPa) to 

the fuel system, allowing the pressure to 

stabilize, and isolating the fuel system 

from the pressure source. Following 

isolation of the fuel system, pressure 

must not drop more than 2.0 inches of 

water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If 

required, the manufacturer shall 

perform corrective action in accordance 

with paragraph (d) of this section and 

report this action in accordance with 

§ 86.609–98(d). 

(B) When performing this pressure 

check, the manufacturer shall exercise 

care to neither purge nor load the 

evaporative or refueling emission 

control systems. 

(C) The manufacturer may not modify 

the test vehicle’s evaporative or 

refueling emission control systems by 

component addition, deletion, or 

substitution, except to comply with 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section if 

approved in advance by the 

Administrator. 

(3) The following exceptions to the 

test procedures in subpart C of this part 

are applicable to Selective Enforcement 

Audit testing: 

(i) The manufacturer may measure the 

temperature of the test fuel at other than 

the approximate mid-volume of the fuel 

tank, as specified in § 86.107–96(e), and 

may drain the test fuel from other than 

the lowest point of the fuel tank, 

provided an equivalent method is used. 

Equivalency documentation shall be 

maintained by the manufacturer and 

shall be made available to the 

Administrator upon request. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30059 

(ii) In performing exhaust sample 

analysis under § 86.140, the 

manufacturer shall exercise care to 

prevent moisture from condensing in 

the sample collection bags. 

(iii) The manufacturer need not 

comply with § 86.142 since the records 

required therein are provided under 

other provisions of this subpart G. 

(iv) In addition to the requirements of 

subpart C of this part, the manufacturer 

shall prepare gasoline-fueled vehicles as 

follows prior to exhaust emission 

testing: 

(A) The manufacturer shall inspect 

the fuel system to ensure the absence of 

any leaks of liquid or vapor to the 

atmosphere by applying a pressure of 

14.5±0.5 inches of water (3.6±0.1 kPa) to 

the fuel system allowing the pressure to 

stabilize and isolating the fuel system 

from the pressure source. Following 

isolation of the fuel system, pressure 

must not drop more than 2.0 inches of 

water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If 

required, the manufacturer shall 

perform corrective action in accordance 

with paragraph (d) of this section and 

report this action in accordance with 

§ 86.609–98(d). 

(B) When performing this pressure 

check, the manufacturer shall exercise 

care to neither purge nor load the 

evaporative or refueling emission 

control system. 

(C) The manufacturer shall not modify 

the test vehicle’s evaporative or 

refueling emission control system by 

component addition, deletion, or 

substitution, except if approved in 

advance by the Administrator, to 

comply with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 126. Section 86.609–98 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.609–98 Calculation and reporting of 

test results. 

(a) Initial test results are calculated 

following the test procedures specified 

in § 86.608–98(a). Round the initial test 

results to the number of decimal places 

contained in the applicable emission 

standard expressed to one additional 

significant figure. 

(b) Final test results for each test 

vehicle are calculated by summing the 

initial test results derived in paragraph 

(a) of this section for each test vehicle, 

dividing by the number of times that 

specific test has been conducted on the 

vehicle, and rounding to the same 

number of decimal places contained in 

the applicable standard expressed to 

one additional significant figure. 

(c) Final deteriorated test results—(1) 

For each test vehicle. The final 

deteriorated test results for each lightduty vehicle tested for exhaust 

emissions and/or refueling emissions 

according to subpart B, subpart C, or 

subpart R of this part are calculated by 

first multiplying or adding, as 

appropriate, the final test results by or 

to the appropriate deterioration factor 

derived from the certification process 

for the engine or evaporative/refueling 

family and model year to which the 

selected configuration belongs, and then 

by multiplying by the appropriate 

reactivity adjustment factor, if 

applicable, and rounding to the same 

number of decimal places contained in 

the applicable emission standard. For 

the purpose of this paragraph (c), if a 

multiplicative deterioration factor as 

computed during the certification 

process is less than one, that 

deterioration factor is one. If an additive 

deterioration factor as computed during 

the certification process is less than 

zero, that deterioration factor will be 

zero. 

(2) Exceptions. There are no 

deterioration factors for light-duty 

vehicle emissions obtained during 

spitback testing in accordance with 

§ 86.146–96. Accordingly, for the fuel 

dispensing spitback test, the term ‘‘final 

deteriorated test results’’ means the final 

test results derived in paragraph (b) of 

this section for each test vehicle, 

rounded to the same number of decimal 

places contained in the applicable 

emission standard. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.610–98 [Amended] 

■ 127. Section 86.610–98 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2). 

■ 128. Section 86.612–97 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.612–97 Suspension and revocation of 

certificates of conformity. 

(a) The certificate of conformity is 

immediately suspended with respect to 

any vehicle failing pursuant to § 86.610– 

98 (b) effective from the time that testing 

of that vehicle is completed. 

(b) The Administrator may suspend 

the certificate of conformity for a 

configuration that does not pass a 

selective enforcement audit pursuant to 

§ 86.610–98(c) based on the first test, or 

all tests, conducted on each vehicle. 

This suspension will not occur before 

ten days after failure to pass the audit. 

(c) If the results of vehicle testing 

pursuant to the requirements of this 

subpart indicates the vehicles of a 

particular configuration produced at 

more than one plant do not conform to 

the regulations with respect to which 

the certificate of conformity was issued, 

the Administrator may suspend the 

certificate of conformity with respect to 

that configuration for vehicles 

manufactured by the manufacturer in 

other plants of the manufacturer. 

(d) The Administrator will notify the 

manufacturer in writing of any 

suspension or revocation of a certificate 

of conformity in whole or in part: 

Except, that the certificate of conformity 

is immediately suspended with respect 

to any vehicle failing pursuant to 

§ 86.610–98(b) and as provided for in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(e) The Administrator may revoke a 

certificate of conformity for a 

configuration when the certificate has 

been suspended pursuant to paragraph 

(b) or (c) of this section if the proposed 

remedy for the nonconformity, as 

reported by the manufacturer to the 

Administrator, is one requiring a design 

change(s) to the engine and/or emission 

control system as described in the 

Application for Certification of the 

affected configuration. 

(f) Once a certificate has been 

suspended for a failed vehicle as 

provided for in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the manufacturer must take the 

following actions: 

(1) Before the certificate is reinstated 

for that failed vehicle— 

(i) Remedy the nonconformity; and 

(ii) Demonstrate that the vehicle’s 

final deteriorated test results conform to 

the applicable emission standards or 

family particulate emission limits, as 

defined in this part 86 by retesting the 

vehicle in accordance with the 

requirements of this subpart. 

(2) Submit a written report to the 

Administrator within thirty days after 

successful completion of testing on the 

failed vehicle, which contains a 

description of the remedy and test 

results for the vehicle in addition to 

other information that may be required 

by this subpart. 

(g) Once a certificate has been 

suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or 

(c) of this section, the manufacturer 

must take the following actions before 

the Administrator will consider 

reinstating such certificate: 

(1) Submit a written report to the 

Administrator which identifies the 

reason for the noncompliance of the 

vehicles, describes the proposed 

remedy, including a description of any 

proposed quality control and/or quality 

assurance measures to be taken by the 

manufacturer to prevent the future 

occurrence of the problem, and states 

the date on which the remedies will be 

implemented. 

(2) Demonstrate that the engine family 

or configuration for which the certificate 

of conformity has been suspended does 

in fact comply with the requirements of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30060 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

this subpart by testing vehicles selected 

from normal production runs of that 

engine family or configuration at the 

plant(s) or the facilities specified by the 

Administrator, in accordance with: the 

conditions specified in the initial test 

order pursuant to § 86.603 for a 

configuration suspended pursuant to 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. 

(3) If the Administrator has not 

revoked the certificate pursuant to 

paragraph (e) of this section and if the 

manufacturer elects to continue testing 

individual vehicles after suspension of 

a certificate, the certificate is reinstated 

for any vehicle actually determined to 

have its final deteriorated test results in 

conformance with the applicable 

standards through testing in accordance 

with the applicable test procedures. 

(h) Once a certificate for a failed 

engine family or configuration has been 

revoked under paragraph (e) of this 

section and the manufacturer desires to 

introduce into commerce a modified 

version of that engine family or 

configuration, the following actions will 

be taken before the Administrator may 

issue a certificate for the new engine 

family or configuration: 

(1) If the Administrator determines 

that the proposed change(s) in vehicle 

design may have an effect on emission 

performance deterioration and/or fuel 

economy, he/she shall notify the 

manufacturer within five working days 

after receipt of the report in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this section whether subsequent 

testing under this subpart will be 

sufficient to evaluate the proposed 

change(s) or whether additional testing 

will be required. 

(2) After implementing the change(s) 

intended to remedy the nonconformity, 

the manufacturer shall demonstrate, if 

the certificate was revoked pursuant to 

paragraph (e) of this section, that the 

modified vehicle configuration does in 

fact conform with the requirements of 

this subpart by testing vehicles selected 

from normal production runs of that 

modified vehicle configuration in 

accordance with the conditions 

specified in the initial test order 

pursuant to § 86.603. The Administrator 

shall consider this testing to satisfy the 

testing requirements of § 86.079–32 or 

§ 86.079–33 if the Administrator had so 

notified the manufacturer. If the 

subsequent testing results in a pass 

decision pursuant to the criteria in 

§ 86.610–98(c), the Administrator shall 

reissue or amend the certificate, if 

necessary, to include that configuration: 

Provided, that the manufacturer has 

satisfied the testing requirements 

specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section. If the subsequent audit results 

in a fail decision pursuant to the criteria 

in § 86.610–98(c), the revocation 

remains in effect. Any design change 

approvals under this subpart are limited 

to the modification of the configuration 

specified by the test order. 

(i) A manufacturer may at any time 

subsequent to an initial suspension of a 

certificate of conformity with respect to 

a test vehicle pursuant to paragraph (a) 

of this section, but not later than fifteen 

(15) days or such other period as may 

be allowed by the Administrator after 

notification of the Administrator’s 

decision to suspend or revoke a 

certificate of conformity in whole or in 

part pursuant to paragraph (b), (c) or (e) 

of this section, request that the 

Administrator grant such manufacturer 

a hearing as to whether the tests have 

been properly conducted or any 

sampling methods have been properly 

applied. 

(j) After the Administrator suspends 

or revokes a certificate of conformity 

pursuant to this section or notifies a 

manufacturer of his intent to suspend, 

revoke or void a certificate of 

conformity under § 86.007–30(e) or 

§ 86.1850, and prior to the 

commencement of a hearing under 

§ 86.614, if the manufacturer 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that the decision to 

suspend, revoke or void the certificate 

was based on erroneous information, the 

Administrator shall reinstate the 

certificate. 

(k) To permit a manufacturer to avoid 

storing non-test vehicles when 

conducting testing of an engine family 

or configuration subsequent to 

suspension or revocation of the 

certificate of conformity for that engine 

family or configuration pursuant to 

paragraph (b), (c), or (e) of this section, 

the manufacturer may request that the 

Administrator conditionally reinstate 

the certificate for that engine family or 

configuration. The Administrator may 

reinstate the certificate subject to the 

condition that the manufacturer 

consents to recall all vehicles of that 

engine family or configuration produced 

from the time the certificate is 

conditionally reinstated if the engine 

family or configuration fails the 

subsequent testing and to remedy any 

nonconformity at no expense to the 

owner. 

Subpart H—[Removed and reserved] 

■ 129. Subpart H, consisting of 

§§ 86.701–94 through 86.709–99, is 

removed and reserved. 

Subpart M—[Removed and reserved] 

■ 130. Subpart M, consisting of 

§§ 86.1201–90 through 86.1246–96, is 

removed and reserved. 

Subpart N—Exhaust Test Procedures 

for Heavy-Duty Engines 

■ 131. The heading of subpart N is 

revised to read as set forth above. 

■ 132. Section 86.1305–2010 is 

redesignated as § 86.1305, and newly 

redesignated § 86.1305 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.1305 Introduction; structure of 

subpart. 

(a) This subpart specifies the 

equipment and procedures for 

performing exhaust-emission tests on 

Otto-cycle and diesel-cycle heavy-duty 

engines. Subpart A of this part sets forth 

the emission standards and general 

testing requirements to comply with 

EPA certification procedures. 

(b) Use the applicable equipment and 

procedures for spark-ignition or 

compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR 

part 1065 to determine whether engines 

meet the duty-cycle emission standards 

in subpart A of this part. Measure the 

emissions of all regulated pollutants as 

specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the 

duty cycles and procedures specified in 

§§ 86.1333, 86.1360, and 86.1362. 

Adjust emission results from engines 

using aftertreatment technology with 

infrequent regeneration events as 

described in § 86.004–28. 

(c) The provisions in §§ 86.1370 and 

86.1372 apply for determining whether 

an engine meets the applicable not-toexceed emission standards. 

(d) Measure smoke using the 

procedures in subpart I of this part for 

evaluating whether engines meet the 

smoke standards in subpart A of this 

part. 

(e) Use the fuels specified in 40 CFR 

part 1065 to perform valid tests, as 

follows: 

(1) For service accumulation, use the 

test fuel or any commercially available 

fuel that is representative of the fuel that 

in-use engines will use. 

(2) For diesel-fueled engines, use the 

ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel specified in 

40 CFR part 1065 for emission testing. 

(3) For gasoline-fueled engines, use 

the appropriate E0 fuel specified in 40 

CFR part 1065, except that the sulfur 

concentration must be between 0.0015 

and 0.008 weight percent and research 

octane must be at least 93. 

(f) You may use special or alternate 

procedures to the extent we allow them 

under 40 CFR 1065.10. In addition, for 

2010 and earlier model year engines, 

you may use modified test procedures 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30061 

as needed to conform to the procedures 

that were specified at the time of 

emission testing for the model year in 

question. 

(g) This subpart applies to you as a 

manufacturer, and to anyone who does 

testing for you. 

(h) For testing conducted with 

engines installed in vehicles, including 

field testing conducted to measure 

emissions under Not-To-Exceed test 

procedures, use the test procedures and 

equipment specified in 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart J. 

§§ 86.1305–90, 86.1305–2004, 86.1306–07, 

86.1306–96, 86.1308–84, 86.1309–90, 

86.1310–90, 86.1310–2007, 86.1311–94, 

86.1312–88, 86.1312–2007, 86.1313–94, 

86.1313–98, 86.1313–2004, 86.1313–2007, 

86.1314–94, 86.1316–94, 86.1318–84, 

86.1319–90, 86.1320–90, 86.1321–94, 

86.1322–84, 86.1323–84, 86.1323–2007, 

86.1324–84, 86.1325–94, 86.1326–90, 

86.1327–96, 86.1327–98, 86.1330–90, and 

86.1332–90 [Removed] 

■ 133. Remove §§ 86.1305–90, 86.1305– 

2004, 86.1306–07, 86.1306–96, 86.1308– 

84, 86.1309–90, 86.1310–90, 86.1310– 

2007, 86.1311–94, 86.1312–88, 86.1312– 

2007, 86.1313–94, 86.1313–98, 86.1313– 

2004, 86.1313–2007, 86.1314–94, 

86.1316–94, 86.1318–84, 86.1319–90, 

86.1320–90, 86.1321–94, 86.1322–84, 

86.1323–84, 86.1323–2007, 86.1324–84, 

86.1325–94, 86.1326–90, 86.1327–96, 

86.1327–98, 86.1330–90, and 86.1332– 

90. 

■ 134. Section 86.1333–2010 is 

redesignated as § 86.1333, and newly 

redesignated § 86.1333 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.1333 Transient test cycle generation. 

(a) * * * 

(1) To unnormalize rpm, use the 

following equations: 

(i) For diesel engines: 

Where: Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed 

as calculated in 40 CFR part 1065. 

(ii) For Otto-cycle engines: 

Where: 

Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed 

as calculated in 40 CFR part 1065. 

* * * * * 

(d) Determine idle speeds as specified 

in 40 CFR 1065.510. 

§§ 86.1333–90, 86.1334–84, 86.1335–90, 

86.1336–84, 86.1337–96, 86.1337–2007, 

86.1338–84, 86.1338–2007, 86.1339–90, 

86.1340–90, 86.1340–94, 86.1341–90, 

86.1341–98, 86.1342–90, 86.1342–94, 

86.1343–88, and 86.1344–94 [Removed] 

■ 135. Remove §§ 86.1333–90, 86.1334– 

84, 86.1335–90, 86.1336–84, 86.1337– 

96, 86.1337–2007, 86.1338–84, 86.1338– 

2007, 86.1339–90, 86.1340–90, 86.1340– 

94, 86.1341–90, 86.1341–98, 86.1342– 

90, 86.1342–94, 86.1343–88, and 

86.1344–94. 

■ 136. Section 86.1360–2007 is 

redesignated as § 86.1360, and newly 

redesignated § 86.1360 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (f)(3) 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.1360 Supplemental emission test; test 

cycle and procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Perform testing as described in 

§ 86.1362 for determining whether an 

engine meets the applicable standards 

when measured over the supplemental 

emission test. 

* * * * * 

(c) The engine speeds A, B and C, 

referenced in the table in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, must be 

determined as follows: 

Speed A = nlo+ 0.25 × (nhi¥nlo) 

Speed B = nlo+ 0.50 × (nhi¥nlo) 

Speed C = nlo+ 0.75 × (nhi¥nlo) 

Where: 

nhi = High speed as determined by 

calculating 70% of the maximum power. 

The highest engine speed where this 

power value occurs on the power curve 

is defined as nhi. 

nlo = Low speed as determined by calculating 

50% of the maximum power. The lowest 

engine speed where this power value 

occurs on the power curve is defined as 

nlo. Maximum power = the maximum 

observed power calculated according to 

the engine mapping procedures defined 

in 40 CFR 1065.510. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) If the Maximum Allowable 

Emission Limit for any point, as 

calculated under paragraphs (f)(1) and 

(2) of this section, is greater than the 

applicable Not-to-Exceed limit (if within 

the Not-to-Exceed control area defined 

in § 86.1370(b)), then the Maximum 

Allowable Emission Limit for that point 

shall be defined as the applicable Notto-Exceed limit. 

* * * * * 

■ 137. Section 86.1362–2010 is 

redesignated as § 86.1362, and newly 

redesignated § 86.1362 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1362 Steady-state testing with a 

ramped-modal cycle. 

This section describes how to test 

engines under steady-state conditions. 

* * * * * 

(f) For 2007 through 2010 model 

years, manufacturers may follow the 

mode order described in this paragraph 

(f) instead of the mode order specified 

in paragraph (a) of this section. Any 

EPA testing with these engines will rely 

on the same procedure used by the 

manufacturer for certification. 

RMC mode Time in mode 

(seconds) Engine speed 1 2 Torque (percent) 2 3

1a Steady-state .................................................. 170 Warm Idle ............................................................. 0. 

1b Transition ....................................................... 20 Linear Transition ................................................... Linear Transition. 

2a Steady-state .................................................. 170 A ........................................................................... 100. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.141</GPH> EP21MY13.142</GPH>
30062 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

RMC mode Time in mode 

(seconds) Engine speed 1 2 Torque 

(percent) 2 3

2b Transition ....................................................... 20 A ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

3a Steady-state .................................................. 102 A ........................................................................... 25. 

3b Transition ....................................................... 20 A ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

4a Steady-state .................................................. 100 A ........................................................................... 75. 

4b Transition ....................................................... 20 A ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

5a Steady-state .................................................. 103 A ........................................................................... 50. 

5b Transition ....................................................... 20 Linear Transition ................................................... Linear Transition. 

6a Steady-state .................................................. 194 B ........................................................................... 100. 

6b Transition ....................................................... 20 B ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

7a Steady-state .................................................. 219 B ........................................................................... 25. 

7b Transition ....................................................... 20 B ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

8a Steady-state .................................................. 220 B ........................................................................... 75. 

8b Transition ....................................................... 20 B ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

9a Steady-state .................................................. 219 B ........................................................................... 50. 

9b Transition ....................................................... 20 Linear Transition ................................................... Linear Transition. 

10a Steady-state ................................................ 171 C ........................................................................... 100. 

10b Transition ..................................................... 20 C ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

11a Steady-state ................................................ 102 C ........................................................................... 25. 

11b Transition ..................................................... 20 C ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

12a Steady-state ................................................ 100 C ........................................................................... 75. 

12b Transition ..................................................... 20 C ........................................................................... Linear Transition. 

13a Steady-state ................................................ 102 C ........................................................................... 50. 

13b Transition ..................................................... 20 Linear Transition ................................................... Linear Transition. 

14 Steady-state .................................................. 168 Warm Idle ............................................................. 0. 

1Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. 

2Advance from one mode to the next within a 20-second transition phase. During the transition phase, command a linear progression from the 

speed or torque setting of the current mode to the speed or torque setting of the next mode. 3The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed. 

§§ 86.1362–2007 and 86.1363–2007 

[Removed] 

■ 138. Remove §§ 86.1362–2007 and 

86.1363–2007. 

■ 139. Section 86.1370–2007 is 

redesignated as § 86.1370, and newly 

redesignated § 86.1370 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(3), (b)(6), 

and (f) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1370 Not-To-Exceed test procedures. 

(a) General. The purpose of this test 

procedure is to measure in-use 

emissions of heavy-duty diesel engines 

while operating within a broad range of 

speed and load points (the Not-ToExceed Control Area) and under 

conditions which can reasonably be 

expected to be encountered in normal 

vehicle operation and use. Emission 

results from this test procedure are to be 

compared to the Not-To-Exceed Limits 

specified in § 86.007–11(a)(4), or to later 

Not-To-Exceed Limits. The Not-ToExceed Limits do not apply for enginestarting conditions. Tests conducted 

using the procedures specified in this 

subpart are considered valid Not-ToExceed tests (Note: duty cycles and 

limits on ambient conditions do not 

apply for Not-To-Exceed tests). 

(b) * * * 

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, 

all operating speed and load points with 

brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) 

values within 5% of the minimum BSFC 

value of the engine. For the purposes of 

this requirement, BFSC must be 

calculated under the general test cell 

conditions specified in 40 CFR part 

1065. The manufacturer may petition 

the Administrator at certification to 

exclude such points if the manufacturer 

can demonstrate that the engine is not 

expected to operate at such points in 

normal vehicle operation and use. 

Engines equipped with drivelines with 

multi-speed manual transmissions or 

automatic transmissions with a finite 

number of gears are not subject to the 

requirements of this paragraph (b)(3). 

* * * * * 

(6)(i) For petroleum-fueled diesel 

cycle engines, the manufacturer may 

identify particular engine-vehicle 

combinations and may petition the 

Administrator at certification to exclude 

operating points from the Not-to-Exceed 

Control Area defined in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (5) of this section if the 

manufacturer can demonstrate that the 

engine is not capable of operating at 

such points when used in the specified 

engine-vehicle combination(s). 

(ii) For diesel cycle engines that are 

not petroleum-fueled, the manufacturer 

may petition the Administrator at 

certification to exclude operating points 

from the Not-to-Exceed Control Area 

defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) 

of this section if the manufacturer can 

demonstrate that the engine is not 

expected to operate at such points in 

normal vehicle operation and use. 

* * * * * 

(f) NTE cold temperature operating 

exclusion. Engines equipped with 

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) whose 

operation within the NTE control area 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

when operating during cold temperature 

conditions as specified in paragraph 

(f)(1) of this section are not subject to 

the NTE emission limits during the 

specified cold temperature operation 

conditions. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.1372–2007 [Redesignated as 

§ 86.1372] 

■ 140. Section 86.1372–2007 is 

redesignated as § 86.1372. 

§§ 86.1375–2007 and 86.1380–2004 

[Removed] 

■ 141. Remove §§ 86.1375–2007 and 

86.1380–2004. 

Subpart O—[Removed and reserved] 

■ 142. Subpart O, consisting of 

§§ 86.1401 through 86.1442, is removed 

and reserved. 

Subpart R—[Removed and reserved] 

■ 143. Subpart R, consisting of 

§§ 86.1701–99 through 86.1780–99, is 

removed and reserved. 

Subpart S—[Amended] 

■ 144. Section 86.1801–12 is amended 

by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) 

and adding paragraph (e) to read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30063 

§ 86.1801–12 Applicability. 

(a) Applicability. The provisions of 

this subpart apply to certain types of 

new vehicles as described in this 

paragraph (a). Where the provisions 

apply for a type of vehicle, they apply 

for vehicles powered by any fuel. In 

some cases, manufacturers of heavyduty engines and vehicles can choose 

whether to meet the requirements of this 

subpart or the requirements of subpart 

A of this part; those provisions are 

therefore considered optional, but only 

to the extent that manufacturers comply 

with the other set of requirements. In 

cases where a provision applies only to 

a certain vehicle group based on its 

model year, vehicle class, motor fuel, 

engine type, or other distinguishing 

characteristics, the limited applicability 

is cited in the appropriate section. The 

provisions of this subpart apply to 

certain vehicles as follows: 

(1) The provisions of this subpart 

apply for light-duty vehicles, and lightduty trucks, 

(2) The provisions of this subpart 

apply for medium-duty passenger 

vehicles. The provisions of this subpart 

also apply for other complete heavyduty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR, except as follows: 

(i) The provisions of this subpart are 

optional for diesel-cycle vehicles 

through model year 2018. 

(ii) The onboard diagnostic 

requirements in this subpart do not 

apply if engines meet the onboard 

diagnostic requirements specified in 

§ 86.007–17. 

(iii) Greenhouse gas emission 

standards apply as specified in 40 CFR 

parts 1036 and 1037 instead of the 

standards specified in this subpart. 

(3) The provisions of this subpart 

generally do not apply to incomplete 

heavy-duty vehicles or to complete 

vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR 

(see subpart A of this part and 40 CFR 

part 1037). However, this subpart 

applies to such vehicles in the following 

cases: 

(i) Incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at 

or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may be 

optionally certified to the exhaust 

emission standards in this subpart that 

apply for complete heavy-duty vehicles. 

(ii) The evaporative and refueling 

emission standards apply for 

incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or 

below 14,000 pounds GVWR starting 

with model year 2018. Evaporative 

emission standards also apply for 

vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as 

specified in 40 CFR part 1037. 

(iii) The onboard diagnostic 

requirements in this subpart do not 

apply for vehicles above 14,000 pounds 

GVWR; these requirements apply for 

incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR only if the installed 

engine does not meet the onboard 

diagnostic requirements specified in 

§ 86.007–17. 

(b) Relationship to subpart A of this 

part. Unless specified otherwise, if 

heavy-duty vehicles are not subject to 

provisions of this subpart or if 

manufacturers choose not to meet 

optional provisions of this subpart as 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the engines installed in those 

vehicles must meet the corresponding 

requirements under subpart A of this 

part. If a vehicle and its installed engine 

comply with a mix of provisions from 

this subpart and from subpart A of this 

part, the vehicle must be certified under 

this subpart, and the engine does not 

need to be certified separately. 

(c) Clean alternative fuel conversions. 

The provisions of this subpart also 

apply to clean alternative fuel 

conversions as defined in 40 CFR 85.502 

of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) 

of this section. 

(d) Small volume manufacturers. 

Special certification procedures are 

available for small-volume 

manufacturers as described in § 86.1838. 

(e) You. The term ‘‘you’’ in this 

subpart refers to manufacturers subject 

to the emission standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 145. Section 86.1803–01 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By removing the definition for 

‘‘Certification Short Test (CST)’’. 

■ b. By adding definitions for ‘‘Class 

2b’’ and ‘‘Class 3’’ in alphabetical order. 

■ c. By revising the definitions for 

‘‘Family emission limit (FEL)’’, ‘‘Heavyduty vehicle’’, and ‘‘Hybrid electric 

vehicle (HEV)’’. 

■ d. By adding definitions for ‘‘LEV III’’ 

and ‘‘Low-altitude conditions’’ in 

alphabetical order. 

■ e. By removing the definition for 

‘‘Low altitude conditions’’. 

■ f. By adding a definition for ‘‘Rated 

power’’ in alphabetical order. 

■ g. By revising the definition for 

‘‘Round, rounded or rounding’’. 

■ h. By adding definitions for ‘‘Section 

177 states’’, ‘‘Tier 3’’, and ‘‘United 

States’’ in alphabetical order. 

■ i. By revising the definition for ‘‘U.S. 

sales’’. 

■ j. By adding definitions for ‘‘Volatile 

liquid fuel’’ and ‘‘We (us, our)’’ in 

alphabetical order. 

§ 86.1803–01 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Class 2b means relating to heavy-duty 

vehicles at or below 10,000 pounds 

GVWR. 

Class 3 means relating to heavy-duty 

vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR 

and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

* * * * * 

Family emission limit (FEL) means a 

bin standard or emission level selected 

by the manufacturer that serves as the 

applicable emission standard for the 

vehicles in the family or test group in 

the context of fleet-average standards or 

emission credits. 

* * * * * 

Heavy-duty vehicle means any motor 

vehicle rated at more than 8,500 pounds 

GVWR or that has a vehicle curb weight 

of more than 6,000 pounds or that has 

a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 

45 square feet. Note that MDPVs are 

heavy-duty vehicles that are in many 

cases subject to requirements that apply 

for light-duty trucks. 

* * * * * 

Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means a 

motor vehicle which draws propulsion 

energy from onboard sources of stored 

energy that are both an internal 

combustion engine or heat engine using 

consumable fuel, and a rechargeable 

energy storage system such as a battery, 

capacitor, hydraulic accumulator, or 

flywheel. 

* * * * * 

LEV III means relating to the LEV III 

emission standards in Title 13, 

§§ 1961.2 and 1976(b)1)(G) of the 

California Code of Regulations, as 

adopted by the California Air Resources 

Board (incorporated by reference in 

§ 86.1). 

* * * * * 

Low-altitude conditions means a test 

altitude less than 549 meters (1,800 

feet). 

* * * * * 

Rated power means an engine’s 

maximum power output in an installed 

configuration, as determined by using 

SAE J1349 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 86.1). 

* * * * * 

Round, rounded or rounding has the 

meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, 

unless otherwise specified. 

* * * * * 

Section 177 states means the states 

that have adopted California’s motor 

vehicle standards for a particular model 

year under section 177 of the Clean Air 

Act (42 U.S.C. 7507). 

* * * * * 

Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 

emission standards described in 

§§ 86.1811–17, 86.1813–17, and 

86.1816–18. 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30064 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

United States has the meaning given 

in 40 CFR 1068.30. 

* * * * * 

U.S. sales means, unless otherwise 

specified, sales in any state of the 

United States except for California or 

the section 177 states. Sale location is 

based on the point of first sale to a 

dealer, distributor, fleet operator, 

broker, or other entity. 

* * * * * 

Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel 

other than diesel or biodiesel that is a 

liquid at atmospheric pressure and has 

a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 2.0 

pounds per square inch. 

* * * * * 

We (us, our) means the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency 

and any authorized representatives. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.1805–01 [Removed] 

■ 146. Remove § 86.1805–01. 

■ 147. A new § 86.1805–17 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1805–17 Useful life. 

(a) General provisions. The useful life 

values specified in this section apply for 

all exhaust, evaporative, refueling, and 

OBD emission requirements described 

in this subpart, except for standards that 

are specified to apply only at 

certification. These useful life 

requirements also apply to all air 

conditioning leakage credits, air 

conditioning efficiency credits, and 

other credit programs used by the 

manufacturer to comply with the fleetaverage CO2 emission standards in 

§ 86.1818. Useful life values are 

specified as a given number of calendar 

years and miles of driving, whichever 

comes first. 

(b) Greenhouse gas pollutants. The 

emission standards in § 86.1818 apply 

for a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 

miles for LDVs and LLDTs and 11 years 

or 120,000 miles for HLDTs, MDPVs, 

and heavy-duty vehicles. Manufacturers 

may alternatively certify based on a 

longer useful life as specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Criteria pollutants. The useful life 

provisions of this paragraph (c) apply 

for all emission standards not covered 

by paragraph (b) of this section. Except 

as specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section and in §§ 86.1811, 86.1813, and 

86.1816, the useful life for LDT2s, 

HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs is 15 years 

or 150,000 miles. The useful life for 

LDV and LDT1 is 10 years or 120,000 

miles. Manufacturers may optionally 

certify LDVs and LDT1s to a useful life 

of 15 years or 150,000 miles, in which 

case the longer useful life would apply 

for all the standards and requirements. 

LDVs and LDT1s certified to the longer 

useful life are subject to higher 

numerical FTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOx as specified in § 86.1811– 

17(b). 

(d) Intermediate useful life. Where 

exhaust emission standards are 

specified for an intermediate useful life, 

these standards apply for five years or 

50,000 miles. 

(e) Interim provisions. The useful life 

provisions of § 86.1805–12 apply for 

vehicles not yet subject to Tier 3 

requirements. For example, vehicles 

above 6,000 pounds GVWR are not 

subject to the useful life provisions in 

this section until model year 2019 

unless manufacturers voluntarily certify 

to the Tier 3 requirements earlier than 

the regulations require. Also, where the 

transition to Tier 3 standards involves a 

phase-in percentage for a given 

standard, vehicles not included as part 

of the phase-in portion of the fleet 

continue to be subject to the useful life 

provisions of § 86.1805–12 with respect 

to that standard. 

§§ 86.1806–01 and 86.1806–04 [Removed] 

■ 148. Remove §§ 86.1806–01 and 

86.1806–04. 

■ 149. Section 86.1806–05 is amended 

by revising paragraphs (b) introductory 

text and (j) and adding paragraph (k)(7) 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.1806–05 On-board diagnostics for 

vehicles less than or equal to 14,000 

pounds GVWR. 

* * * * * 

(b) Malfunction descriptions. The 

OBD system must detect and identify 

malfunctions in all monitored emissionrelated powertrain systems or 

components according to the following 

malfunction definitions as measured 

and calculated in accordance with test 

procedures set forth in subpart B of this 

part (chassis-based test procedures), 

excluding those test procedures defined 

as ‘‘Supplemental’’ test procedures in 

§ 86.004–2 and codified in §§ 86.158, 

86.159, and 86.160. For clean alternative 

fuel conversion manufacturers, your 

OBD system is expected to detect and 

identify malfunctions in all monitored 

emission-related powertrain systems or 

components according to the 

malfunction definitions described in 

this paragraph (b) as measured and 

calculated in accordance with the 

chassis-based test procedures set forth 

in subpart B of this part to the extent 

feasible, excluding the elements of the 

Supplemental FTP (see § 86.1803). 

However, at a minimum, systems must 

detect and identify malfunctions as 

described in paragraph (k)(7) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(j) California OBDII compliance 

option. Manufacturers may comply with 

California’s OBD requirements instead 

of meeting the requirements of this 

section as follows: 

(1) Through the 2006 model year, 

demonstration of compliance with 

California OBDII requirements (Title 13 

California Code of Regulations § 1968.2 

(13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved 

and filed on April 21, 2003 

(incorporated by reference, see § 86.1), 

shall satisfy the requirements of this 

section, except that compliance with 13 

CCR 1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 

0.02 inch evaporative leak detection, 

and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to 

tampering protection, are not required 

to satisfy the requirements of this 

section. Also, the deficiency provisions 

of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do not apply. In 

addition, demonstration of compliance 

with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the 

extent it applies to the verification of 

proper alignment between the camshaft 

and crankshaft, applies only to vehicles 

equipped with variable valve timing. 

(2) For 2007 through 2012 model year 

vehicles, demonstration of compliance 

with California OBD II requirements 

(Title 13 California Code of Regulations 

§ 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), approved on 

November 9, 2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 86.1), shall satisfy the 

requirements of this section, except that 

compliance with 13 CCR 

1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 

inch evaporative leak detection, and 13 

CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to 

tampering protection, are not required 

to satisfy the requirements of this 

section. Also, the deficiency provisions 

of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) do not apply. In 

addition, demonstration of compliance 

with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the 

extent it applies to the verification of 

proper alignment between the camshaft 

and crankshaft, applies only to vehicles 

equipped with variable valve timing. 

(3) Beginning with the 2013 model 

year, manufacturers may demonstrate 

compliance with California’s 2010 OBD 

requirements as described in § 86.1806– 

17(a). 

(4) For all model years, the deficiency 

provisions of paragraph (i) of this 

section and the evaporative leak 

detection requirement of paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section, if applicable, apply 

to manufacturers selecting this 

paragraph for demonstrating 

compliance. 

(k) * * * 

(7) For clean alternative fuel 

conversion manufacturers (e.g., natural 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30065 

gas, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, 

ethanol), in lieu of the requirements 

specified for other manufacturers in this 

paragraph (k), you may demonstrate that 

the malfunction indicator light will 

illuminate, at a minimum, under any of 

the following circumstances when the 

vehicle is operated on the applicable 

alternative fuel: 

(i) Otto-cycle. A catalyst is replaced 

with a defective catalyst system where 

the catalyst brick for the monitored 

volume has been removed (i.e., empty 

catalyst system) resulting in an increase 

of 1.5 times the NMOG (or NMOG+NOX) 

standard or FEL above the NMOG (or 

NMOG+NOX) emission level measured 

using a representative 4000 mile catalyst 

system. 

(ii)(A) Diesel. If monitored for 

emissions performance—a catalyst is 

replaced with a defective catalyst 

system where the catalyst brick for the 

monitored volume has been removed 

(i.e., empty catalyst can) resulting in 

exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times 

the applicable standard or FEL for NOX

(or NMOG+NOX) or PM. 

(B) If monitored for performance—a 

particulate trap is replaced with a trap 

that has catastrophically failed. 

(iii)(A) Otto-cycle. An engine misfire 

condition is induced that completely 

disables one or more cylinders, either 

through mechanical or electrical means, 

resulting in exhaust emissions 

exceeding 1.5 times the applicable 

standards or FEL for CO, NMOG, or 

NOX (or NMOG+NOx). 

(B) Diesel. An engine misfire 

condition resulting in complete lack of 

cylinder firing is induced and is not 

detected. 

(iv) If so equipped, any oxygen sensor 

is replaced with a completely defective 

oxygen sensor, or an electronic 

simulation of such, resulting in exhaust 

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the 

applicable standard or FEL for CO, 

NMOG, or NOX (or NMOG+NOX). 

(v) If so equipped and applicable, a 

vapor leak is introduced in the 

evaporative and/or refueling system 

(excluding the tubing and connections 

between the purge valve and the intake 

manifold) greater than or equal in 

magnitude to a leak caused by a 0.040 

inch diameter orifice, or the evaporative 

purge air flow is blocked or otherwise 

eliminated from the complete 

evaporative emission control system. At 

a minimum, gas cap removal or 

complete venting of the evaporative 

and/or refueling system may be 

introduced resulting in a gross leak of 

the complete evaporative emission 

control system. 

(vi) A malfunction condition is 

induced resulting in complete 

disablement in any emission-related 

powertrain system or component, 

including but not necessarily limited to, 

the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) 

system, if equipped, the secondary air 

system, if equipped, and the fuel control 

system, singularly resulting in exhaust 

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the 

applicable emission standard or FEL for 

PM, CO, NMOG, or NOX (or 

NMOG+NOx). 

(vii) A malfunction condition is 

induced that completely disables an 

electronic emission-related powertrain 

system or component not otherwise 

described in this paragraph (k) that 

either provides input to or receives 

commands from the on-board computer 

resulting in a measurable impact on 

emissions. At a minimum, 

manufacturers may be required to 

perform this disablement on critical 

inputs and outputs where lack of the 

input and output disables an entire 

monitor as described in this paragraph 

(k)(7)(vii), disables multiple monitors 

(e.g., two or more) used by the on-board 

computer, or renders the entire on-board 

computer and its functions inoperative. 

(viii) Clean alternative fuel conversion 

manufacturers must use good 

engineering judgment to induce 

malfunctions and may perform more 

stringent malfunction demonstrations 

than described in this paragraph (k)(7). 

In addition, the Administrator reserves 

the right to request a clean alternative 

fuel conversion manufacturer to perform 

stricter demonstration requirements, to 

the extent feasible, on clean alternative 

fuel conversions. 

* * * * * 

■ 150. A new § 86.1806–17 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1806–17 On-board diagnostics. 

Model year 2017 and later vehicles 

must have onboard diagnostic (OBD) 

systems as described in this section. 

OBD systems must generally detect 

malfunctions in the emission control 

system, store fault codes corresponding 

to detected malfunctions, and alert 

operators appropriately. 

(a) Vehicles must comply with the 

2010 OBD requirements adopted for 

California as described in this paragraph 

(a). California’s 2010 OBD requirements 

are part of Title 13, § 1968.2 of the 

California Code of Regulations, 

approved on June 17, 2010 

(incorporated by reference in § 86.1). 

The following clarifications and 

exceptions apply for vehicles certified 

under this subpart: 

(1) For vehicles not certified in 

California, references to vehicles 

meeting certain California Air Resources 

Board emission standards are 

understood to refer to the corresponding 

EPA emission standards for a given 

family, where applicable. Use good 

engineering judgment to correlate the 

specified standards with the bin 

standards that apply under this subpart. 

(2) Vehicles must comply with OBD 

requirements throughout the useful life 

as specified in § 86.1805. If the specified 

useful life is different for evaporative 

and exhaust emissions, the useful life 

specified for evaporative emissions 

applies for monitoring related to fuelsystem leaks and the useful life 

specified for exhaust emissions applies 

for all other parameters. 

(3) The purpose and applicability 

statements in 13 CCR 1968.2(a) and (b) 

do not apply. 

(4) The anti-tampering provisions in 

13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4) do not apply. 

(5) The requirement to verify proper 

alignment between the camshaft and 

crankshaft described in 13 CCR 

1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C) applies only for 

vehicles equipped with variable valve 

timing. 

(6) The deficiency provisions 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section apply instead of 13 CCR 

1968.2(k). 

(b) The following additional 

provisions apply: 

(1) OBD systems must record in 

computer memory the result of the most 

recent successfully completed 

diagnostic check for a 0.020 inch leak. 

The required data records include the 

miles driven since the last check 

occurred and the pass/fail result. The 

system may be designed to keep data 

only from the previous 750 miles of 

driving. The leak check results must be 

scan readable, and must be retained in 

system memory even if codes are 

cleared or the vehicle loses battery 

power. 

(2) For every family selected for 

making the full OBD demonstration for 

certification, that demonstration must 

also include a test showing that the OBD 

system is capable of detecting an 

implanted 0.020 inch leak in the fuel 

system. Manufacturers may separately 

perform this test with any number of 

additional families. For any untested 

families, the statement specified in 

§ 86.1844–01(d)(8) applies with regard 

to this leak monitoring requirement. 

(3) For vehicles with fuel tanks 

exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel tank 

capacity, you may request our approval 

for a leak threshold greater than 0.020 

inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 

inches. We will generally approve a leak 

threshold equal to the standard that 

applies under § 86.1813. 

(c) You may ask us to accept as 

compliant a vehicle that does not fully 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30066 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

meet specific requirements under this 

section. Such deficiencies are intended 

to allow for minor deviations from OBD 

standards under limited conditions. We 

expect vehicles to have functioning 

OBD systems that meet the objectives 

stated in this section. The following 

provisions apply regarding OBD system 

deficiencies: 

(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, we will not approve 

a deficiency that involves the complete 

lack of a major diagnostic monitor, such 

as monitors related to exhaust 

aftertreatment devices, oxygen sensors, 

air-fuel ratio sensors, NOx sensors, 

engine misfire, evaporative leaks, and 

diesel EGR (if applicable). 

(2) We will approve a deficiency only 

if you show us that full compliance is 

infeasible or unreasonable considering 

any relevant factors, such as the 

technical feasibility of a given monitor, 

or the lead time and production cycles 

of vehicle designs and programmed 

computing upgrades. 

(3) Our approval for a given 

deficiency applies only for a single 

model year, though you may continue to 

ask us to extend a deficiency approval 

in renewable one-year increments. We 

may approve an extension if you 

demonstrate an acceptable level of effort 

toward compliance and show that the 

necessary hardware or software 

modifications would pose an 

unreasonable burden. 

(d) For alternative-fuel vehicles, 

manufacturers may request a waiver 

from specific requirements for which 

monitoring may not be reliable for 

operation with the alternative fuel. 

However, we will not waive 

requirements that we judge to be 

feasible for a particular manufacturer or 

vehicle model. 

(e) For alternative-fuel conversions, 

manufacturers may meet the 

requirements of § 86.1806–05 instead of 

the requirements of this section. 

§ 86.1807–01 [Amended] 

■ 151. Section 86.1807–01 is amended 

by removing and reserving paragraph 

(a)(3)(ix). 

■ 152. Section 86.1808–01 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3) 

introductory text, (f)(6)(ii)(D), (f)(7)(i) 

introductory text, (f)(7)(ii)(B), (f)(10)(ii), 

(f)(13) introductory text, (f)(13)(iv), and 

(f)(16)(i). 

■ b. By adding paragraph (g). 

§ 86.1808–01 Maintenance instructions. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) Applicability. Manufacturers are 

subject to the provisions of this 

paragraph (f) beginning in the 1996 

model year for manufacturers of lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks, and 

beginning in the 2005 model year for 

manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles 

and heavy-duty engines weighing 

14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight 

(GVW) and less that are subject to the 

OBD requirements of this part. 

* * * * * 

(3) Information dissemination. By 

December 24, 2003, each manufacturer 

shall provide or cause to be provided to 

the persons specified in paragraph 

(f)(2)(i) of this section and to any other 

interested parties a manufacturerspecific World Wide Web site 

containing the information specified in 

paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section for 

1996 and later model year vehicles 

which have been offered for sale; this 

requirement does not apply to indirect 

information, including the information 

specified in paragraphs (f)(12) through 

(f)(16) of this section. Upon request and 

approval of the Administrator, 

manufacturers who can demonstrate 

significant hardship in complying with 

this provision within four months after 

the effective date may request an 

additional six months lead time to meet 

this requirement. Each manufacturer 

Web site shall: 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(D) Any alternative means proposed 

by a manufacturer must be available to 

aftermarket technicians at a fair and 

reasonable price. 

* * * * * 

(7) * * * 

(i) All information required to be 

made available by this section shall be 

made available at a fair and reasonable 

price. In determining whether a price is 

fair and reasonable, consideration may 

be given to relevant factors, including, 

but not limited to, the following: 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) The Administrator will act on the 

request within 180 days following 

receipt of a complete request or 

following receipt of any additional 

information requested by the 

Administrator. 

* * * * * 

(10) * * * 

(ii) Provide on the manufacturer’s 

Web site an index of all emissionsrelated training information available 

for purchase by aftermarket service 

providers for 1994 and newer vehicles. 

For model years subsequent to 2003, the 

required information must be made 

available for purchase within 3 months 

of model introduction and then must be 

made available at the same time it is 

made available to manufacturerfranchised dealerships, whichever is 

earlier. The index shall describe the title 

of the course or instructional session, 

the cost of the video tape or duplicate, 

and information on how to order the 

item(s) from the manufacturer Web site. 

All of the items available must be 

shipped within 24 hours of the order 

being placed and are to be made 

available at a fair and reasonable price 

as described in paragraph (f)(7) of this 

section. Manufacturers unable to meet 

the 24 hour shipping requirement under 

circumstances where orders exceed 

supply and additional time is needed by 

the distributor to reproduce the item 

being ordered may exceed the 24 hour 

shipping requirement, but in no 

instance can take longer than 14 days to 

ship the item. 

* * * * * 

(13) Generic and enhanced 

information for scan tools. By 

September 25, 2003, manufacturers 

shall make available to equipment and 

tool companies all generic and 

enhanced service information including 

bi-directional control and data stream 

information as defined in paragraph 

(f)(2)(ii) of this section. This 

requirement applies for 1996 and later 

model year vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Manufacturers can satisfy the 

requirement of paragraph (f)(13)(iii) of 

this section by making available 

diagnostic trouble trees on their Web 

sites in full-text. 

* * * * * 

(16) * * * 

(i) Manufacturers who have 

developed special tools to extinguish 

the malfunction indicator light (MIL) for 

Model Years 1994 through 2003 shall 

make available the necessary 

information to equipment and tool 

companies to design a comparable 

generic tool. This information shall be 

made available to equipment and tool 

companies no later than September 23, 

2003. 

* * * * * 

(g) Through model year 2013, the 

manufacturer shall furnish or cause to 

be furnished to the purchaser the 

following statement for each new dieselfueled Tier 2 vehicle (certified using a 

test fuel with 15 ppm sulfur or less): 

‘‘This vehicle must be operated only 

with ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (that is, 

diesel fuel meeting EPA specifications 

for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 

ppm sulfur cap).’’ 

§ 86.1808–07 [Removed] 

■ 153. Remove § 86.1808–07. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30067 

■ 154. Section 86.1810–01 is amended 

by removing and reserving paragraph 

(m), and revising paragraph (f) to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.1810–01 General standards; increase 

in emissions; unsafe condition; waivers. 

* * * * * 

(f) Altitude requirements. Unless 

otherwise specified, emission standards 

apply at low-altitude conditions and at 

high-altitude conditions. The following 

exceptions apply: 

(1) The supplemental exhaust 

emission standards as described in 

§ 86.1811–04(f) apply only at lowaltitude conditions; 

(2) The cold temperature NMHC 

emission standards as described in 

§ 86.1811–10(g) apply only at lowaltitude conditions; 

(3) The evaporative emission 

standards specified in § 86.1811–09(e) 

apply at low-altitude conditions. The 

evaporative emission standards 

specified in § 86.1811–04(e) continue to 

apply at high-altitude conditions for 

2009 and later model year vehicles. 

* * * * * 

■ 155. A new § 86.1810–17 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1810–17 General standards; increase 

in emissions; unsafe condition; waivers. 

The following provisions apply to all 

vehicles certified under this subpart: 

(a) Any device, system or element of 

design installed on or incorporated in a 

new motor vehicle to enable such 

vehicle to conform to the standards 

imposed by this subpart: 

(1) Shall not in its operation or 

function cause the emission into the 

ambient air of any noxious or toxic 

substance that would not be emitted in 

the operation of such vehicle without 

such system, except as specifically 

permitted by regulation; and 

(2) Shall not in its operation, function 

or malfunction result in any unsafe 

condition endangering the vehicle, its 

occupants, or persons or property in 

close proximity to the vehicle. 

(b) In establishing the physically 

adjustable range of each adjustable 

parameter on a new motor vehicle, the 

manufacturer shall ensure that, taking 

into consideration the production 

tolerances, safe vehicle drivability 

characteristics are available within that 

range. 

(c) Unless otherwise specified, the 

emission standards of this subpart apply 

equally for certification and for in-use 

vehicles throughout the specified 

useful-life period. Also, manufacturers 

must use good engineering judgment to 

determine that all of a vehicle’s 

emission-related components are 

designed to operate properly throughout 

the specified useful-life period. 

(d) Crankcase emissions prohibited. 

Vehicles may not discharge crankcase 

emissions into the ambient atmosphere. 

(e) On-board diagnostics. All vehicles 

must have an on-board diagnostic 

system as described in § 86.1806. 

(f) Altitude requirements. Emission 

standards apply at low-altitude 

conditions and at high-altitude 

conditions, except as noted in this 

subpart. 

(g) The cold CO and cold NMHC 

standards in this subpart refer to test 

procedures set forth in subpart C of this 

part and 40 CFR part 1066, subpart H. 

All other emission standards in this 

subpart rely on test procedures set forth 

in subpart B of this part. These 

procedures rely on the test 

specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 

1066 as described in subparts B and C 

of this part. 

(h) Multi-fueled vehicles (including 

dual-fueled and flexible-fueled vehicles) 

shall comply with all requirements 

established for each consumed fuel (or 

blend of fuels in the case of flexible 

fueled vehicles). In the case of flexiblefueled vehicles operating on ethanol 

and gasoline, this involves additional 

exhaust emission measurements using 

the fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.725. 

No additional evaporative emission 

testing is required. 

§ 86.1811–01 [Removed] 

■ 156. Remove § 86.1811–01. 

■ 157. Section 86.1811–04 is amended 

by removing and reserving paragraph (h) 

and revising paragraphs (j) and (n) to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.1811–04 Emission standards for lightduty vehicles, light-duty trucks and 

medium-duty passenger vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(j) Highway NOX exhaust emission 

standard. The NOX emissions measured 

on the federal Highway Fuel Economy 

Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, must 

not be greater than 1.33 times the 

applicable FTP NOX standard to which 

the manufacturer certifies the test group. 

Both the measured emissions and the 

product of the NOX standard and 1.33 

must be rounded to the nearest 0.01 g/ 

mi before being compared. 

* * * * * 

(n) Requirements for vehicles with 

rechargeable energy storage systems. 

Manufacturers must test electric 

vehicles according to the procedures 

specified in SAE J1634 (incorporated by 

reference in § 86.1). Manufacturers must 

measure emissions from hybrid electric 

vehicles (including plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicles) according to the 

procedures specified in SAE J1711 

(incorporated by reference in § 86.1), 

except that these procedures do not 

apply for plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles during charge-depleting 

operation, 

* * * * * 

■ 158. A new § 86.1811–17 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1811–17 Exhaust emission standards 

for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks and 

medium-duty passenger vehicles. 

(a) Applicability and general 

provisions. This section describes 

exhaust emission standards that apply 

for model year 2017 and later light-duty 

vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 

medium-duty passenger vehicles. 

MDPVs are subject to all the same 

provisions of this section that apply to 

LDT4s. Some of the provisions of this 

section also apply to heavy-duty 

vehicles as specified in § 86.1816. See 

§ 86.1818 for greenhouse gas emission 

standards. See § 86.1813 for evaporative 

and refueling emission standards. This 

section may apply to vehicles from 

model years earlier than 2017 as 

specified in paragraph (b)(9) of this 

section. 

(b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. 

Exhaust emissions may not exceed the 

Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as 

follows: 

(1) Measure emissions using the 

chassis dynamometer procedures of 

subpart B of this part, as follows: 

(i) Establish appropriate load settings 

based on loaded vehicle weight (see 

§ 86.1803). 

(ii) Use appropriate driving schedules. 

Measurements involve testing over 

multiple driving schedules. The Federal 

Test Procedure (FTP) is based on testing 

with the Urban Dynamometer Driving 

Schedule (UDDS). The Supplemental 

Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) involves 

testing with the UDDS, the US06 driving 

schedule, and the SC03 driving 

schedule. See 40 CFR 1066.801 for 

further information on these test cycles. 

SFTP emissions in particular are 

calculated as a composite of test results 

over these driving schedules based on 

the following calculation: 

SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35·FTP + 0.28·US06 + 

0.37·SC03 

(iii) For vehicles that qualify for the 

derived 5-cycle method for determining 

fuel economy label values and are 

therefore not required to operate over 

the SC03 driving schedule under 40 

CFR 600.115, you may alternatively use 

FTP emission results to substitute for 

the SC03 value in the calculation under 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for a 

given vehicle for any testing under this 

section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30068 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) Use E15 test fuel as required in 

§ 86.113, except as specified in this 

section. 

(v) Hydrocarbon emission standards 

are expressed as NMOG; however, for 

certain vehicles you may measure 

exhaust emissions based on 

nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of 

NMOG as described in 40 CFR 

1066.665. 

(vi) Measure emissions from hybrid 

electric vehicles to demonstrate 

compliance with the Tier 3 standards 

according to the procedures specified in 

SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 86.1). 

(2) Table 1 of this section describes 

fully phased-in Tier 3 standards that 

apply as specified in this paragraph (b) 

for the identified driving schedules. The 

FTP standards for NMOG+NOX apply 

on a fleet-average basis using discrete 

bin standards as described in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section. The bin standards 

include additional emission standards 

for high-altitude testing and for CO 

emissions when testing over the FTP 

driving schedule. The SFTP standards 

for NMOG+NOx apply on a fleet-average 

basis as described in paragraph (b)(5) of 

this section. Table 1 follows: 

TABLE 1 OF § 86.1811–17—FULLY PHASED-IN TIER 3 EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

[g/mile] 

NMOG+NOX PM CO Formaldehyde 

FTP1 SFTP FTP US06 2 SFTP FTP 

0.030 .................................................................................... 0.050 0.003 0.010 4.2 0.004 

1The fleet-average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is 0.026 g/mile for LDV and LDT1 if a manufacturer certifies one or more test 

groups based on a useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given model year. 2The US06 emission standard for PM is 0.020 g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. 

(3) The FTP standards specified in 

this section apply for testing at lowaltitude conditions and high-altitude 

conditions as specified in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section. The SFTP 

standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) 

of this section apply only for testing at 

low-altitude conditions. 

(4) The FTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX is based on a fleet average 

for a given model year. You must 

specify a family emission limit (FEL) for 

each test group. The FEL serves as the 

emission standard for the test group 

with respect to all required FTP testing. 

Calculate your fleet-average emission 

level as described in § 86.1860 based on 

the FEL that applies for low-altitude 

testing to show that you meet the 

specified standard. For multi-fueled 

vehicles, calculate fleet-average 

emission levels based only on emission 

levels for testing with gasoline or diesel 

fuel. You may generate or use emission 

credits for averaging, banking, and 

trading as described in § 86.1861 for 

demonstrating compliance with the FTP 

emission standard for NMOG+NOX. You 

comply with the emission standard for 

a given model year if you have enough 

credits to show that your fleet-average 

emission level is at or below the 

applicable standard. You may exchange 

FTP credits between or among any test 

groups subject to standards under this 

section. You may not exchange FTP and 

SFTP credits. 

(i) You may specify any of the FELs 

from Table 2 of this section for 

demonstrating that your fleet-average 

emission level complies with the FTP 

emission standard for NMOG+NOX

under low-altitude conditions. These 

FEL values define emission bins that 

also determine corresponding emission 

standards for NMOG+NOX emissions 

under high-altitude conditions, and for 

CO emissions, as follows: 

TABLE 2 OF § 86.1811–17—TIER 3 FTP BIN STANDARDS (G/MILE) 

FEL name 

NMOG+NOX

FELs for low 

altitude 

NMOG+NOX

for high 

altitude 

CO for low 

and high 

altitude 

Bin 160 ......................................................................................................................................... 0.160 0.160 4.2 

Bin 125 ......................................................................................................................................... 0.125 0.160 2.1 

Bin 70 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.070 0.105 1.7 

Bin 50 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.050 0.070 1.7 

Bin 30 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.030 0.050 1.0 

Bin 20 ........................................................................................................................................... 0.020 0.030 1.0 

Bin 0 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.000 0.000 0.0 

(ii) Manufacturers earn a compliance 

credit of 0.005 g/mile NMOG+NOX for 

vehicles that are certified for a useful 

life of 150,000 miles or 15 years and that 

are covered by an extended warranty 

over the same period for all components 

whose failure triggers MIL illumination. 

Manufacturers may apply the 

compliance credit as follows: 

(A) You may subtract your official 

FTP emission result for certification by 

the amount of the compliance credit if 

that allows you to certify to a more 

stringent bin. In that case, you may use 

the more stringent bin standard for 

calculating the fleet-average 

NMOG+NOX emission level. For any 

compliance testing with these vehicles, 

the applicable FTP bin standard for 

NMOG+NOX is higher than the 

specified bin standard by the amount of 

the compliance credit. For example, if 

the official FTP emission result for 

NMOG+NOX is 0.052 g/mile, this 

qualifies for an FEL of 0.050 g/mile for 

calculating the fleet average and the 

vehicle is subject to an FTP bin standard 

of 0.055 g/mile. 

(B) If the amount of the compliance 

credit does not allow you to certify to 

a more stringent bin, calculate the fleetaverage NMOG+NOX emission level 

using an FEL for these vehicles that is 

smaller than the bin standard by the 

amount of the compliance credit. For 

any compliance testing with these 

vehicles, the specified bin standard 

applies. For example, if the official FTP 

emission result for NMOG+NOX is 0.038 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30069 

g/mile, calculate the fleet-average 

NMOG+NOX emission level by 

specifying an FEL of 0.045 g/mile; these 

vehicles are subject to the specified FTP 

bin standard of 0.050 g/mile. 

(iii) If you qualify for a compliance 

credit for direct ozone reduction under 

the LEV III program, you may apply the 

compliance credit approved for 

California vehicles as described in 

paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. 

(iv) You may combine the 

adjustments in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and 

(iii) of this section if you qualify for 

them separately. 

(5) The SFTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX is also based on a fleet 

average in a given model year. You must 

specify FELs as described in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section and calculate a 

fleet-average emission level to show that 

you meet the SFTP emission standard 

for NMOG+NOX, except that you may 

specify FELs in any even increment of 

0.010 g/mile up to a maximum value of 

0.180 g/mile. You may generate or use 

emission credits for averaging, banking, 

and trading as described in § 86.1860 for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

SFTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX. You comply with the 

emission standard for a given model 

year if you have enough credits to show 

that your fleet-average emission level is 

at or below the applicable standard. You 

may exchange SFTP credits between or 

among any test groups subject to 

standards under this section. You may 

not exchange FTP and SFTP credits. 

The SFTP standards described in this 

section apply only for testing at lowaltitude conditions. 

(6) The full Tier 3 program includes 

new emission standards for 

NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, and 

formaldehyde; it also includes 

measurement with a new test fuel and 

a longer useful life (for some vehicles). 

Vehicles meeting all these requirements 

are considered Final Tier 3 vehicles. 

Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 

requirements are considered Interim 

Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards 

phase in over several years. The 

following provisions describe the 

primary approach for phasing in the 

Tier 3 PM standards: 

(i) You must meet the FTP and the 

US06 PM standards with 20, 20, 40, 70, 

and 100 percent of your projected 

nationwide sales of all vehicles subject 

to this section in model years 2017 

through 2021, respectively. Each vehicle 

meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM 

must also meet the Tier 3 US06 standard 

for PM. In model year 2017, the phasein requirement applies only for vehicles 

at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR; 

however, if you certify these vehicles to 

the Tier 3 PM standards in the model 

year 2017, you may count those 

projected U.S. sales toward your 

calculation for meeting the phase-in 

percentage for that year (numerator 

only). 

(ii) You may disregard the phase-in 

percentages specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(i) of this section if you instead 

comply with an indexed PM phase-in 

schedule as described in this paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii). To do this, you must notify us 

of your intent before January 1, 2017, 

and include a detailed plan for 

complying with the indexed phase-in 

schedule. You comply with the indexed 

phase-in schedule by calculating a PM 

phase-in index at or above 540 using the 

following equation for model years 2017 

through 2021: 

PM phase-in index = 5·APP2017 + 

4·APP2018 + 3·APP2019 + 2·APP2020 + 

APP2021

Where: 

APP = The actual phase-in percentage of 

vehicles meeting the Tier 3 p.m. 

standards for the indicated model year, 

based on actual sales, as described in 

paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section. 

(iii) You may alternatively ask us to 

approve calculation of the annual 

percentage for a given model year based 

on production volumes instead of sales 

volumes. 

(iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM 

standards must meet those standards 

over the useful life as specified in 

§ 86.1805–17. Note that Interim Tier 3 

vehicles may have different useful life 

values for PM emission standards than 

for other emission standards. 

(v) Any vehicles not included for 

demonstrating compliance with the Tier 

3 p.m. phase-in requirement must 

instead comply with an FTP emission 

standard for PM of 0.010 g/mile, and a 

composite SFTP emission standard for 

PM of 0.070 g/mile. 

(vi) Measure PM emissions from all 

vehicles using the same test fuel used 

for measuring NMOG+NOX emissions. 

(vii) You may certify Interim Tier 3 

vehicles based on carryover data. 

(viii) You may use the alternative 

phase-in provisions described in 

paragraph (b)(8) of this section to 

transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission 

standards on a different schedule. 

(7) The following provisions describe 

the primary approach for phasing in the 

Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2025 

and earlier model years: 

(i) FTP phase-in. The fleet-average 

FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX

phases in over several years as 

described in this paragraph (b)(7)(i). 

You must identify FELs as described in 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section and 

calculate a fleet-average emission level 

to show that you meet the FTP emission 

standard for NMOG+NOX that applies 

for each model year. For model year 

2017, do not include vehicles above 

6,000 pounds GVWR (in the numerator 

or denominator). Through model year 

2019, you may also certify to 

transitional Bin 85 or Bin 110 standards, 

which consist of all-altitude FTP 

emission standards for NMOG+NOX of 

0.085 or 0.110 g/mile, respectively; 

additional FTP standards for PM, CO, 

and formaldehyde apply as specified in 

this section for vehicles certified to Bin 

125 standards. Fleet-average FTP 

emission standards decrease through the 

phase-in period as shown in the 

following table: 

TABLE 3 OF § 86.1811–17—DECLINING FLEET-AVERAGE TIER 3 FTP 

EMISSION STANDARDS FOR

NMOG+NOX

[g/mile] 

Model Year LDV, LDT1 1 LDT2, HLDT 

2017 2 ........ 0.086 0.101 

2018 .......... 0.079 0.092 

2019 .......... 0.072 0.083 

2020 .......... 0.065 0.074 

2021 .......... 0.058 0.065 

2022 .......... 0.051 0.056 

2023 .......... 0.044 0.047 

2024 .......... 0.037 0.038 

2025 .......... 0.030 0.030 

1 If a manufacturer certifies one or more 

LDV or LDT1 test groups based on a useful 

life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given 

model year, calculate the adjusted fleet-average standard by multiplying the specified 

value by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest 

0.001 g/mile. Through model year 2019, apply 

this adjustment only if one or more test groups 

is certified to Bin 70 or lower standards based 

on a useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years. 2Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must 

meet the Tier 3 standards starting with the 

2018 model year. 

(ii) SFTP phase-in. The fleet-average 

SFTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX phases in over several 

years as described in this paragraph 

(b)(7)(ii). You must identify FELs as 

described in paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section and calculate a fleet-average 

emission level to show that you meet 

the SFTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX that applies for each 

model year. 

(A) Calculate the fleet-average 

emission level together for all your 

light-duty vehicles and light-duty 

trucks, except for those certified using 

the provisions of paragraph (b)(7)(ii)(C) 

of this section. For model year 2017, do 

not include vehicles above 6,000 

pounds GVWR (in the numerator or 

denominator). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30070 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(B) Fleet-average FTP emission 

standards decrease through the phase-in 

period as shown in the following table: 

TABLE 4 OF § 86.1811–17—DECLINING FLEET-AVERAGE TIER 3 SFTP 

EMISSION STANDARDS

Model lYear NMOG+NOX

(g/mile) 

2017 1 .................................... 0.103 

2018 ...................................... 0.097 

2019 ...................................... 0.090 

2020 ...................................... 0.083 

2021 ...................................... 0.077 

2022 ...................................... 0.070 

2023 ...................................... 0.063 

2024 ...................................... 0.057 

2025 ...................................... 0.050 

1Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must 

meet the Tier 3 standards starting with the 

2018 model year. 

(C) You may use the Option 1 

provisions specified in the LEV III 

program to demonstrate compliance 

with EPA’s SFTP standards instead of 

the phased-in fleet-average SFTP 

standards specified in this paragraph 

(b)(7)(ii). 

(iii) Interim provisions. (A) For LDT2 

and HLDT certified to Bin 125 or Bin 

160 standards under this section 

through model year 2019, the Tier 2 

useful life period applies as specified in 

§ 86.1805–12. 

(B) You may alternatively use the E0 

test fuel specified in § 86.113 through 

model year 2019 for vehicles certified to 

bins higher than Bin 70. You may not 

certify these vehicles in model year 

2020 using carryover data. 

(iv) You may use the alternative 

phase-in provisions described in 

paragraph (b)(8) of this section to 

transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission 

standards on a different schedule. 

(8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an 

alternative approach to phasing in the 

Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose 

this approach, you must phase in the 

Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles 

subject to this section according to this 

schedule. Under this alternative phasein, you must meet all the FTP and SFTP 

emission standards as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 

section with 40, 70, and 100 percent of 

your projected nationwide sales of all 

vehicles subject to this section in model 

years 2019 through 2021, respectively. 

Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 

standards during the phase-in period 

must continue to comply with the Tier 

2 standards in § 86.1811–04(c) and (f), 

including the Tier 2 SFTP emission 

standards for NMHC+NOX and CO for 

4,000-mile testing as specified in 

§ 86.1811–04(f)(1). Vehicles subject to 

Tier 2 standards under this paragraph 

(b)(8) are subject to the useful life 

provisions in § 86.1805–12. Each 

vehicle counting toward the phase-in 

percentage under this paragraph (b)(8) 

must meet all the standards that apply 

based on the useful life provisions of 

§ 86.1805–17, and must use the Tier 3 

test fuel specified in § 86.113–07. 

Vehicles certified under this paragraph 

(b)(8) may not generate or use emission 

credits. 

(9) You may not use credits generated 

from Tier 2 vehicles for demonstrating 

compliance with the Tier 3 standards 

except as specified in this paragraph 

(b)(9). You may generate early credits 

with U.S. sales of Tier 2 vehicles in the 

two model years before the Tier 3 

standards start to apply for a given 

vehicle model. Separate from any Tier 2 

demonstrations, calculate early Tier 3 

emission credits as described in 

§ 86.1861 by determining a fleet-average 

value for FTP emissions of NMOG+NOX

based on the applicable bin standards 

and subtracting this value from 0.160 g/ 

mile. Calculate your fleet-average value 

for the model year based on vehicles at 

or below 6,000 pounds GVWR in 2015, 

on all sizes of vehicles in 2016, and on 

vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR in 

2017. Vehicles certified to the Tier 2 

standards must meet all the Tier 2 

requirements in § 86.1811–10. You must 

also continue to meet the fleet-average 

Tier 2 standards as long as they apply. 

You may use these early credits as 

described in § 86.1861 for 

demonstrating compliance with the FTP 

emission standard for NMOG+NOX; 

however, starting in model year 2018, 

use of early credits is subject to a 

limitation based on credits generated in 

California, as follows: 

(i) For the applicable model years in 

which you generate emission credits 

relative to California’s LEV III fleetaverage NMOG+NOX standard, 

determine the actual California sales of 

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks 

and the actual nationwide sales of those 

same vehicles. In 2015, count sales only 

from vehicle models at or below 6,000 

pounds GVWR. For each model year, 

multiply the credits generated under the 

California program by the ratio of 

nationwide sales to California sales to 

calculate an effective nationwide 

quantity. Sum these results for model 

years 2015 through 2017. 

(ii) You may not use more early 

credits generated under this paragraph 

(b)(9) to meet Tier 3 emission standards 

than the calculated value of the effective 

nationwide credit quantity summed in 

paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section. If your 

generated credits are greater than this 

threshold, determine the percentage of 

your generated early credits that exceed 

the threshold. Calculate an adjusted 

quantity of early credits generated under 

this paragraph (b)(9) by decreasing the 

generated quantity from each model 

year by the calculated percentage that 

exceed the applicable threshold. This 

adjusted quantity of credits may be used 

for demonstrating compliance with the 

Tier 3 standards, subject to the five-year 

credit life described in § 86.1861. 

(10) The following alternate standards 

apply for in-use testing with 2021 and 

earlier model year vehicles: 

(i) The alternate in-use PM emission 

standard for FTP testing is 0.006 g/mile. 

(ii) The alternate in-use PM emission 

standards for SFTP testing are 0.015 g/ 

mile for vehicles at or below 6,000 

pounds GVWR and 0.025 g/mile for 

vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. 

(iii) Alternate in-use NMOG+NOX

emission standards for FTP testing 

apply for vehicles certified to Bin 70 

and lower. Calculate these alternate 

standards by multiplying the applicable 

FEL by 1.4. These alternate standards 

apply only for testing at low-altitude 

conditions. 

(11) Keep records as needed to show 

that you meet the requirements 

specified in this paragraph (b) for 

phasing in standards and for complying 

with declining fleet-average average 

standards. 

(c) Highway NMOG+NOX exhaust 

emission standard. NMOG+NOX

emissions measured on the federal 

Highway Fuel Economy Test in 40 CFR 

part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the 

applicable NMOG+NOX bin standard for 

FTP testing. Demonstrate compliance 

with this standard for low-mileage 

vehicles by applying the appropriate 

deterioration factor. 

(d) Special provisions for Otto-cycle 

engines. The following special 

provisions apply for vehicles with Ottocycle engines: 

(1) Enrichment limits. The nominal 

air-fuel ratio throughout the US06 cycle 

may not be richer than the leanest airfuel mixture required for lean best 

torque, except as allowed under 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Unless 

we approve otherwise in advance, lean 

best torque is the leanest air-fuel ratio 

required at any speed and load point 

with a fixed spark advance to make peak 

torque. The allowable tolerance around 

the nominal value for any given speed 

and load point over the US06 cycle for 

a particular vehicle is 4 percent, which 

is calculated as the nominal mass-based 

air-fuel ratio for lean best torque divided 

by 1.04. 

(2) Engine protection. AECDs that use 

commanded enrichment to protect the 

engine or emission control hardware 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30071 

must not use enrichment more 

frequently or to a greater degree than is 

needed for this purpose. For purposes of 

this section, commanded enrichment 

includes intended engine operation at 

air-fuel ratios rich of stoichiometry, 

except the following: 

(i) Cycling back and forth in a narrow 

window between rich and lean 

operation as a result of feedback 

controls targeted to maintain overall 

engine operation at stoichiometry. 

(ii) Small changes in the target air-fuel 

ratio to optimize vehicle emissions or 

drivability. This may be called ‘‘closedloop biasing.’’ 

(iii) Temporary enrichment in 

response to rapid throttle motion. 

(iv) Enrichment during cold-start and 

warm-up conditions. 

(v) Temporary enrichment for running 

OBD checks to comply with § 86.1806. 

(3) A/C-on specific calibrations. (i) A/ 

C-on specific calibrations (e.g., air-fuel 

ratio, spark timing, and exhaust gas 

recirculation) that differ from A/C-off 

calibrations may be used for a given set 

of engine operating conditions (e.g., 

engine speed, manifold pressure, 

coolant temperature, air charge 

temperature, and any other parameters). 

Such calibrations must not 

unnecessarily reduce emission control 

effectiveness during A/C-on operation 

when the vehicle is operated under 

conditions that may reasonably be 

expected during normal operation and 

use. If emission control effectiveness 

decreases as a result of such 

calibrations, the manufacturer must 

describe in the Application for 

Certification the circumstances under 

which this occurs and the reason for 

using these calibrations. 

(ii) For AECDs involving commanded 

enrichment, these AECDs must not 

operate differently for A/C-on operation 

than for A/C-off operation, except as 

provided under paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. This includes both the sensor 

inputs for triggering enrichment and the 

degree of enrichment employed. 

(4) ‘‘Lean-on-cruise’’ calibration 

strategies. Manufacturers may use 

‘‘lean-on-cruise’’ strategies subject to the 

following specifications: 

(i) A ‘‘lean-on-cruise’’ strategy is 

defined as the use of an air-fuel ratio 

significantly leaner than stoichiometry 

during non-deceleration conditions at 

speeds above 40 mph. 

(ii) You must not employ ‘‘lean-oncruise’’ strategies during vehicle 

operation in normal driving conditions, 

including A/C usage, unless at least one 

of the following conditions is met: 

(A) Such strategies are substantially 

employed during the FTP, US06, or 

SC03 duty cycle. 

(B) Such strategies are demonstrated 

not to significantly reduce vehicle 

emission control effectiveness over the 

operating conditions in which they are 

employed. 

(C) Such strategies are demonstrated 

to be necessary to protect the vehicle 

occupants, engine, or emission control 

hardware. 

(iii) If you propose to use a ‘‘lean-oncruise’’ strategy, you mustdescribe in 

the application for certification the 

circumstances under which such a 

calibration would be used and the 

reasons for using it. 

(e) through (f) [Reserved] 

(g) Cold temperature exhaust 

emission standards. The following 

standards apply for vehicles tested over 

the test procedures specified in subpart 

C of this part: 

(1) Cold temperature CO standards. 

These cold temperature CO standards 

are applicable only to gasoline-fueled 

vehicles. These standards apply for 

testing at low-altitude conditions and 

high-altitude conditions. Cold 

temperature CO exhaust emission 

standards apply when measured using 

the test procedures specified in subpart 

C of this part, as follows: 

(i) For LDVs and LDT1s, the standard 

is 10.0 g/mile CO. 

(ii) For LDT2s, LDT3s and LDT4s, the 

standard is 12.5 grams per mile CO. 

(2) Cold temperature NMHC 

standards. Fleet average cold 

temperature NMHC standards are 

applicable only to gasoline-fueled 

vehicles, and apply equally to 

certification and in-use except as 

otherwise specified in § 86.1811–10(u) 

for in-use standards for applicable 

phase-in models. Testing with other 

fuels such as E85, or testing on diesel 

vehicles, is not required. Multi-fuel, bifuel or dual-fuel vehicles must comply 

with requirements using gasoline only. 

(i) The standards are shown in the 

following table: 

TABLE 5 OF § 86.1811–17—FLEET

AVERAGE COLD TEMPERATURE

NMHC EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

Vehicle weight category 

Cold temperature 

NMHC salesweighted fleet 

average standard 

(g/mile) 

LDVs & LLDTs (≤6,000 

lbs GVWR) .................. 0.3 

HLDTs >6,000 lbs 

GVWR ......................... 0.5 

(ii) The manufacturer must calculate 

its fleet average cold temperature NMHC 

emission level(s) as described in 

§ 86.1864–10(m). 

(iii) The standards specified in this 

paragraph (g)(2) apply only for testing at 

low-altitude conditions. However, 

manufacturers must submit an 

engineering evaluation indicating that 

common calibration approaches are 

utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation 

from low altitude emission control 

practices must be included in the 

auxiliary emission control device 

(AECD) descriptions submitted at 

certification. Any AECD specific to high 

altitude must require engineering 

emission data for EPA evaluation to 

quantify any emission impact and 

validity of the AECD. 

(h) Small-volume manufacturers. 

Small-volume manufacturers meeting 

the eligibility requirements in § 86.1838 

may delay complying with the 

requirements in this section until model 

year 2022. This also applies for 

continuing to use the E0 test fuel 

specified in § 86.113 through model 

year 2022. If meeting the Tier 3 

standards in model year 2022 would 

cause severe economic hardship, such 

manufacturers may ask us to approve an 

extended compliance deadline under 

the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, 

except that the solvency criterion does 

not apply and there is no maximum 

duration of the hardship relief. 

§§ 86.1812–01 and 86.1813–01 [Removed] 

■ 159. Remove §§ 86.1812–01 and 

86.1813–01. 

■ 160. A new § 86.1813–17 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1813–17 Evaporative and refueling 

emission standards. 

Vehicles must meet evaporative and 

refueling emission standards as 

specified in this section. The emission 

standards apply for total hydrocarbon 

equivalent (THCE) measurements using 

the test procedures specified in subpart 

B of this part, as appropriate. Note that 

§ 86.1829 allows you to certify without 

testing in certain circumstances. Except 

as specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, evaporative and refueling 

emission standards do not apply for 

diesel-fueled vehicles. Unless otherwise 

specified, MDPVs are subject to all the 

same provisions of this section that 

apply to LDT4s. 

(a) Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards. Vehicles may not exceed the 

Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, 

as follows: 

(1) Measure emissions using the test 

procedures of subpart B of this part, as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30072 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(i) Follow the vehicle preconditioning 

and exhaust testing procedures as 

described in subpart B of this part. 

(ii) Measure diurnal, running loss, 

and hot soak emissions as shown in 

§ 86.130. 

(iii) Use E15 test fuel as required in 

§ 86.113, except as specified in this 

section. 

(iv) Emissions are measured as total 

hydrocarbon; however, in the case of 

E15 test fuel, multiply measured values 

by 1.1 to convert values to total 

hydrocarbon equivalent. 

(2) Diurnal and hot soak emissions 

may not exceed the Tier 3 emission 

standards, as follows: 

(i) The emission standard for the sum 

of diurnal and hot soak measurements 

from the two-diurnal test sequence and 

the three-diurnal test sequence is based 

on a fleet average in a given model year. 

You must specify a family emission 

limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL 

serves as the emission standard for the 

test group with respect to all required 

diurnal and hot soak testing. Calculate 

your fleet average emission level as 

described in § 86.1860 based on the FEL 

that applies for low-altitude testing to 

show that you meet the specified 

standard. For multi-fueled vehicles, 

calculate fleet-average emission levels 

based only on emission levels for testing 

with gasoline. You may generate or use 

emission credits for averaging, banking, 

or trading for vehicles required to meet 

the Tier 3 standards, other than electric 

vehicles and gaseous-fueled vehicles, as 

described in § 86.1861 for 

demonstrating compliance with the hot 

soak plus diurnal emission standard 

starting in the 2017 model year. You 

comply with the emission standard for 

a given model year if you have enough 

credits to show that your fleet-average 

emission level is at or below the 

applicable standard. You may exchange 

credits between or among test groups 

within an averaging set as described in 

§ 86.1861. Separate diurnal plus hot 

soak emission standards apply as shown 

for high-altitude conditions. The sum of 

diurnal and hot soak measurements may 

not exceed the following fleet-average 

Tier 3 standards: 

TABLE 1 OF § 86.1813–17—TIER 3 DIURNAL PLUS HOT SOAK EMISSION

STANDARDS

[Grams per test] 

Vehicle category Low-altitude 

conditions 

High-altitude 

conditions 

LDV, LDT1 ........ 0.300 0.65 

LDT2 ................. 0.400 0.85 

HLDT ................ 0.500 1 1.15 

TABLE 1 OF § 86.1813–17—TIER 3 DIURNAL PLUS HOT SOAK EMISSION

STANDARDS—Continued 

[Grams per test] 

Vehicle category Low-altitude 

conditions 

High-altitude 

conditions 

HDV .................. 0.600 1.75 

1 1.25 g/test for MDPVs. 

(ii) Specify FELs as follows: 

(A) You may specify the low-altitude 

FEL in increments of 0.025 g above or 

below the otherwise applicable Tier 3 

diurnal plus hot soak standard, up to 

the maximum values specified in the 

following table: 

TABLE 2 OF § 86.1813–17—TIER 3 

FEL CAPS FOR LOW-ALTITUDE

TESTING

Vehicle category FEL caps 

LDV ....................................... 0.500 

LLDT ..................................... 0.650 

HLDT .................................... 0.900 

MDPV ................................... 1.000 

HDV ...................................... 1.4 

(B) Calculate the FEL for testing at 

high-altitude conditions based on the 

difference between the low-altitude FEL 

and the standard. For example, if a 

light-duty vehicle was certified with an 

FEL of 0.400 g instead of the 0.300 g 

standard, the FEL for testing under highaltitude conditions would be 0.75 g 

(0.65+0.10). 

(iii) Hydrocarbon emissions must not 

exceed 0.020 g for LDVs and LDTs and 

0.030 g for HDVs when tested using the 

Bleed Emission Test Procedure adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

(incorporated by reference in § 86.1). 

This procedure quantifies diurnal 

emissions without measuring hot soak 

emissions. The standards in this 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) do not apply for 

testing at high-altitude conditions. For 

vehicles with non-integrated refueling 

emission control systems, the bleed 

emission test and standard do not apply 

to the refueling canister. 

(3) Running losses may not exceed 

0.05 g per mile when measured using 

the test procedures specified in 

§ 86.134. 

(4) Fuel systems for vehicles operating 

on one or more volatile liquid fuels may 

not exceed an effective leak diameter of 

0.02 inches when measured using the 

procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.840. 

For vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 

25 gallons nominal fuel tank capacity, 

you may request our approval for a leak 

standard greater than 0.020 inches, up 

to a maximum value of 0.040 inches. 

(5) The Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards start to phase in with model 

year 2017 for vehicles at or below 6,000 

pounds GVWR and with model year 

2018 for vehicles above 6,000 pounds 

GVWR. Table 3 of this section specifies 

the minimum percentage of each 

manufacturer’s sales in each model year 

that must be certified to the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards. 

Calculate annual percentages based on 

actual nationwide sales of all vehicles 

subject to standards under this 

paragraph (a) for the applicable model 

year; however, if all your FELs for Tier 

3 test groups are at the applicable 

standard (neither generating nor using 

emission credits), the phase-in 

requirements are based on projected 

sales. Also, if you certify vehicles above 

6,000 pounds GVWR to the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards in 

model year 2017, you may count 

projected U.S. sales of those vehicles 

toward your calculation for meeting the 

40 percent requirement in 2017 

(numerator only). Manufacturers may 

meet this requirement using the 

additional alternative phase-in 

provisions in paragraph (g) of this 

section. Vehicles from the identified 

model years not certified to the Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards 

continue to be subject to the evaporative 

emission standards specified in 

§ 86.1811–09(e) or § 86.1816–08(d), 

including the useful life provisions of 

§ 86.1805–12. Note that this subjects 

LDVs and LDT1s to a 150,000 mile 

useful life for evaporative emissions if 

the vehicles are subject to a 150,000 

mile useful life for exhaust emissions. 

Keep records as needed to show that 

you meet the phase-in requirements 

specified in this section. 

TABLE 3 OF § 86.1813–17—DEFAULT

PHASE-IN SCHEDULE FOR TIER 3 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS

Model year 

Minimum 

percentage of 

vehicles subject 

to the Tier 3 

standards 

2017 .............................. 1 2 40 

2018 .............................. 60 

2019 .............................. 60 

2020 .............................. 80 

2021 .............................. 80 

2022 .............................. 100 

1The phase-in percentage for model year 

2017 applies only for vehicles at or below 

6,000 pounds GVWR. 2The leak standard specified in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section does not apply for model 

year 2017. 

(6) For model year 2017, exclude 

vehicle sales from California and section 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30073 

177 states from the calculation to 

demonstrate compliance with the phasein schedule in paragraph (a)(5) or (g) of 

this section, and from the credit 

calculation in § 86.1860. 

(b) Refueling emissions. Vehicles 

must meet the refueling emission 

standards in this paragraph (b) when 

measured over the procedure specified 

in § 86.150. These standards apply 

starting with model year 2018 for 

vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR. 

The following refueling standards 

apply: 

(1) 0.20 g THCE per gallon of fuel 

dispensed for gasoline-fueled, dieselfueled and methanol-fueled vehicles. 

(2) 0.15 g THC per gallon of fuel 

dispensed for liquefied petroleum gasfueled vehicles. 

(c) Fuel spitback. For vehicles fueled 

by volatile liquid fuels, fuel spitback 

emissions may not exceed 1.0 g THCE 

when measured using the test 

procedures specified in § 86.146. The 

fuel spitback standard applies only to 

newly assembled vehicles. 

(d) [Reserved] 

(e) Auxiliary engines and separate 

fuel systems. The provisions of 40 CFR 

1037.103(f) apply for vehicles with 

auxiliary engines. This includes any 

engines installed in the final vehicle 

configuration that contribute no motive 

power through the vehicle’s 

transmission. 

(f) Refueling provisions for gaseous 

fuel vehicles. The following provisions 

apply specifically for gaseous fuel 

vehicles: 

(1) Refueling receptacles on natural 

gas-fueled vehicles must comply with 

the receptacle provisions of the ANSI/ 

AGA NGV1–1994 standard 

(incorporated by reference in § 86.1). 

(2) With our advance approval, 

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled vehicles 

with gauges or valves that can be 

opened to release fuel or fuel vapor 

during refueling (such as fixed liquid 

level gauges) may be tested for refueling 

emissions without opening such gauges 

or valves, as outlined in § 86.157– 

98(d)(2). We will approve your request 

if you can show that such gauges or 

valves will not be open during in-use 

refueling due to inaccessibility or other 

design features that would prevent them 

from opening or make this very 

unlikely. 

(g) Alternative phase-in options for 

Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. 

You may use any of the following 

alternative methods to transition to the 

Tier 3 evaporative emission standards: 

(1) Starting in model year 2015, you 

may earn an ‘‘allowance’’ for each 

vehicle at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR that you certify early to the Tier 

3 standards in paragraph (a) of this 

section, as long as the vehicle is not sold 

in California or any of the section 177 

states. This applies in model years 2015 

and 2016 for vehicles at or below 6,000 

pounds GVWR and in model years 2015 

through 2017 for vehicles above 6,000 

pounds GVWR. For each allowance you 

earn, you may count it as one compliant 

vehicle in a later model year during the 

phase-in period. As an example, selling 

100,000 Tier 3 vehicles in 2016 and a 

total of 400,000 vehicles at or below 

14,000 pounds GVWR in 2017 would 

allow a manufacturer to ‘‘spend’’ up to 

40,000 allowances in both 2017 and 

2018, leaving a total of 20,000 

allowances for 2019 through 2022. 

Calculate the total phase-in percentage 

in each model year by adding the 

allowances to the number of compliant 

vehicles (in the numerator), without 

increasing total sales (in the 

denominator). For each allowance you 

earn, you may alternatively count it as 

one compliant vehicle for model year 

2018 under the phase-in schedule 

described in paragraph (g)(5) of this 

section; however, you may not use those 

allowances to increase the value of APP 

in any model year by more than 10 

percentage points. Vehicles earning 

allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) 

may not have an FEL above the 

applicable Tier 3 standard, and may not 

generate emission credits. Allowances 

may not be traded to another company. 

You may earn additional allowances 

under this paragraph (g)(1) as follows: 

(i) To the extent that you over-comply 

with the 40-percent phase-in 

requirement in model year 2017, you 

may count your actual U.S. sales 

exceeding the required number of Tier 

3 vehicles as allowances toward meeting 

the phase-in requirement in 2018 and 

later model years. 

(ii) For vehicles above 10,000 pounds 

GVWR that you certify to the refueling 

emission standards in paragraph (b) of 

this section in model years 2015 

through 2017, a single vehicle may 

produce two allowances if it is certified 

to the Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak 

standard and the refueling standard. 

Allowances earned under this paragraph 

(g)(1)(ii) may alternatively be used in 

model years 2018 through 2022 to phase 

in the refueling standard. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) You may disregard the percentage 

phase-in specified in paragraph (a)(5) of 

this section for 2017 if you choose 50- 

state certification for all your vehicles 

meeting the LEV III PZEV evaporative 

standards in 2017. Under this option, 

you may not produce a higher-emitting 

version of those vehicle models for sale 

outside of California or the section 177 

states. Such vehicles may be certified 

using carryover data under the 

California program; however, they may 

generate or use emission credits only if 

they are certified to meet the emission 

standards of paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. Vehicles that comply under this 

paragraph (g)(3) may not generate 

allowances under paragraph (g)(1) of 

this section, regardless of the calculated 

percentage of compliant vehicles in 

model year 2017. 

(4) If you certify model year 2019 or 

earlier vehicles to the LEV III emission 

standards in California, you may certify 

those as Tier 3 vehicles that count 

toward meeting the phase-in 

requirements of this section. Such 

vehicles must still be certified to the 

leak standard specified in paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section and the highaltitude standards in paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section. You may not certify 

vehicles under this paragraph (g)(4) after 

model year 2019. Vehicles meeting the 

LEV III standards may also generate 

allowances under paragraph (g)(1) of 

this section; however, these vehicles 

may generate or use emission credits 

under this subpart only if they are not 

used to generate allowances and if they 

are certified using the Option 2 

procedures under the LEV III program 

(including the bleed emission test). 

(5) You may disregard the phase-in 

percentages specified in paragraph (a)(5) 

of this section for 2018 through 2022 if 

you instead comply with the alternate 

phase-in schedule described in this 

paragraph (g)(5). To do this, you must 

notify us of your intent before January 

1, 2018, and include a detailed plan for 

complying with the alternate phase-in 

schedule. You comply with the alternate 

phase-in schedule by calculating an 

evaporative phase-in index at or above 

1,040 using the following equation for 

model years 2018 through 2022: 

Evaporative phase-in index = 5·APP2018

+ 4·APP2019 + 3·APP2020 + 2·APP2021

+ APP2022

Where: 

APP = The actual phase-in percentage of 

vehicles meeting the Tier 3 evaporative 

emission standards for the indicated 

model year, based on actual sales; you 

may instead ask us to calculate the 

annual percentage based on actual 

production volumes. 

(6) You may alternatively use the E0 

test fuel specified in § 86.113 through 

model year 2019 for vehicles certified to 

emission standards comparable to the 

standards in this section based on 

testing specified by the California Air 

Resources Board. You may not certify 

these vehicles in model year 2020 using 

carryover data. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30074 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(h) Small-volume manufacturers. 

Small-volume manufacturers meeting 

the eligibility requirements in § 86.1838 

may delay complying with the 

requirements in this section until model 

year 2022. If meeting the Tier 3 

standards in model year 2022 would 

cause severe economic hardship, such 

manufacturers may ask us to approve an 

extended compliance deadline under 

the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, 

except that the solvency criterion does 

not apply and there is no maximum 

duration of the hardship relief. 

§§ 86.1814–01, 86.1814–02, 86.1815–01, and 

86.1815–02 [Removed] 

■ 161. Remove §§ 86.1814–01, 86.1814– 

02, 86.1815–01, and 86.1815–02. 

■ 162. A new § 86.1816–18 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1816–18 Emission standards for 

heavy-duty vehicles. 

(a) Applicability and general 

provisions. This section describes 

exhaust emission standards that apply 

for model year 2018 and later complete 

heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR. These standards are 

optional for incomplete heavy-duty 

vehicles and for heavy duty vehicles 

above 14,000 pounds GVWR as 

described in § 86.1801. Greenhouse gas 

emission standards are specified in 

§ 86.1818 for MDPVs and in 40 CFR 

1037.104 for other HDVs. See § 86.1813 

for evaporative and refueling emission 

standards. This section may apply to 

vehicles before model year 2018 as 

specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this 

section. Separate requirements apply for 

MDPVs as specified in § 86.1811. See 

subpart A of this part for requirements 

that apply for incomplete heavy-duty 

vehicles and for heavy-duty engines 

certified independent of the chassis. 

The following general provisions apply: 

(1) Test all vehicles as described in 

this section using a chassis 

dynamometer; establish appropriate 

load settings based on adjusted loaded 

vehicle weight (see § 86.1803). 

(2) Some provisions apply differently 

depending on the vehicle’s power-toweight ratio. Determine a vehicle’s 

power-to-weight ratio by dividing the 

engine’s rated power by the vehicle’s 

GVWR (in hp/pound). For purposes of 

this section, if a test group includes 

multiple configurations, use the vehicle 

with the highest power-to-weight ratio 

to characterize the test group. 

(3) Use E15 test fuel as required in 

§ 86.113, except as specified in this 

section. 

(4) Measure emissions from hybrid 

electric vehicles to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards of this 

section according to the procedures 

specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by 

reference in § 86.1). 

(b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. 

Exhaust emissions may not exceed the 

Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as 

follows: 

(1) Measure emissions using the 

procedures of subpart B of this part, 

using specific driving schedules and 

additional procedures as follows: 

(i) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) 

is based on testing with the Urban 

Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) 

specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix 

I of this part. 

(ii) The Heavy-Duty Supplemental 

Federal Test Procedure (HD–SFTP) 

involves testing with the UDDS, the 

SC03 driving schedule specified in 

paragraph (h) of Appendix I of this part, 

and one of the following additional 

driving schedules: 

(A) For Class 2b vehicles, the US06 

driving schedule specified in paragraph 

(g) of Appendix I of this part. 

(B) For Class 2b vehicles with a 

power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 

hp/pound that are certified to optional 

standards under paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(4) of this section, the highway portion 

of the US06 driving schedule 

characterized as the ‘‘second bag’’ in 

§ 86.159–08(a). 

(C) For Class 3 vehicles, the LA–92 

driving schedule as specified in 

paragraph (c) of Appendix I of this part. 

(iii) HD–SFTP emissions are 

calculated as a composite of test results 

over these driving schedules based on 

the following calculation: 

HD–SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35·FTP + 

0.28·HDSIM + 0.37·SC03 

Where: 

HDSIM = the appropriate driving schedule 

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) 

through (C) of this section. 

(iv) You may alternatively use FTP 

emission results to substitute for the 

SC03 value in the calculation under 

paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section for a 

given vehicle for any testing under this 

section. 

(v) Hydrocarbon emission standards 

are expressed as NMOG; however, you 

may measure exhaust emissions based 

on nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of 

NMOG as described in 40 CFR 

1066.665. 

(2) Table 1 of this section describes 

fully phased-in Tier 3 standards that 

apply as specified in this paragraph (b) 

for the identified driving schedules. The 

FTP standards for NMOG+NOX apply 

on a fleet-average basis using discrete 

bin standards as described in paragraph 

(b)(4) of this section. The bin standards 

include additional emission standards 

for CO emissions, and for NMOG+NOX

standards when testing over the HD– 

SFTP driving schedule. Table 1 follows: 

TABLE 1 OF § 86.1816–18—FULLY PHASED-IN TIER 3 HDV EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

[g/mile] 

HDV Class 

Fleet-average 

NMOG+NOX

PM Formaldehyde 

FTP FTP HD–SFTP FTP 

2b ..................................................................................................................... 0.178 0.008 1 0.010 0.006 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.247 0.010 0.007 0.006 

1For vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving schedule described in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the HD–SFTP standard for PM is 0.007 g/mile instead of the value specified in the table. 

(3) The FTP standards specified in 

this section apply equally for testing at 

low-altitude conditions and highaltitude conditions. The HD–SFTP 

standards described in this section 

apply only for testing at low-altitude 

conditions. 

(4) The FTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX is based on a fleet average 

in a given model year. You must specify 

a family emission limit (FEL) for each 

test group. The FEL serves as the 

emission standard for the test group 

with respect to all required FTP testing. 

Calculate your fleet-average emission 

level as described in § 86.1860 to show 

that you meet the specified standard. 

For multi-fueled vehicles, calculate 

fleet-average emission levels based only 

on emission levels for testing with 

gasoline or diesel fuel. You may 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30075 

generate or use emission credits for 

averaging, banking, or trading as 

described in § 86.1860 for 

demonstrating compliance with the FTP 

emission standard for NMOG+NOX. You 

comply with the emission standard for 

a given model year if you have enough 

credits to show that your fleet-average 

emission level is at or below the 

applicable standard. You may exchange 

credits between or among any test 

groups subject to standards under this 

section. You may specify any of the 

FELs from Table 2 or Table 3 of this 

section for demonstrating that your 

fleet-average emission level complies 

with the FTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX. These FEL values define 

emission bins that also determine 

corresponding emission standards for 

NMOG+NOX emissions over the HD– 

SFTP driving schedule and for CO 

emissions, as follows: 

TABLE 2 OF § 86.1816–18—TIER 3 BIN STANDARDS—CLASS 2b 

[g/mile] 

FEL Name 

NMOG+NOX

CO 

FTP (FEL) HD–SFTP1 FTP HD–SFTP 

Bin 250 ............................................................................................................. 0.250 0.800 6.4 22.0 

Bin 200 ............................................................................................................. 0.200 0.800 4.2 22.0 

Bin 170 ............................................................................................................. 0.170 0.450 4.2 12.0 

Bin 150 ............................................................................................................. 0.150 0.450 3.2 12.0 

Bin 0 2 ............................................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 

1Vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving schedule described in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the following HD–SFTP bin standards for NMOG+NOX apply instead of those identified in the table: 0.350 g/mile for 

Bin 150 and Bin 170; and 0.550 g/mile for Bin 200 and Bin 250. 2Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the standards specified in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. 

TABLE 3 OF § 86.1816–18—TIER 3 BIN STANDARDS—CLASS 3 

[g/mile] 

FEL Name 

NMOG+NOX CO 

FTP (FEL) HD–SFTP FTP HD–SFTP 

Bin 400 ............................................................................................................. 0.400 0.550 7.3 6.0 

Bin 270 ............................................................................................................. 0.270 0.550 4.2 6.0 

Bin 230 ............................................................................................................. 0.230 0.350 4.2 4.0 

Bin 200 ............................................................................................................. 0.200 0.350 3.7 4.0 

Bin 0 1 ............................................................................................................... 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 

1Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the standards specified in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. 

(5) [Reserved] 

(6) The full Tier 3 program includes 

new emission standards for 

NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, and 

formaldehyde; it also includes 

measurement with a new test fuel and 

a longer useful life. Vehicles meeting all 

these requirements are considered Final 

Tier 3 vehicles. Vehicles that do not 

meet all the Tier 3 requirements are 

considered Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The 

Tier 3 PM standards phase in over 

several years. Any vehicles not subject 

to Tier 3 PM standards during the 

phase-in period must continue to 

comply with the PM standards in 

§ 86.1816–08. Paragraph (b)(7) of this 

section describes how to transition to 

Tier 3 standards for emissions other 

than PM. The following provisions 

describe the primary approach for 

phasing in the Tier 3 PM standards: 

(i) You must meet the FTP emission 

standard for PM with 20, 40, 70, and 

100 percent of your projected 

nationwide sales of all vehicles subject 

to this section in model years 2018 

through 2021, respectively. Each vehicle 

meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM 

must also meet the Tier 3 HD–SFTP 

standard for PM. 

(ii) You may disregard the phase-in 

percentages specified in paragraph 

(b)(6)(i) of this section if you instead 

comply with an indexed PM phase-in 

schedule as described in this paragraph 

(b)(6)(ii). To do this, you must notify us 

of your intent before January 1, 2018, 

and include a detailed plan for 

complying with the indexed phase-in 

schedule. You comply with the indexed 

phase-in schedule by calculating a PM 

phase-in index at or above 440 using the 

following equation for model years 2018 

through 2021: 

PM phase-in index = 4·APP2018 + 

3·APP2019 + 2·APP2020 + APP2021

Where: 

APP = The actual phase-in percentage of 

vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards 

for the indicated model year, based on 

actual sales, as described in paragraph 

(b)(6)(i) of this section. 

(iii) You may alternatively ask us to 

approve calculation of the annual 

percentage for a given model year based 

on production volumes instead of sales 

volumes. 

(iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM 

standards must meet those standards 

over the useful life as specified in 

§ 86.1805–17. Note that Interim Tier 3 

vehicles may have different useful life 

values for PM emission standards than 

for other emission standards. 

(v) Measure PM emissions from all 

vehicles using the same test fuel used 

for measuring NMOG+NOX emissions. 

(vi) You may certify Interim Tier 3 

vehicles based on carryover data. 

(vii) You may use the alternative 

phase-in provisions described in 

paragraph (b)(8) of this section to 

transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission 

standards on a different schedule. 

(7) The following provisions describe 

the primary approach for phasing in the 

Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2022 

and earlier model years: 

(i) The fleet-average FTP emission 

standard for NMOG+NOX phases in over 

several years as described in this 

paragraph (b)(7)(i). You must identify 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30076 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

FELs as described in paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section and calculate a fleet-average 

emission level to show that you meet 

the FTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX that applies for each 

model year. You may certify using 

transitional bin standards specified in 

Table 5 of this section through model 

year 2021; include these vehicles in the 

fleet-average calculation by treating the 

sum of the NMOG and NOX emission 

standards as the Family Emission Limit 

under § 86.1860. You may alternatively 

use the E0 test fuel specified in § 86.113 

for vehicles certified to the transitional 

bins; the useful life period for these 

vehicles is 120,000 miles or 11 years. 

Fleet-average FTP emission standards 

decrease as shown in the following 

table: 

TABLE 4 OF § 86.1816–18—DECLINING FLEET-AVERAGE FTP EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR NMOG+NOX

[g/mile] 

Model 

year Class 2b Class 3 

2016 1 ........ 0.333 0.548 

2017 1 ........ 0.310 0.508 

2018 .......... 0.278 0.451 

2019 .......... 0.253 0.400 

TABLE 4 OF § 86.1816–18—DECLINING FLEET-AVERAGE FTP EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR NMOG+NOX— 

Continued 

[g/mile] 

Model 

year Class 2b Class 3 

2020 .......... 0.228 0.349 

2021 .......... 0.203 0.298 

2022 .......... 0.178 0.247 

1Fleet-average standards are shown for 

2016 and 2017 for purposes of voluntary early 

compliance as described in paragraph (b)(10) 

of this section. 

TABLE 5 OF § 86.1816–18—TRANSITIONAL TIER 3 FTP BIN STANDARDS

[g/mile] 1

Class FEL name NMOG NOX PM CO Formaldehyde 

2b ...................................... Bin 395 0.195 0.200 0.012 6.4 0.032 

Bin 340 0.140 0.200 0.012 6.4 0.032 

3 ........................................ Bin 630 0.230 0.400 0.012 7.3 0.040 

Bin 570 0.170 0.400 0.012 7.3 0.040 

1Vehicles certified to Transitional Tier 3 FTP bins are not subject to HD–SFTP standards. 

(ii) You may use the alternative 

phase-in provisions described in 

paragraph (b)(8) of this section to 

transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission 

standards on a different schedule. 

(8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an 

alternative approach to phasing in all 

the Tier 3 emission standards. If you 

choose this approach, you must phase 

in the Tier 3 standards for all your 

vehicles subject to this section 

according to this schedule. You may 

meet the standards specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section 

according to the phase-in schedule 

specified in Table 6 of this section based 

on the indicated percentage of your 

projected nationwide sales in each 

model year. These vehicles must meet 

the applicable FTP emission standard 

for CO and the HD–SFTP emissions 

standards for NMOG+NOX and CO that 

apply for Class 2b Bin 170 and Class 3 

Bin 230 as described in paragraph (b)(4) 

of this section. You may use averaging, 

banking, and trading relative to the Tier 

3 FTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX during the phase-in 

period, but only if all the vehicles 

certified under § 86.1816–08 have FELs 

that are at or below the applicable 

NMHC and NOX standards. Any 

vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards 

during the phase-in period must 

continue to comply with the gaseous 

exhaust emission standards in 

§ 86.1816–08. Each vehicle counting 

toward the PM phase-in percentage 

under this paragraph (b)(8) in model 

years 2019 and 2020 must also be 

included in the portion of the fleet 

meeting the Tier 3 standards for 

pollutants other than PM. Each vehicle 

counting toward the phase-in 

percentage for any pollutant must use 

the Tier 3 test fuel specified in § 86.113– 

07. To generate emission credits during 

the phase-in period, all pre-Tier 3 

vehicles must have FELs at or below the 

NOX and NMHC standards in § 86.1816– 

08. Determine emission credits by 

calculating fleet-average emission levels 

for Tier 3 and pre-Tier 3 vehicles 

together; for pre-Tier 3 vehicles use an 

NMOG+NOX equivalent FEL of 0.395 

g/mile for Class 2b vehicles and 0.630 

g/mile for Class 3 vehicles. You may 

optionally meet the Tier 3 standards 

before model year 2019. 

TABLE 6 OF § 86.1816–18 

[Alternative Phase-In Schedule] 

Model year 

Class 2b Class 3 

PM Other than PM 

(percent) PM Other than PM (percent) 

2019 ......................................................................................... 40 65 40 60 

2020 ......................................................................................... 70 77 70 73 

2021 ......................................................................................... 100 88 100 87 

2022 ......................................................................................... 100 100 100 100 

(9) You may not use credits generated 

from vehicles certified under § 86.1816– 

08 for demonstrating compliance with 

the Tier 3 standards. 

(10) [Reserved] 

(11) You may voluntarily certify your 

vehicles under this section in model 

years 2016 and 2017. If you do this, the 

fleet-average FTP emission standards for 

NMOG+NOX apply to all your complete 

heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR as specified in paragraph 

(b)(7)(i) of this section. Use any of the 

available bin standards as described in 

this section. Vehicles certified under 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30077 

this paragraph (b)(10) must comply with 

the PM standards specified in 

§ 86.1816–08 instead of the Tier 3 p.m. 

standards specified in this section. 

(12) Keep records as needed to show 

that you meet the requirements 

specified in this paragraph (b) for 

phasing in standards and for complying 

with declining fleet-average average 

standards. 

(c) Highway NMOG+NOX exhaust 

emission standard. NMOG+NOX

emissions measured on the highway test 

cycle in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, 

may not exceed the applicable 

NMOG+NOX bin standard for FTP 

testing. Demonstrate compliance with 

this standard for low-mileage vehicles 

by applying the appropriate 

deterioration factor. 

(d) Provisions for Otto-cycle engines. 

The special provisions described in 

§ 86.1811–17(d) apply to vehicles with 

Otto-cycle engines that are certified 

under this section. 

(e) Small-volume manufacturers. 

Small-volume manufacturers meeting 

the eligibility requirements in § 86.1838 

may delay complying with the 

requirements in this section until model 

year 2022. This also applies for 

continuing to use the E0 test fuel 

specified in § 86.113 through model 

year 2021. If meeting the Tier 3 

standards in model year 2022 would 

cause severe economic hardship, such 

manufacturers may ask us to approve an 

extended compliance deadline under 

the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, 

except that the solvency criterion does 

not apply and there is no maximum 

duration of the hardship relief. 

■ 163. Section § 86.1817–08 is amended 

by revising the introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 86.1817–08 Complete heavy-duty vehicle 

averaging, trading, and banking program. 

Section 86.1817–08 includes text that 

specifies requirements that differ from 

§ 86.1817–05. Where a paragraph in 

§ 86.1817–05 is identical and applicable 

to § 86.1817–08, this may be indicated 

by specifying the corresponding 

paragraph and the statement 

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see 

§ 86.1817–05.’’ This section does not 

apply for NOX or NMOG+NOX

emissions for vehicles certified to the 

Tier 3 standards in § 86.1816–18, 

including those vehicles that certify to 

the Tier 3 standards before model year 

2018. 

* * * * * 

■ 164. Section 86.1818–12 is amended 

by revising paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1818–12 Greenhouse gas emission 

standards for light-duty vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles. 

(a) Applicability. (1) This section 

contains standards and other regulations 

applicable to the emission of the air 

pollutant defined as the aggregate group 

of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, 

nitrous oxide, methane, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, 

and sulfur hexafluoride. This section 

applies to 2012 and later model year 

LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs, including 

multi-fuel vehicles, vehicles fueled with 

alternative fuels, hybrid electric 

vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric 

vehicles, electric vehicles, and fuel cell 

vehicles. Unless otherwise specified, 

multi-fuel vehicles must comply with 

all requirements established for each 

consumed fuel. The provisions of this 

section, except paragraph (c), also apply 

to clean alternative fuel conversions as 

defined in 40 CFR 85.502, of all model 

year light-duty vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles. Manufacturers that qualify as a 

small business according to the 

requirements of § 86.1801–12(j) are 

exempt from the emission standards in 

this section. Manufacturers that have 

submitted a declaration for a model year 

according to the requirements of 

§ 86.1801–12(k) for which approval has 

been granted by the Administrator are 

conditionally exempt from the emission 

standards in paragraphs (c) through (e) 

of this section for the approved model 

year. 

(2) The standards specified in this 

section apply only for testing at lowaltitude conditions. However, 

manufacturers must submit an 

engineering evaluation indicating that 

common calibration approaches are 

utilized at high altitude. Any deviation 

from low altitude emission control 

practices must be included in the 

auxiliary emission control device 

(AECD) descriptions submitted at 

certification. Any AECD specific to high 

altitude requires engineering emission 

data for EPA evaluation to quantify any 

emission impact and determine the 

validity of the AECD. 

* * * * * 

■ 165. Section § 86.1821–01 is amended 

by adding paragraph (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1821–01 Evaporative/refueling family 

determination. 

* * * * * 

(f) For vehicles to be classed in the 

same leak family, they must be similar 

with respect to the items listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section and use the 

same OBD method for detecting leaks. 

■ 166. Section § 86.1823–08 is amended 

by revising paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1823–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for exhaust emissions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Emission component durability. 

The manufacturer shall use good 

engineering judgment to determine that 

all emission-related components are 

designed to operate properly for the full 

useful life of the vehicles in actual use. 

* * * * * 

■ 167. Section § 86.1824–08 is amended 

by revising paragraphs (a), (f)(1), and (h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.1824–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for evaporative emissions. 

* * * * * 

(a) Durability program objective. The 

durability program must predict an 

expected in-use emission deterioration 

rate and emission level that effectively 

represents a significant majority of the 

distribution of emission levels and 

deterioration in actual use over the full 

useful life of candidate in-use vehicles 

of each vehicle design which uses the 

durability program. This requirement 

applies for all SHED-based 

measurements. It does not apply for 

spitback or leak standards. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) For gasoline fueled vehicles 

certified to meet the evaporative 

emission standards set forth in this 

subpart, any mileage accumulation 

method for evaporative emissions must 

employ gasoline fuel for the entire 

mileage accumulation period which 

contains ethanol in, at least, the highest 

concentration permissible in gasoline 

under federal law and that is 

commercially available in any state in 

the United States. Unless otherwise 

approved by the Administrator, the 

manufacturer must determine the 

appropriate ethanol concentration by 

selecting the highest legal concentration 

commercially available during the 

calendar year before the one in which 

the manufacturer begins its mileage 

accumulation. The manufacturer must 

also provide information acceptable to 

the Administrator to indicate that the 

mileage accumulation method is of 

sufficient design, duration and severity 

to stabilize the permeability of all nonmetallic fuel and evaporative system 

components to the mileage 

accumulation fuel constituents. 

* * * * * 

(h) Emission component durability. 

The manufacturer shall use good 

engineering judgment to determine that 

all emission-related components are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30078 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

designed to operate properly for the full 

useful life of the vehicles in actual use. 

* * * * * 

■ 168. Section § 86.1825–08 is amended 

by revising paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1825–08 Durability demonstration 

procedures for refueling emissions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Emission component durability. 

The manufacturer shall use good 

engineering judgment to determine that 

all emission-related components are 

designed to operate properly for the full 

useful life of the vehicles in actual use. 

* * * * * 

■ 169. Section § 86.1826–01 is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.1826–01 Assigned deterioration 

factors for small-volume manufacturers and 

small-volume test groups. 

(a) Applicability. This program is an 

option available for small-volume 

manufacturers and small-volume test 

groups as described in § 86.1838. 

(b) Determination of deterioration 

factors. No service accumulation 

method or vehicle/component selection 

method is required. Deterioration factors 

for all types of regulated emissions are 

assigned using the provisions in this 

paragraph (b). A separate assigned 

deterioration factor is required for each 

durability group. Manufacturers shall 

use good engineering judgment in 

applying deterioration factors. 

Manufacturers may use assigned 

deterioration factors that the 

Administrator determines and 

prescribes. 

(1) The deterioration factors will be 

the Administrator’s estimate, 

periodically updated and published in a 

guidance document, of the 70th 

percentile deterioration factors 

calculated using the industry-wide 

database of previously completed 

durability data vehicles or engines used 

for certification. 

(2) The Administrator may use 

discretion to develop assigned 

deterioration factors using alternative 

methods if there is insufficient 

information to calculate an appropriate 

industry-wide deterioration factor (for 

example: A new engine technology 

coupled with a proven emission control 

system). These methods may include 

the use of assigned deterioration factors 

based on similar durability vehicles. 

(3) Alternatively, with advance 

approval from the Administrator, a 

manufacturer may use deterioration 

factors developed by another 

manufacturer. The manufacturer seeking 

to use these deterioration factors must— 

(i) Demonstrate that the engines from 

the two manufacturers share technical 

parameters to the degree that would 

support the conclusion that a common 

deterioration factor should apply for 

both vehicle configurations as defined 

in § 86.1803. 

(ii) Provide supporting information, 

such as histograms of exhaust 

temperature data, comparisons of 

vehicle weight and road load 

horsepower, or comparisons of 

powertrains and emission control 

systems. 

■ 170. Section 86.1828–01 is amended 

by removing and reserving paragraph (d) 

and adding paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1828–01 Emission data vehicle 

selection. 

* * * * * 

(g) Cold temperature NMHC testing. 

For cold temperature NMHC exhaust 

emission compliance for each durability 

group, the manufacturer must select the 

vehicle expected to emit the highest 

NMHC emissions at 20 °F on candidate 

in-use vehicles from the test vehicles 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. When the expected worst-case 

cold temperature NMHC vehicle is also 

the expected worst-case cold 

temperature CO vehicle as selected in 

paragraph (c) of this section, then cold 

testing is required only for that vehicle; 

otherwise, testing is required for both 

the worst-case cold temperature CO 

vehicle and the worst-case cold 

temperature NMHC vehicle. 

■ 171. Section 86.1829–01 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C). 

■ b. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(i). 

■ c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv). 

■ d. By revising paragraph (b)(4). 

■ f. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (d). 

§ 86.1829–01 Durability and emission 

testing requirements; waivers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Testing at low altitude. One EDV in 

each evaporative/refueling family and 

evaporative/refueling emission control 

system combination must be tested in 

accordance with the evaporative/ 

refueling test procedure requirement of 

subpart B of this part. The configuration 

of the EDV will be determined under the 

provisions of § 86.1828–01. The EDV 

must also be tested for exhaust emission 

compliance using the FTP and SFTP 

procedures of subpart B of this part. In 

lieu of testing natural gas or hydrogen 

fueled vehicles to demonstrate 

compliance with the evaporative and 

refueling emission standards specified 

in this subpart, a manufacturer may 

provide a statement in its application 

for certification that, based on the 

manufacturer’s engineering evaluation 

of appropriate testing and/or design 

parameters, all light-duty vehicles, lightduty trucks, and complete heavy-duty 

vehicles comply with applicable 

emission standards. This same testing 

exemption applies for vehicles fueled by 

liquefied petroleum gas, except that 

refueling tests are required for systems 

that allow venting during the refueling 

operation. 

* * * * * 

(iv) For diesel-fueled vehicles, a 

manufacturer may provide a statement 

in the application for certification that 

vehicles comply with the refueling 

emission standard instead of submitting 

test data. Such a statement must be 

based on previous emission tests, 

development tests, or other appropriate 

information, and good engineering 

judgment. 

* * * * * 

(4) Electric vehicles and fuel cell 

vehicles. For electric vehicles and fuel 

cell vehicles, manufacturers may 

provide a statement in the application 

for certification that vehicles comply 

with all the requirements of this subpart 

instead of submitting test data. Such a 

statement must be based on previous 

emission tests, development tests, or 

other appropriate information, and good 

engineering judgment. 

* * * * * 

■ 172. A new § 86.1829–17 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1829–17 Durability and emission 

testing requirements; waivers. 

This section describes general testing 

requirements for certifying vehicles 

under this subpart, and includes several 

provisions allowing for statements of 

compliance instead of testing in certain 

circumstances. Where a manufacturer 

provides a statement instead of test data 

under this section, it must be based on 

previous emission tests, development 

tests, or other appropriate information, 

and good engineering judgment. 

(a) One durability demonstration is 

required for each durability group. The 

configuration of the DDV is determined 

according to § 86.1822. The DDV shall 

be tested and accumulate service 

mileage according to the provisions of 

§§ 86.1823, 86.1824, 86.1825, and 

86.1831. Small volume manufacturers 

and small volume test groups may 

optionally use the alternative durability 

provisions of § 86.1838. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30079 

(b) The manufacturer must test EDVs 

as follows to demonstrate compliance 

with emission standards: 

(1) Test one EDV in each durability 

group using the test procedures in 40 

CFR part 1066 to demonstrate 

compliance with cold temperature CO 

and NMHC exhaust emission standards. 

(2) Test one EDV in each test group 

using the FTP and SFTP test procedures 

in 40 CFR part 1066 and the HFET test 

procedures of 40 CFR part 600, subpart 

B, to demonstrate compliance with 

other exhaust emission standards. 

(3) Test one EDV in each evaporative/ 

refueling family and evaporative/ 

refueling emission control system 

combination using the test procedures 

in subpart B of this part to demonstrate 

compliance with evaporative and 

refueling emission standards. 

(c) The manufacturer must 

demonstrate compliance with emission 

standards at low-altitude conditions as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. For standards that apply at 

high-altitude conditions, the 

manufacturer may either perform the 

same tests or provide a statement in the 

application for certification that, based 

on an engineering evaluation of 

appropriate testing to measure or 

simulate high-altitude emissions, all 

vehicles comply with applicable 

emission standards at high altitude. 

(d) Manufacturers may omit exhaust 

testing for certification in certain 

circumstances as follows: 

(1) For vehicles subject to the Tier 3 

p.m. standards in §§ 86.1811, a 

manufacturer may provide a statement 

in the application for certification that 

vehicles comply with applicable PM 

standards instead of submitting PM test 

data for a certain number of vehicles as 

follows: 

(i) Except as noted in paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section, manufacturers 

must submit PM test data for at least 25 

percent of its durability data groups that 

are subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards 

in § 86.1811–17. For example, if a 

manufacturer has a mix of light-duty 

vehicles and light-duty trucks divided 

over a total of nine durability data 

groups in a given model year, three of 

them would need PM data for 

certification in that model year. EPA 

will work with the manufacturer to 

select durability data groups for testing, 

with the general expectation that testing 

will rotate to cover all of a 

manufacturer’s product line over time. If 

a durability data group has been 

certified in an earlier model year based 

on submitted PM data, and that 

durability data group is eligible for 

certification using carryover test data, 

that carryover data may count toward 

meeting the requirements of this 

paragraph (d)(1)(i), subject to the 

selection of durability data groups. 

(ii) In every model year that 

manufacturers have only one or two 

durability data groups subject to the 

Tier 3 p.m. standards, they must submit 

PM test data for certifying all their 

durability data groups. If manufacturers 

have three durability data groups 

subject to the Tier 3 p.m. standards in 

a given model year, they must submit 

PM test data for at least two of those 

durability data groups. 

(2) Small-volume manufacturers may 

provide a statement in the application 

for certification that vehicles comply 

with the applicable PM standard instead 

of submitting test data. 

(3) Manufacturers may omit PM 

measurements for fuel economy and 

GHG testing conducted in addition to 

the testing needed to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM emission 

standards. 

(4) Manufacturers may provide a 

statement in the application for 

certification that vehicles comply with 

the applicable formaldehyde standard 

instead of submitting test data. 

(5) When conducting Selective 

Enforcement Audit testing, a 

manufacturer may petition the 

Administrator to waive the requirement 

to measure PM emissions and 

formaldehyde emissions. 

(e) Manufacturers may omit 

evaporative or refueling testing for 

certification in certain circumstances as 

follows: 

(1) For diesel-fueled vehicles, a 

manufacturer may provide a statement 

in the application for certification that 

vehicles comply with the refueling 

emission standard instead of submitting 

test data. 

(2) For vehicles fueled by natural gas, 

a manufacturer may provide a statement 

in the application for certification that 

vehicles comply with evaporative 

emission standards instead of 

submitting test data. Vehicles fueled by 

liquefied petroleum gas are similarly 

exempted from submitting test data for 

the evaporative and refueling emission 

standards, except that refueling tests are 

required for systems that allow venting 

during the refueling operation. 

(3) Manufacturers may provide a 

statement in the application for 

certification that vehicles comply with 

the leak standard in § 86.1813 instead of 

submitting test data. 

(4) For vehicles certified to the 

refueling emission standards in 

§§ 86.1811 or 86.1813, a manufacturer 

may provide a statement in the 

application for certification that 

vehicles comply with the fuel 

dispensing spitback standard instead of 

submitting test data. 

(5) In lieu of testing vehicles for the 

supplemental two-diurnal test sequence, 

a manufacturer may optionally provide 

a statement of compliance in its 

application for certification that, based 

on the manufacturer’s good engineering 

judgment, all vehicles in the 

evaporative/refueling emission family 

comply with the evaporative emission 

standard for the supplemental twodiurnal test sequence. 

(i) The option to provide a statement 

of compliance in lieu of 2-diurnal 

evaporative certification test data is 

limited to vehicles with conventional 

evaporative emission control systems 

(as determined by the Administrator). 

EPA may perform confirmatory 2- 

diurnal evaporative emission testing on 

test vehicles certified using this option. 

If data shows noncompliance, it will be 

addressed through § 86.1851. Also, if 

data shows noncompliance, EPA will 

generally disallow subsequent waivers 

for the applicable evaporative family. 

(ii) Manufacturers shall supply 

information if requested by EPA in 

support of the statement of compliance 

described in this paragraph (d)(12). This 

information shall include evaporative 

calibration information for the emissiondata vehicle and for other vehicles in 

the evaporative/refueling family, 

including, but not limited to, canister 

type, canister volume, canister working 

capacity, fuel tank volume, fuel tank 

geometry, the type of fuel delivery 

system (return, returnless, variable flow 

fuel pump, etc.), a description of the 

input parameters and software strategy 

used to control the evaporative canister 

purge, the nominal purge flow volume 

(in bed volumes) when vehicles are 

driven over the 2-diurnal (FTP) driving 

cycle, the nominal purge flow volume 

(in bed volumes) when vehicles are 

driven over the 3-diurnal (FTP + 

running loss) driving cycle, and other 

supporting information as necessary to 

demonstrate that the purge flow rate 

calibration on the 2-diurnal test 

sequence is adequate to comply with the 

evaporative emission standard for the 

supplemental two-diurnal test sequence. 

(6) Where a California evaporative 

emission standard is at least as stringent 

as a comparable federal evaporative 

emission standard for a vehicle, we may 

accept test data demonstrating 

compliance with the California standard 

as demonstrating compliance with the 

comparable standard under this subpart. 

We may require you to provide test data 

clearly demonstrating that a vehicle 

tested using the California-specified test 

procedures will meet the comparable 

standard under this subpart when tested 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30080 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

using the test procedures specified in 

this part. 

(7) Through model year 2019, we may 

accept test data demonstrating 

compliance with the California refueling 

emission standard as demonstrating 

compliance with the analogous 

refueling emission standard under this 

subpart if all the following conditions 

apply: 

(i) You certified the vehicles in model 

year 2016 to California’s refueling 

emission standards. 

(ii) You are certifying the vehicles to 

refueling standards for the new model 

year based on carryover data instead of 

performing new testing. 

(iii) You are also certifying the 

vehicles for evaporative emissions based 

on California test procedures under the 

provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of this 

section, 

(f) For electric vehicles and fuel cell 

vehicles, manufacturers may provide a 

statement in the application for 

certification that vehicles comply with 

all the requirements of this subpart 

instead of submitting test data. 

■ 173. Section 86.1837–01 is amended 

by revising paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1837–01 Rounding of emission 

measurements. 

(a) Unless otherwise specified, the 

results of all emission tests shall be 

rounded to the number of places to the 

right of the decimal point indicated by 

expressing the applicable emission 

standard of this subpart to one 

additional significant figure, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1065.20. 

* * * * * 

■ 174. Section 86.1838–01 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.1838–01 Small-volume manufacturer 

certification procedures. 

(a) The small-volume manufacturer 

certification procedures described in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are 

optional. Small-volume manufacturers 

may use these optional procedures to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

general standards and specific emission 

requirements contained in this subpart. 

(b) Eligibility requirements—(1) 

Small-volume manufacturers. (i) 

Optional small-volume manufacturer 

certification procedures apply for 

vehicles produced by manufacturers 

with the following number of combined 

sales of vehicles subject to standards 

under this subpart in all states and 

territories of the United States in the 

model year for which certification is 

sought, including all vehicles and 

engines imported under the provisions 

of 40 CFR 85.1505 and 85.1509: 

(A) 5,000 units for the Tier 3 

standards described in §§ 86.1811–17, 

86.1813–17, and 86.1816–18. This is 

based on average nationwide sales 

volumes for model years 2012 through 

2014 for manufacturers that sell vehicles 

in model year 2012. The provision 

allowing delayed compliance with the 

Tier 3 standards applies for qualifying 

companies even if sales after model year 

2014 increase beyond 5,000 units. 

Manufacturers with no sales in model 

year 2012 may instead rely on projected 

sales volumes; however, if nationwide 

sales exceed an average value of 5,000 

units in any three consecutive model 

years, the manufacturer is no longer 

eligible for provisions that apply to 

small-volume manufacturers after two 

additional model years. For example, if 

actual sales in model years 2015 

through 2017 exceed 5,000 units, the 

small-volume provisions would no 

longer apply starting in model year 

2020. 

(B) 15,000 units for all other 

requirements. 

(ii) If a manufacturer’s aggregated 

sales in the United States, as determined 

in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are 

fewer than the number of units specified 

in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the 

manufacturer (or each manufacturer in 

the case of manufacturers in an 

aggregated relationship) may certify 

under the provisions of paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(iii) A manufacturers that qualifies as 

a small business under the Small 

Business Administration regulations in 

13 CFR part 121 is eligible for all the 

provisions that apply for small-volume 

manufacturers under this subpart. See 

§ 86.1801–12(j) to determine whether 

companies qualify as small businesses. 

(iv) The sales volumes specified in 

this section are based on actual sales, 

unless otherwise specified. 

(v) Except for delayed implementation 

of new emission standards, an eligible 

manufacturer must transition out of the 

special provisions that apply for smallvolume manufacturers as described in 

§ 86.1801–12(k)(2)(i) through (iii) if 

sales volumes increase above the 

applicable threshold. 

(2) Small-volume test groups. (i) If the 

aggregated sales in all states and 

territories of the United States, as 

determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section are equal to or greater than 

15,000 units, then the manufacturer (or 

each manufacturer in the case of 

manufacturers in an aggregated 

relationship) will be allowed to certify 

a number of units under the smallvolume test group certification 

procedures in accordance with the 

criteria identified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) 

through (iv) of this section. 

(ii) If there are no additional 

manufacturers in an aggregated 

relationship meeting the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, then the 

manufacturer may certify whole test 

groups whose total aggregated sales 

(including heavy-duty engines) are less 

than 15,000 units using the smallvolume provisions of paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(iii) If there is an aggregated 

relationship with another manufacturer 

which satisfies the provisions of 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, then the 

following provisions shall apply: 

(A) If none of the manufacturers own 

50 percent or more of another 

manufacturer in the aggregated 

relationship, then each manufacturer 

may certify whole test groups whose 

total aggregated sales (including heavyduty engines) are less than 15,000 units 

using the small-volume provisions of 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(B) If any of the manufacturers own 50 

percent or more of another manufacturer 

in the aggregated relationship, then the 

limit of 14,999 units must be shared 

among the manufacturers in such a 

relationship. In total for all the 

manufacturers involved in such a 

relationship, aggregated sales (including 

heavy-duty engines) of up to 14,999 

units may be certified using the smallvolume provisions of paragraph (c) of 

this section. Only whole test groups 

shall be eligible for small-volume status 

under paragraph (c) of this section. 

(iv) In the case of a joint venture 

arrangement (50/50 ownership) between 

two manufacturers, each manufacturer 

retains its eligibility for 14,999 units 

under the small-volume test group 

certification procedures, but the joint 

venture must draw its maximum 14,999 

units from the units allocated to its 

parent manufacturers. Only whole test 

groups shall be eligible for smallvolume status under paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(3) Sales aggregation for related 

manufacturers. The projected or actual 

sales from different firms shall be 

aggregated in the following situations: 

(i) Vehicles and/or engines produced 

by two or more firms, one of which is 

10 percent or greater part owned by 

another; 

(ii) Vehicles and/or engines produced 

by any two or more firms if a third party 

has equity ownership of 10 percent or 

more in each of the firms; 

(iii) Vehicles and/or engines produced 

by two or more firms having a common 

corporate officer(s) who is (are) 

responsible for the overall direction of 

the companies; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30081 

(iv) Vehicles and/or engines imported 

or distributed by all firms where the 

vehicles and/or engines are 

manufactured by the same entity and 

the importer or distributor is an 

authorized agent of the entity. 

(c) Small-volume manufacturers and 

small-volume test groups shall 

demonstrate compliance with all 

applicable sections of this subpart, 

except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) of this section. Small-volume 

manufacturers and small-volume test 

groups may optionally meet the 

following requirements: 

(1) Durability demonstration. Use the 

provisions of § 86.1826 rather than the 

requirements of §§ 86.1823, 86.1824, 

and 86.1825. 

(2) In-use verification testing. 

Requirements for testing in-use vehicles 

apply as described in § 86.1845, subject 

to the following additional provisions 

for small-volume manufacturers and 

small-volume test groups: 

(i) Small-volume in-use verification 

test vehicles may be procured from 

customers or may be owned by, or 

under the control of the manufacturer, 

provided that the vehicle has 

accumulated mileage in typical 

operation on public streets and has 

received typical maintenance. 

(ii) In lieu of procuring small-volume 

in-use verification test vehicles that 

have a minimum odometer reading of 

50,000 miles, a manufacturer may 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 

Agency that, based on owner survey 

data, the average mileage accumulated 

after 4 years for a given test group is less 

than 50,000 miles. The Agency may 

approve a lower minimum odometer 

reading based on such data. 

(iii) The provisions of § 86.1845– 

04(c)(2) that require one vehicle of each 

test group during high mileage in-use 

verification testing to have a minimum 

odometer mileage do not apply. 

(iv) Manufacturers intending to use 

the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or 

(ii) of this section shall submit to the 

Agency, prior to the certification of the 

subject vehicles, a plan detailing how 

these provisions will be met. 

■ 175. Section 86.1843–01 is amended 

by revising paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1843–01 General information 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) Recordkeeping. (1) This subpart 

includes various requirements to record 

data or other information. Unless we 

specify otherwise, store these records in 

any format and on any media and keep 

them readily available for eight years 

after you send an associated application 

for certification, or eight years after you 

generate the data if they do not support 

an application for certification. You 

must promptly send us organized, 

written records in English upon request. 

We may review them at any time. 

(2) Upon written request by the 

Administrator, a manufacturer shall 

submit any information as described in 

§ 86.1844–01 within 15 business days. A 

manufacturer may request the 

Administrator to grant an extension. 

The request must clearly indicate the 

circumstances necessitating the 

extension. 

* * * * * 

■ 176. Section 86.1844–01 is amended 

by revising paragraphs (a), (d)(7), (d)(8), 

(d)(9), (d)(11), and (d)(16)(i) 

introductory text, removing paragraph 

(d)(16)(iv), and adding paragraph (e)(7) 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.1844–01 Information requirements: 

Application for certification and submittal of 

information upon request. 

(a) All the information listed in this 

section must be submitted to the Agency 

according to the requirements specified 

in § 86.1843; however, we may ask you 

to include less information than we 

specify, as long as you keep the 

specified records. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(7) A comprehensive list of all test 

results, including official certification 

levels, and the applicable intermediate 

and full useful life emission standards 

to which the test group is to be certified 

as required in § 86.1829–01. Also 

include a comparison of drive cycle 

energy and target cycle energy relative 

to both inertia and road load forces as 

specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each 

drive cycle or test phase, as appropriate. 

(8) A statement that all applicable 

vehicles will conform to the emission 

standards for which emission data is not 

being provided, as allowed under 

§ 86.1806 or § 86.1829. The statement 

shall clearly identify the standards for 

which emission testing was not 

completed. 

(9) Information describing each 

emission control diagnostic system 

required by § 86.1806, including all of 

the following: 

(i) A description of the functional 

operation characteristics of the 

diagnostic system, with additional 

information demonstrating that the 

system meets the requirements specified 

in § 86.1806. Include all testing and 

demonstration data submitted to the 

California Air Resources Board for 

certification. 

(ii) The general method of detecting 

malfunctions for each emission-related 

powertrain component. 

(iii) Any deficiencies, including 

resolution plans and schedules. 

(iv) A statement that the diagnostic 

system is adequate for the performance 

warranty test described in 40 CFR part 

85, subpart W. 

(v) For vehicles certified to meet the 

leak standard in § 86.1813, a description 

of the anticipated test procedure. The 

description must include, at a 

minimum, a method for accessing the 

fuel system for measurements, and a 

method for pressurizing the fuel system 

to perform the procedure specified in 40 

CFR 1066.840 without involving the 

fuel cap or filler neck. 

* * * * * 

(11) A list of all auxiliary emission 

control devices (AECD) installed on any 

applicable vehicles, including a 

justification for each AECD, the 

parameters they sense and control, a 

detailed justification of each AECD that 

results in a reduction in effectiveness of 

the emission control system, and 

rationale for why it is not a defeat 

device as defined under § 86.1809. The 

following specific provisions apply for 

AECDs: 

(i) For any AECD uniquely used at 

high altitudes, EPA may request 

engineering emission data to quantify 

any emission impact and validity of the 

AECD. 

(ii) For any AECD uniquely used on 

multi-fuel vehicles when operated on 

fuels other than gasoline, EPA may 

request engineering emission data to 

quantify any emission impact and 

validity of the AECD. 

(iii) For Tier 3 vehicles with sparkignition engines, describe how AECDs 

are designed to comply with the 

requirements of § 86.1811–17(d). 

Identify which components need 

protection through enrichment 

strategies; describe the temperature 

limitations for those components; and 

describe how the enrichment strategy 

corresponds to those temperature 

limitations. We may also require 

manufacturers to submit this 

information for certification related to 

Tier 2 vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(16) * * * 

(i) A statement indicating that the 

manufacturer has conducted an 

engineering analysis of the complete 

exhaust system to ensure that the 

exhaust system has been designed: 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30082 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(7) The results of any production 

vehicle evaluation testing required for 

OBD systems under § 86.1806. 

* * * * * 

§ 86.1845–01 [Removed] 

■ 177. Remove § 86.1845–01. 

■ 178. Section 86.1845–04 is amended 

by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3) 

introductory text, (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), 

(b)(7), and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 86.1845–04 Manufacturer in-use 

verification testing requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The following provisions apply 

regarding the possibility of residual 

effects from varying fuel sulfur levels: 

(i) Vehicles certified to Tier 3 

standards under § 86.1811 must always 

measure emissions over the FTP, then 

over the HFET (if applicable), then over 

the US06 portion of the SFTP. If a Tier 

3 vehicle meets all the applicable 

emission standards except the FTP or 

HFET emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX, and a fuel sample from 

the tested vehicle (representing the asreceived condition) has a measured fuel 

sulfur level exceeding 15 ppm when 

measured as described in 40 CFR 

1065.710, the manufacturer may repeat 

the FTP and HFET measurements and 

use the new emission values as the 

official results for that vehicle. For all 

other cases of testing Tier 3 vehicles, 

measured emission levels from the first 

test will be considered the official 

results for the test vehicle, regardless of 

any test results from additional test 

runs. Where repeat testing is allowed, 

the vehicle may operate for up to two 

US06 cycles (with or without 

measurement) before repeating the FTP 

and HFET measurements. The repeat 

measurements must include both FTP 

and HFET, even if the vehicle failed 

only one of those tests, unless the HFET 

is not required for a particular vehicle. 

Tier 3 vehicles may not undergo any 

other vehicle preconditioning to 

eliminate fuel sulfur effects on the 

emission control system, unless we 

approve it in advance. 

(ii) Upon a manufacturer’s written 

request, prior to in-use testing, that 

presents information to EPA regarding 

pre-conditioning procedures designed 

solely to remove the effects of high 

sulfur in gasoline from vehicles 

produced through the 2007 model year, 

EPA will consider allowing such 

procedures on a case-by-case basis. 

EPA’s decision will apply to 

manufacturer in-use testing conducted 

under this section and to any in-use 

testing conducted by EPA. Such 

procedures are not available for 

complete HDVs. For model year 2007 

and later Tier 2 vehicles, this provision 

can be used only in American Samoa, 

Guam, and the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and then 

only if low sulfur gasoline is determined 

by the Administrator to be unavailable 

in that specific location. 

(b) * * * 

(3) Number of test vehicles. For each 

test group, the minimum number of 

vehicles that must be tested is specified 

in Table S04–06 and Table S04–07 of 

this paragraph (b)(3). After testing the 

minimum number of vehicles of a 

specific test group as specified in Table 

S04–06 or S04–07 of this paragraph 

(b)(3), a manufacturer may test 

additional vehicles upon request and 

approval by the Agency prior to the 

initiation of the additional testing. Any 

additional testing must be completed 

within the testing completion 

requirements shown in § 86.1845– 

04(b)(4). The request and Agency 

approval (if any) shall apply to test 

groups on a case by case basis and apply 

only to testing under this paragraph. 

Separate approval will be required to 

test additional vehicles under paragraph 

(c) of this section. In addition to any 

testing that is required under Table 

S04–06 and Table S04–07, a 

manufacturer shall test one vehicle from 

each evaporative/refueling family for 

evaporative/refueling emissions. If a 

manufacturer believes it is unable to 

procure the test vehicles necessary to 

test the required number of vehicles in 

a test group, the manufacturer may 

request, subject to Administrator 

approval, a decreased sample size for 

that test group. The request shall 

include a description of the methods the 

manufacturer has used to procure the 

required number of vehicles. The 

approval of any such request, and the 

substitution of an alternative sample 

size requirement for the test group, will 

be based on a review of the procurement 

efforts made by the manufacturer to 

determine if all reasonable steps have 

been taken to procure the required test 

group size. Tables S04–06 and S04–07 

follow: 

* * * * * 

(4) Completion of testing. Testing of 

the vehicles in a test group and 

evaporative/refueling family must be 

completed within 12 months of the end 

of production of that test group (or 

evaporative/refueling family) for that 

model year. 

(5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle of a 

test group shall be tested in accordance 

with the Federal Test Procedure and the 

US06 portion of the Supplemental 

Federal Test Procedure as described in 

subpart B of this part, when such test 

vehicle is tested for compliance with 

applicable exhaust emission standards 

under this subpart. Test vehicles subject 

to applicable exhaust CO2 emission 

standards under this subpart shall also 

be tested in accordance with the 

highway fuel economy test as described 

in part 600, subpart B, of this chapter. 

(ii) Manufacturers must measure PM 

emissions over the FTP and US06 

driving schedules for at least 50 percent 

of the vehicles tested under paragraph 

(b)(5)(i) of this section. 

(iii) Starting with model year 2018 

vehicles, manufacturers must 

demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 

leak standard specified in § 86.1813, if 

applicable, as described in this 

paragraph (b)(5)(iii). Manufacturers 

must evaluate each vehicle tested under 

paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. In 

addition, manufacturers must evaluate 

at least one vehicle from each leak 

family for a given model year. 

Manufacturers may rely on OBD 

monitoring instead of testing as follows: 

(A) A vehicle is considered to pass the 

leak test if the OBD system completed 

a leak check within the previous 750 

miles of driving without showing a leak 

fault code. 

(B) Whether or not a vehicle’s OBD 

system has completed a leak check 

within the previous 750 miles of 

driving, the manufacturer may operate 

the vehicle as needed to force the OBD 

system to perform a leak check. If the 

OBD leak check does not show a leak 

fault, the vehicle is considered to pass 

the leak test. 

(C) If the most recent OBD leak check 

from paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A) or (B) of 

this section shows a fault code, the 

vehicle is presumed to have failed the 

leak test. Manufacturers may perform 

the leak measurement procedure 

described in 40 CFR 1066.840 for an 

official result to replace the finding from 

the OBD leak check. 

(D) Manufacturers may not perform 

repeat OBD checks or leak 

measurements to over-ride a failure 

under paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(C) of this 

section. 

(iv) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, 

one test vehicle of each evaporative/ 

refueling family shall be tested in 

accordance with the supplemental 2- 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission and refueling emission 

procedures described in subpart B of 

this part, when such test vehicle is 

tested for compliance with applicable 

evaporative emission and refueling 

standards under this subpart. For 

gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle 

of each evaporative/refueling family 

shall be tested in accordance with the 3- 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission and refueling emission 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30083 

procedures described in subpart B of 

this part, when such test vehicle is 

tested for compliance with applicable 

evaporative emission and refueling 

standards under this subpart. The test 

vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/ 

refueling testing requirement of this 

paragraph (b)(5)(ii) will be counted 

when determining compliance with the 

minimum number of vehicles as 

specified in Table S04–06 and Table 

S04–07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section for testing under paragraph 

(b)(5)(i) of this section only if the 

vehicle is also tested for exhaust 

emissions under the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. 

(6) Each test vehicle not rejected 

based on the criteria specified in 

appendix II to this subpart shall be 

tested in as-received condition. 

(7) A manufacturer may conduct 

subsequent diagnostic maintenance 

and/or testing of any vehicle. Any such 

maintenance and/or testing shall be 

reported to the Agency as specified in 

§ 86.1847. 

(c) High-mileage testing—(1) Test 

groups. Testing must be conducted for 

each test group. 

(2) Vehicle mileage. All test vehicles 

must have a minimum odometer 

mileage of 50,000 miles. At least one 

vehicle of each test group must have a 

minimum odometer mileage of 105,000 

miles or 75 percent of the full useful life 

mileage, whichever is less. See 

§ 86.1838–01(c)(2) for small volume 

manufacturer mileage requirements. 

(3) Number of test vehicles. For each 

test group, the minimum number of 

vehicles that must be tested is specified 

in Table S04–06 and Table S04–07 in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section. After 

testing the minimum number of vehicles 

of a specific test group as specified in 

Table S04–06 and Table S04–07 in 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a 

manufacturer may test additional 

vehicles upon request and approval by 

the Agency prior to the initiation of the 

additional testing. Any additional 

testing must be completed within the 

testing completion requirements shown 

in § 86.1845–04(c)(4). The request and 

Agency approval (if any) shall apply to 

test groups on a case by case basis and 

apply only to testing under this 

paragraph (c). In addition to any testing 

that is required under Table S04–06 and 

Table S04–07, a manufacturer shall test 

one vehicle from each evaporative/ 

refueling family for evaporative/ 

refueling emissions. If a manufacturer 

believes it is unable to procure the test 

vehicles necessary to test the required 

number of vehicles in a test group as 

specified in Table S04–06 or Table S04– 

07, the manufacturer may request, 

subject to Administrator approval, a 

decreased sample size for that test 

group. The request shall include a 

description of the methods the 

manufacturer has used to procure the 

required number of vehicles. The 

approval of any such request, and the 

substitution of an alternative sample 

size requirement for the test group, will 

be based on a review of the procurement 

efforts made by the manufacturer to 

determine if all reasonable steps have 

been taken to procure the required test 

group size. 

(4) Initiation and completion of 

testing. Testing of a test group (or 

evaporative refueling family) must 

commence within 4 years of the end of 

production of the test group (or 

evaporative/refueling family) and be 

completed within 5 years of the end of 

production of the test group (or 

evaporative/refueling family). 

(5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle shall 

be tested in accordance with the Federal 

Test Procedure and the US06 portion of 

the Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedure as described in subpart B of 

this part when such test vehicle is tested 

for compliance with applicable exhaust 

emission standards under this subpart. 

Test vehicles subject to applicable 

exhaust CO2 emission standards under 

this subpart shall also be tested in 

accordance with the highway fuel 

economy test as described in part 600, 

subpart B of this chapter. One test 

vehicle from each test group shall 

receive a Federal Test Procedure at high 

altitude. The test vehicle tested at high 

altitude is not required to be one of the 

same test vehicles tested at low altitude. 

The test vehicle tested at high altitude 

is counted when determining the 

compliance with the requirements 

shown in Table S04–06 and Table S04– 

07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or 

the expanded sample size as provided 

for in this paragraph (c). 

(ii) Manufacturers must measure PM 

emissions over the FTP and US06 

driving schedules for at least 50 percent 

of the vehicles tested under paragraph 

(c)(5)(i) of this section. 

(iii) Starting with model year 2018 

vehicles, manufacturers must evaluate 

each vehicle tested under paragraph 

(c)(5)(i) of this section to demonstrate 

compliance with the Tier 3 leak 

standard specified in § 86.1813. In 

addition, manufacturers must evaluate 

at least one vehicle from each leak 

family for a given model year. 

Manufacturers may rely on OBD 

monitoring instead of testing as 

described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this 

section. 

(iv) For non-gaseous fueled vehicles, 

one test vehicle of each evaporative/ 

refueling family shall be tested in 

accordance with the supplemental 2- 

diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative 

emission procedures described in 

subpart B of this part, when such test 

vehicle is tested for compliance with 

applicable evaporative emission and 

refueling standards under this subpart. 

For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test 

vehicle of each evaporative/refueling 

family shall be tested in accordance 

with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak 

evaporative emission procedures 

described in subpart B of this part, 

when such test vehicle is tested for 

compliance with applicable evaporative 

emission and refueling standards under 

this subpart. The test vehicles tested to 

fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing 

requirement of this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) 

will be counted when determining 

compliance with the minimum number 

of vehicles as specified in Table S04–06 

and table S04–07 in paragraph (b)(3) of 

this section for testing under paragraph 

(b)(5)(i) of this section only if the 

vehicle is also tested for exhaust 

emissions under the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. 

(6) Test condition. Each test vehicle 

not rejected based on the criteria 

specified in appendix II to this subpart 

shall be tested in as-received condition. 

(7) Diagnostic maintenance. A 

manufacturer may conduct subsequent 

diagnostic maintenance and/or testing 

on any vehicle. Any such maintenance 

and/or testing shall be reported to the 

Agency as specified in § 86.1847–01. 

* * * * * 

■ 179. Section 86.1846–01 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.1846–01 Manufacturer in-use 

confirmatory testing requirements. 

(a) General requirements. (1) 

Manufacturers must test, or cause 

testing to be conducted, under this 

section when the emission levels shown 

by a test group sample from testing 

under § 86.1845 exceeds the criteria 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. The testing required under this 

section applies separately to each test 

group and at each test point (low and 

high mileage) that meets the specified 

criteria. The testing requirements apply 

separately for each model year. These 

provisions apply to heavy-duty vehicles 

and heavy-duty engines starting with 

model year 2007. These provisions do 

not apply to emissions of CO2, CH4, and 

N2O. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) [Reserved] 

(4) The provisions of § 86.1845– 

04(a)(3) regarding fuel sulfur effects 

apply equally to testing under this 

section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Criteria for additional testing. (1) 

A manufacturer shall test a test group or 

a subset of a test group as described in 

paragraph (j) of this section when the 

results from testing conducted under 

§ 86.1845 show mean exhaust emissions 

for that test group of any pollutant(s) 

(except CO2,CH4, and N2O) to be equal 

to or greater than 1.30 times the 

applicable in-use standard and a failure 

rate, among the test group vehicles, for 

the corresponding pollutant(s) of fifty 

percent or greater. 

(i) This requirement does not apply to 

Supplemental FTP testing or 

evaporative/refueling testing. Testing 

conducted at high altitude under the 

requirements of § 86.1845 will be 

included in determining if a test group 

meets the criteria triggering testing 

required under this section. 

(ii) The vehicle tested under the 

requirements of § 86.1845–04(c)(2) with 

a minimum odometer miles of 75% of 

useful life will not be included in 

determining if a test group meets the 

triggering criteria. 

(iii) The SFTP composite emission 

levels shall include the IUVP FTP 

emissions, the IUVP US06 emissions, 

and the values from the SC03 Air 

Conditioning EDV certification test 

(without DFs applied). The calculations 

shall be made using the equations 

prescribed in § 86.164. If more than one 

set of certification SC03 data exists (due 

to running change testing or other 

reasons), the manufacturer shall choose 

the SC03 result to use in the calculation 

from among those data sets using good 

engineering judgment. 

(2) If fewer than 50 percent of the 

vehicles from a leak family pass the leak 

test under § 86.1845, EPA may require 

further leak testing under this paragraph 

(b)(2). Testing under this section must 

include five vehicles from the family. If 

all five of these vehicles fail the test, the 

manufacturer must test five additional 

vehicles. 

EPA will determine whether to 

require further leak testing under this 

section after providing the manufacturer 

an opportunity to discuss the results, 

including consideration of any of the 

following information, or other items 

that may be relevant: 

(i) Detailed system design, calibration, 

and operating information, technical 

explanations as to why the individual 

vehicles tested failed the leak emission 

standard. 

(ii) Comparison of the subject vehicles 

to other similar models from the same 

manufacturer. 

(iii) Data or other information on 

owner complaints, technical service 

bulletins, service campaigns, special 

policy warranty programs, warranty 

repair data, state I/M data, and data 

available from other manufacturerspecific programs or initiatives. 

(iv) Evaporative emission test data on 

any individual vehicles that did not 

pass leak testing during IUVP. 

(c) Useful life. Vehicles tested under 

the provisions of this section must be 

within the useful life specified for the 

emission standards which were 

exceeded in the testing under § 86.1845. 

Testing should be within the useful life 

specified, subject to sections 207(c)(5) 

and (c)(6) of the Clean Air Act where 

applicable. 

(d) Number of test vehicles. A 

manufacturer must test a minimum of 

ten vehicles of the test group or Agencydesignated subset. A manufacturer may, 

at the manufacturer’s discretion, test 

more than ten vehicles under this 

paragraph for a specific test group or 

Agency-designated subset. If a 

manufacturer chooses to test more than 

the required ten vehicles, all testing 

must be completed within the time 

designated in the testing completion 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this 

section. Any vehicles which are 

eliminated from the sample either prior 

to or subsequent to testing, or any 

vehicles for which test results are 

determined to be void, must be replaced 

in order that the final sample of vehicles 

for which test results acceptable to the 

Agency are available equals a minimum 

of ten vehicles. A manufacturer may 

cease testing with a sample of five 

vehicles if the results of the first five 

vehicles tested show mean emissions for 

each pollutant to be less than 75.0 

percent of the applicable standard, with 

no vehicles exceeding the applicable 

standard for any pollutant. 

(e) Emission testing. Each test vehicle 

of a test group or Agency-designated 

subset shall be tested in accordance 

with the Federal Test Procedure and/or 

the Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedure (whichever of these tests 

performed under § 86.1845 produces 

emission levels requiring testing under 

this section) as described in subpart B 

of this part, when such test vehicle is 

tested for compliance with applicable 

exhaust emission standards under this 

subpart. 

(f) Geographical limitations. (1) Test 

groups or Agency-designated subsets 

certified to 50-state standards: For low 

altitude testing no more than 50 percent 

of the test vehicles may be procured 

from California. The test vehicles 

procured from the 49 state area must be 

procured from a location with a heating 

degree day 30 year annual average equal 

to or greater than 4000. 

(2) Test groups or Agency-designated 

subsets certified to 49 state standards: 

For low-altitude testing all vehicles 

shall be procured from a location with 

a heating degree day 30 year annual 

average equal to or greater than 4000. 

(3) Vehicles procured for high altitude 

testing may be procured from any area 

provided that the vehicle’s primary area 

of operation was above 4000 feet. 

(g) Testing. Testing required under 

this section must commence within 

three months of completion of the 

testing under § 86.1845 which triggered 

the confirmatory testing and must be 

completed within seven months of the 

completion of the testing which 

triggered the confirmatory testing. Any 

industry review of the results obtained 

under § 86.1845 and any additional 

vehicle procurement and/or testing 

which takes place under the provisions 

of § 86.1845 which the industry believes 

may affect the triggering of required 

confirmatory testing must take place 

within the three month period. The data 

and the manufacturers reasoning for 

reconsideration of the data must be 

provided to the Agency within the three 

month period. 

(h) Limit on manufacturer conducted 

testing. For each manufacturer, the 

maximum number of test group(s) (or 

Agency-designated subset(s)) of each 

model year for which testing under this 

section shall be required is limited to 50 

percent of the total number of test 

groups of each model year required to 

be tested by each manufacturer as 

prescribed in § 86.1845 rounded to the 

next highest whole number where 

appropriate. For each manufacturer with 

only one test group under § 86.1845, 

such manufacturer shall have a 

maximum potential testing requirement 

under this section of one test group (or 

Agency-designated subset) per model 

year. 

(i) Testing plan. Prior to beginning inuse confirmatory testing the 

manufacturer must, after consultation 

with the Agency, submit a written plan 

describing the details of the vehicle 

procurement, maintenance, and testing 

procedures (not otherwise specified by 

regulation) it intends to use. EPA must 

approve the test plan before the 

manufacturer may start further testing. 

(j) Testing a subset. EPA may 

designate a subset of the test group 

based on transmission type for testing 

under this section in lieu of testing the 

entire test group when the results for the 

entire test group from testing conducted 

under § 86.1845 show mean emissions 

and a failure rate which meet these 

criteria for additional testing. 

■ 180. Section 86.1848–10 is amended 

by revising paragraph (c)(7) to read as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30085 

§ 86.1848–10 Compliance with emission 

standards for the purpose of certification. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) All certificates of conformity 

issued are conditional upon compliance 

with all the provisions of §§ 86.1811 

through 86.1816 and §§ 86.1860 through 

86.1862 both during and after model 

year production. The manufacturer 

bears the burden of establishing to the 

satisfaction of the Administrator that the 

terms and conditions upon which each 

certificate was issued were satisfied. For 

recall and warranty purposes, vehicles 

not covered by a certificate of 

conformity will continue to be held to 

the standards stated or referenced in the 

certificate that otherwise would have 

applied to the vehicles. 

(i) Failure to meet the applicable fleet 

average standard will be considered to 

be a failure to satisfy the terms and 

conditions upon which the certificate 

was issued and the vehicles sold in 

violation of the fleet average standard 

will not be covered by the certificate. 

(ii) Failure to comply fully with the 

prohibition against selling credits that it 

has not generated or that are not 

available, as specified in § 86.1861, will 

be considered a failure to satisfy the 

terms and conditions upon which the 

certificate was issued and the vehicles 

sold in violation of this prohibition will 

not be covered by the certificate. 

(iii) Failure to comply fully with the 

phase-in requirements of §§ 86.1811 

through 86.1816 will be considered a 

failure to satisfy the terms and 

conditions upon which the certificate 

was issued and the vehicles sold that do 

not comply with the applicable 

standards, up to the number needed to 

comply, will not be covered by the 

certificate. 

* * * * * 

■ 181. A new § 86.1860–17 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1860–17 How to comply with the Tier 

3 fleet-average standards. 

(a) You must show that you meet the 

applicable fleet-average NMOG+NOX

standards from §§ 86.1811 and 86.1816 

and the fleet-average evaporative 

emission standards from § 86.1813 as 

described in this section. Note that 

separate fleet-average calculations are 

required for the FTP and SFTP exhaust 

emission standards under § 86.1811. 

(b) Calculate your fleet-average value 

for each model year for all vehicle 

models subject to a separate fleetaverage standard using the following 

equation, rounded to the nearest 0.001 

g/mile for NMOG+NOX emissions and 

the nearest 0.001 g/test for evaporative 

emissions: 

Where: 

i = A counter associated with each separate 

Tier 3 test group. 

b = The number of separate Tier 3 test groups 

to which you certify your vehicles. 

Ni> = The actual sales for the model year for 

test group i. 

FELi = The FEL selected for test group i. 

Disregard any separate standards that 

apply for in-use testing or for testing 

under high-altitude conditions. 

Ntotal = The actual nationwide sales for the 

model year for all your Tier 3 vehicles, 

except as described in paragraph (c) of 

this section. The pool of vehicle models 

included in Ntotal may vary by model 

year, and it may be different for 

evaporative standards, FTP exhaust 

standards, and SFTP exhaust standards 

in a given model year. 

(c) Do not include any of the 

following vehicles to calculate your 

fleet-average value: 

(1) Vehicles that you do not certify to 

the standards of this part because they 

are permanently exempted under 40 

CFR part 85 or part 1068. 

(2) Exported vehicles. 

(3) Vehicles excluded under 

§ 86.1801. 

(d) Except as specified in paragraph 

(e) of this section, your calculated fleetaverage value may not exceed the 

corresponding fleet-average standard for 

the model year. 

(e) You may generate or use emission 

credits related to your calculated fleetaverage value as follows: 

(1) You may generate emission credits 

as described in § 86.1861 if your fleetaverage value is below the 

corresponding fleet-average standard. 

(2) You may use emission credits as 

described in § 86.1861 if your fleetaverage value is above the 

corresponding fleet-average standard. 

Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) 

of this section, you must use enough 

credits for each model year to show that 

your adjusted fleet average value does 

not exceed the fleet-average standard. 

(3) If you do not have enough 

emission credits to demonstrate 

compliance with a fleet-average 

standard in a given model year, you may 

carry forward a credit deficit for up to 

three model years. You may not bank 

emission credits with respect to a given 

emission standard during a model year 

in which you have a credit deficit in the 

same averaging set. If you fail to meet 

the fleet-average standard for four 

consecutive model years, the vehicles 

causing you to exceed the fleet-average 

standard will be considered not covered 

by the certificate of conformity. You 

will be subject to penalties on an 

individual-vehicle basis for sale of 

vehicles not covered by a certificate of 

conformity. 

(f) If the applicable bin standards and 

FELs for all your vehicle models are at 

or below a corresponding fleet-average 

standard for a given model year, and 

you do not want to generate emission 

credits, you may omit the calculations 

described in this section. 

(g) The deadline for offsetting debits 

as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section serves as the starting date for 

calculating the statute of limitations 

with respect to violating the 

requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this 

section, failing to satisfy the conditions 

upon which a certificate was issued, 

and selling, offering for sale, 

introducing or delivering into U.S. 

commerce, or importing vehicles not 

covered by a certificate. 

■ 182. A new § 86.1861–17 is added to 

subpart S to read as follows: 

§ 86.1861–17 How do the NMOG+NOX and 

evaporative emission credit programs 

work? 

You may use emission credits for 

purposes of certification to show 

compliance with the applicable fleetaverage NMOG+NOX standards from 

§§ 86.1811 and 86.1816 and the fleetaverage evaporative emission standards 

from § 86.1813 as described in 40 CFR 

part 1037, subpart H, with certain 

exceptions and clarifications as 

specified in this section. MDPVs are 

subject to the same provisions of this 

section that apply to LDT4s. (a) 

Calculate emission credits as described 

in this paragraph (a) instead of using the 

provisions of 40 CFR 1037.705. 

Calculate positive or negative emission 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.143</GPH>
30086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

credits relative to the applicable fleetaverage standard. Calculate positive 

emission credits if your fleet-average 

level is below the standard. Calculate 

negative emission credits if your fleetaverage value is above the standard. 

Calculate credits separately for each 

type of standard and for each averaging 

set. Calculate emission credits using the 

following equation, rounded to the 

nearest whole number: 

Emission credit = Volume · [Fleet 

average standard ¥ Fleet average 

value] 

Where: 

Emission credit = The positive or negative 

credit for each discrete fleet-average 

standard, in units of vehicle-grams per 

mile for NMOG+NOx and vehicle-grams 

per test for evaporative emissions. 

Volume = Sales volume in a given model 

year from the collection of test groups 

covered by the fleet-average value, as 

described in § 86.1860. 

(b) The following restrictions apply 

instead of those specified in 40 CFR 

1037.740: 

(1) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, emission credits 

may be exchanged only within an 

averaging set, as follows: 

(i) HDVs represent a separate 

averaging set with respect to all 

emission standards. 

(ii) LDVs and LDTs together represent 

a single averaging set with respect to 

NMOG+NOX emission standards. Note 

that FTP and SFTP credits are not 

interchangeable. 

(iii) The following separate averaging 

sets apply for evaporative emission 

standards: 

(A) LDV and LDT1 together represent 

a single averaging set. 

(B) LDT2 represents a single averaging 

set. 

(C) HLDT represents a single 

averaging set. 

(D) HDV represents a single averaging 

set. 

(2) You may exchange evaporative 

emission credits across averaging sets as 

follows if you need additional credits to 

offset a deficit in the final year of 

maintaining deficit credits as allowed 

under paragraph (c) of this section: 

(i) You may exchange LDV/LDT1 and 

LDT2 emission credits. 

(ii) You may exchange HLDT and 

HDV emission credits. 

(3) Credits expire after five years. For 

example, credits you generate in model 

year 2018 may be used only through 

model year 2023. 

(c) The credit-deficit provisions 40 

CFR 1037.745 apply without 

modification to the NMOG+NOX and 

evaporative emission standards for Tier 

3 vehicles. 

(d) The reporting and recordkeeping 

provisions of § 86.1862 apply instead of 

those specified in 40 CFR 1037.730 and 

1037.735. 

(e) The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.645 

do not apply. 

■ 183. Section 86.1862–04 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 86.1862–04 Maintenance of records and 

submittal of information relevant to 

compliance with fleet-average standards. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for vehicles subject to the 

following fleet-average or fleet-average 

standards: 

(1) Tier 2 NOX emission standard for 

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks 

in § 86.1811–04. 

(2) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX for light-duty vehicles and 

light-duty trucks in § 86.1811–17. 

(3) Tier 3 SFTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX for light-duty vehicles and 

light-duty trucks in § 86.1811–17. 

(4) Tier 3 evaporative emission 

standards in § 86.1813–17. 

(5) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for 

NMOG+NOX for heavy-duty vehicles in 

§ 86.1816–18. 

(6) Cold-temperature NMHC 

standards in § 86.1811–10. 

(b) Maintenance of records. (1) The 

manufacturer producing any vehicles 

subject to a fleet-average standard under 

this subpart must establish and 

maintain all the following information 

in organized and indexed records for 

each model year: 

(i) Model year. 

(ii) Applicable fleet-average standard. 

(iii) Calculated fleet-average value. 

(iv) All values used in calculating the 

fleet-average value achieved. 

(2) The manufacturer producing any 

vehicle subject to the provisions in this 

section must keep all the following 

information for each vehicle: 

(i) Model year. 

(ii) Applicable fleet-average standard. 

(iii) EPA test group. 

(iv) Assembly plant. 

(v) Vehicle identification number. 

(vi) The FEL and the fleet-average 

standard to which the vehicle is 

certified. 

(vii) Information on the point of first 

sale, including the purchaser, city, and 

state. 

(3) The manufacturer must retain all 

records required to be maintained under 

this section for a period of eight years 

from the due date for the annual report. 

Records may be stored in any format 

and on any media, as long as 

manufacturers can promptly send EPA 

organized written records in English if 

we ask for them. Manufacturers must 

keep records readily available as EPA 

may review them at any time. 

(4) The Administrator may require the 

manufacturer to retain additional 

records or submit information not 

specifically required by this section. 

(5) EPA may void ab initio a 

certificate of conformity for a vehicle 

certified to emission standards as set 

forth or otherwise referenced in this 

subpart for which the manufacturer fails 

to retain the records required in this 

section, to provide such information to 

the Administrator upon request, or to 

submit the reports required in this 

section in the specified time period. 

(c) Reporting. (1) Each manufacturer 

must submit an annual report. Except as 

provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, the annual report must contain, 

for each applicable fleet average 

standard, the fleet average value 

achieved, all values required to 

calculate the fleet-average value, the 

number of credits generated or debits 

incurred, all the values required to 

calculate the credits or debits, and 

sufficient information to show 

compliance with all phase-in 

requirements, if applicable. The annual 

report must also contain the resulting 

balance of credits or debits. 

(2) When a manufacturer calculates 

compliance with the fleet-average 

standard using the provisions in 

§ 86.1860–04(c)(2) or § 86.1860–17(f), 

the annual report must state that the 

manufacturer has elected to use such 

provision and must contain the fleetaverage standard as the fleet-average 

value for that model year. 

(3) For each applicable fleet-average 

standard, the annual report must also 

include documentation on all credit 

transactions the manufacturer has 

engaged in since those included in the 

last report. Information for each 

transaction must include all the 

following information: 

(i) Name of credit provider. 

(ii) Name of credit recipient. 

(iii) Date the transfer occurred. 

(iv) Quantity of credits transferred. 

(v) Model year in which the credits 

were earned. 

(4) Unless a manufacturer reports the 

data required by this section in the 

annual production report required 

under § 86.1844–01(e) and subsequent 

model year provisions, a manufacturer 

must submit an annual report for each 

model year after production ends for all 

affected vehicles produced by the 

manufacturer subject to the provisions 

of this subpart and no later than May 1 

of the calendar year following the given 

model year. Annual reports must be 

submitted to: Director, Compliance 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30087 

Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan 48105. 

(5) Failure by a manufacturer to 

submit the annual report in the 

specified time period for all vehicles 

subject to the provisions in this section 

is a violation of Clean Air Act section 

203(a)(1) (42 U.S.C 7522(a)(1)) for each 

subject vehicle produced by that 

manufacturer. 

(6) If EPA or the manufacturer 

determines that a reporting error 

occurred on an annual report previously 

submitted to EPA, the manufacturer’s 

credit or debit calculations will be 

recalculated. EPA may void erroneous 

credits, unless transferred, and must 

adjust erroneous debits. In the case of 

transferred erroneous credits, EPA must 

adjust the selling manufacturer’s credit 

or debit balance to reflect the sale of 

such credits and any resulting 

generation of debits. 

(d) Notice of opportunity for hearing. 

Any voiding of the certificate under 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section will be 

made only after EPA has offered the 

manufacturer concerned an opportunity 

for a hearing conducted in accordance 

with § 86.614 for light-duty vehicles and 

light-duty trucks and with 40 CFR part 

1068, subpart G, for heavy-duty 

vehicles. 

■ 184. Section 86.1863–07 is amended 

by adding introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1863–07 Optional chassis certification 

for diesel vehicles. 

This section does not apply for 

vehicles certified to the Tier 3 standards 

in § 86.1816–18, including those 

vehicles that certify to the Tier 3 

standards before model year 2018. 

* * * * * 

■ 185. Section 86.1864–10 is amended 

by revising paragraph (p) to read as 

follows: 

§ 86.1864–10 How to comply with the fleet 

average cold temperature NMHC standards. 

* * * * * 

(p) Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Keep records and submit information 

for demonstrating compliance with the 

fleet average cold temperature NMHC 

standard as described in § 86.1862–04. 

■ 186. Section 86.1868–12 is amended 

by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (g)(1) 

to read as follows: 

§ 86.1868–12 CO2 credits for improving the 

efficiency of air conditioning systems. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) The manufacturer shall perform 

the AC17 test specified in 40 CFR 

1066.840 on each unique air 

conditioning system design and vehicle 

platform combination for which the 

manufacturer intends to accrue air 

conditioning efficiency credits. The 

manufacturer must test at least one 

unique air conditioning system within 

each vehicle platform in a model year, 

unless all unique air conditioning 

systems within a vehicle platform have 

been previously tested. A unique air 

conditioning system design is a system 

with unique or substantially different 

component designs or types and/or 

system control strategies (e.g., fixed 

displacement vs. variable displacement 

compressors, orifice tube vs. 

thermostatic expansion valve, single vs. 

dual evaporator, etc.). In the first year of 

such testing, the tested vehicle 

configuration shall be the highest 

production vehicle configuration within 

each platform. In subsequent model 

years the manufacturer must test other 

unique air conditioning systems within 

the vehicle platform, proceeding from 

the highest production untested system 

until all unique air conditioning 

systems within the platform have been 

tested, or until the vehicle platform 

experiences a major redesign. Whenever 

a new unique air conditioning system is 

tested, the highest production 

configuration using that system shall be 

the vehicle selected for testing. Air 

conditioning system designs which have 

similar cooling capacity, component 

types, and control strategies, yet differ 

in terms of compressor pulley ratios or 

condenser or evaporator surface areas 

will not be considered to be unique 

system designs. The test results from 

one unique system design may represent 

all variants of that design. 

Manufacturers must use good 

engineering judgment to identify the 

unique air conditioning system designs 

which will require AC17 testing in 

subsequent model years. Results must 

be reported separately for all four 

phases (two phases with air 

conditioning off and two phases with air 

conditioning on) of the test to the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and 

the results of the calculations required 

in 40 CFR 1066.840 must also be 

reported. In each subsequent model year 

additional air conditioning system 

designs, if such systems exist, within a 

vehicle platform that is generating air 

conditioning credits must be tested 

using the AC17 procedure. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) For each air conditioning system 

selected by the manufacturer to generate 

air conditioning efficiency credits, the 

manufacturer shall perform the AC17 

Air Conditioning Efficiency Test 

Procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.840, 

according to the requirements of this 

paragraph (g). 

* * * * * 

■ 187. Appendix I to Part 86 is amended 

by revising the appendix heading, 

paragraph (a) before the table, 

paragraphs (b) and (c), and the 

introductory text of paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

Appendix I to Part 86—Dynamometer 

Schedules 

(a) EPA light-duty urban dynamometer 

driving schedule (UDDS). This driving 

schedule is also known as the LA–4 cycle. 

(1) The driving schedule in this paragraph 

(a) applies for light-duty vehicles, light-duty 

trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles certified 

under subpart S of this part. 

(2) The driving schedule in this paragraph 

(a) applies for motorcycles with engine 

displacement at or above 170 cc. Calculate 

the speed-versus-time sequence in kilometers 

per hour by multiplying the listed speed by 

1.6 and rounding to the nearest 0.1 

kilometers per hour. 

(3) The driving schedule follows: 

* * * * * 

(b) EPA driving schedule for motorcycles 

with engine displacement below 170 cc. Use 

the driving schedule specified in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this appendix, except that the 

schedule specified in this paragraph (b) 

applies for the portion of the driving 

schedule from 164 to 332 seconds. 

SPEED VERSUS TIME SEQUENCE

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(kph) 

164 ........................................ 3.4 

165 ........................................ 6.8 

166 ........................................ 10.3 

167 ........................................ 13.7 

168 ........................................ 17.1 

169 ........................................ 20.5 

170 ........................................ 23.0 

171 ........................................ 25.2 

172 ........................................ 26.7 

173 ........................................ 27.4 

174 ........................................ 26.6 

175 ........................................ 26.0 

176 ........................................ 25.6 

177 ........................................ 25.9 

178 ........................................ 26.1 

179 ........................................ 26.3 

180 ........................................ 26.7 

181 ........................................ 28.2 

182 ........................................ 27.5 

183 ........................................ 24.9 

184 ........................................ 23.5 

185 ........................................ 20.1 

186 ........................................ 18.3 

187 ........................................ 17.8 

188 ........................................ 18.8 

189 ........................................ 19.3 

190 ........................................ 20.7 

191 ........................................ 23.0 

192 ........................................ 25.4 

193 ........................................ 28.3 

194 ........................................ 31.6 

195 ........................................ 34.7 

196 ........................................ 37.5 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

SPEED VERSUS TIME SEQUENCE— 

Continued 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(kph) 

197 ........................................ 38.6 

198 ........................................ 40.7 

199 ........................................ 42.0 

200 ........................................ 43.6 

201 ........................................ 45.1 

202 ........................................ 46.7 

203 ........................................ 47.7 

204 ........................................ 48.5 

205 ........................................ 49.2 

206 ........................................ 49.2 

207 ........................................ 49.0 

208 ........................................ 48.9 

209 ........................................ 48.7 

210 ........................................ 48.7 

211 ........................................ 48.7 

212 ........................................ 48.7 

213 ........................................ 48.7 

214 ........................................ 48.9 

215 ........................................ 49.1 

216 ........................................ 49.6 

217 ........................................ 50.2 

218 ........................................ 50.9 

219 ........................................ 51.3 

220 ........................................ 51.8 

221 ........................................ 52.4 

222 ........................................ 52.8 

223 ........................................ 53.4 

224 ........................................ 54.1 

225 ........................................ 55.1 

226 ........................................ 56.0 

227 ........................................ 56.6 

228 ........................................ 56.9 

229 ........................................ 57.0 

230 ........................................ 56.9 

231 ........................................ 56.6 

232 ........................................ 56.6 

233 ........................................ 56.8 

234 ........................................ 57.1 

235 ........................................ 57.5 

236 ........................................ 57.7 

237 ........................................ 58.1 

238 ........................................ 58.3 

239 ........................................ 58.6 

240 ........................................ 58.7 

241 ........................................ 58.7 

242 ........................................ 58.5 

243 ........................................ 58.5 

244 ........................................ 58.5 

245 ........................................ 58.5 

246 ........................................ 58.5 

247 ........................................ 58.5 

248 ........................................ 58.4 

249 ........................................ 58.1 

250 ........................................ 57.8 

251 ........................................ 57.1 

252 ........................................ 56.6 

253 ........................................ 56.2 

254 ........................................ 55.9 

255 ........................................ 55.6 

256 ........................................ 55.5 

257 ........................................ 55.8 

258 ........................................ 55.9 

259 ........................................ 56.0 

260 ........................................ 56.0 

261 ........................................ 55.7 

262 ........................................ 55.3 

263 ........................................ 54.9 

264 ........................................ 54.5 

265 ........................................ 54.0 

266 ........................................ 54.3 

SPEED VERSUS TIME SEQUENCE— 

Continued 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(kph) 

267 ........................................ 53.9 

268 ........................................ 53.8 

269 ........................................ 53.6 

270 ........................................ 53.4 

271 ........................................ 53.5 

272 ........................................ 53.7 

273 ........................................ 54.0 

274 ........................................ 54.4 

275 ........................................ 54.9 

276 ........................................ 55.4 

277 ........................................ 55.9 

278 ........................................ 56.9 

279 ........................................ 57.4 

280 ........................................ 57.6 

281 ........................................ 58.0 

282 ........................................ 58.0 

283 ........................................ 57.8 

284 ........................................ 57.2 

285 ........................................ 56.5 

286 ........................................ 55.5 

287 ........................................ 54.4 

288 ........................................ 53.4 

289 ........................................ 53.4 

290 ........................................ 53.4 

291 ........................................ 52.9 

292 ........................................ 51.9 

293 ........................................ 51.8 

294 ........................................ 51.9 

295 ........................................ 51.8 

296 ........................................ 51.4 

297 ........................................ 51.3 

298 ........................................ 51.3 

299 ........................................ 51.3 

300 ........................................ 50.9 

301 ........................................ 50.3 

302 ........................................ 49.8 

303 ........................................ 48.9 

304 ........................................ 47.8 

305 ........................................ 46.6 

306 ........................................ 45.4 

307 ........................................ 44.1 

308 ........................................ 43.0 

309 ........................................ 41.8 

310 ........................................ 39.9 

311 ........................................ 38.3 

312 ........................................ 36.5 

313 ........................................ 35.0 

314 ........................................ 33.7 

315 ........................................ 32.6 

316 ........................................ 31.7 

317 ........................................ 31.6 

318 ........................................ 31.1 

319 ........................................ 30.0 

320 ........................................ 28.5 

321 ........................................ 25.7 

322 ........................................ 22.3 

323 ........................................ 20.8 

324 ........................................ 19.8 

325 ........................................ 19.2 

326 ........................................ 17.6 

327 ........................................ 16.1 

328 ........................................ 12.9 

329 ........................................ 11.2 

330 ........................................ 8.3 

331 ........................................ 4.9 

332 ........................................ 1.5 

(c) EPA driving schedule for class 3 heavyduty vehicles. This driving schedule is also 

known as the LA–92 cycle. 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1 ............................................ 0.0 

2 ............................................ 0.0 

3 ............................................ 0.0 

4 ............................................ 0.0 

5 ............................................ 0.0 

6 ............................................ 0.0 

7 ............................................ 0.0 

8 ............................................ 0.0 

9 ............................................ 0.0 

10 .......................................... 0.0 

11 .......................................... 0.0 

12 .......................................... 0.0 

13 .......................................... 0.0 

14 .......................................... 0.0 

15 .......................................... 0.0 

16 .......................................... 0.0 

17 .......................................... 0.0 

18 .......................................... 0.0 

19 .......................................... 0.0 

20 .......................................... 0.0 

21 .......................................... 1.2 

22 .......................................... 4.2 

23 .......................................... 7.3 

24 .......................................... 8.8 

25 .......................................... 10.8 

26 .......................................... 12.3 

27 .......................................... 13.1 

28 .......................................... 12.3 

29 .......................................... 12.3 

30 .......................................... 11.5 

31 .......................................... 11.5 

32 .......................................... 11.1 

33 .......................................... 11.1 

34 .......................................... 11.1 

35 .......................................... 13.1 

36 .......................................... 15.0 

37 .......................................... 16.9 

38 .......................................... 16.9 

39 .......................................... 16.1 

40 .......................................... 15.7 

41 .......................................... 15.4 

42 .......................................... 15.0 

43 .......................................... 13.8 

44 .......................................... 10.8 

45 .......................................... 8.4 

46 .......................................... 6.1 

47 .......................................... 4.2 

48 .......................................... 3.5 

49 .......................................... 3.5 

50 .......................................... 1.5 

51 .......................................... 0.0 

52 .......................................... 0.0 

53 .......................................... 0.0 

54 .......................................... 0.0 

55 .......................................... 0.0 

56 .......................................... 0.0 

57 .......................................... 0.0 

58 .......................................... 0.0 

59 .......................................... 0.0 

60 .......................................... 0.0 

61 .......................................... 0.0 

62 .......................................... 0.0 

63 .......................................... 1.2 

64 .......................................... 3.5 

65 .......................................... 7.7 

66 .......................................... 11.1 

67 .......................................... 13.8 

68 .......................................... 16.5 

69 .......................................... 18.4 

70 .......................................... 20.4 

71 .......................................... 20.7 

72 .......................................... 19.6 

73 .......................................... 17.3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30089 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

74 .......................................... 12.3 

75 .......................................... 8.1 

76 .......................................... 6.1 

77 .......................................... 9.6 

78 .......................................... 12.7 

79 .......................................... 15.7 

80 .......................................... 18.0 

81 .......................................... 20.4 

82 .......................................... 21.9 

83 .......................................... 23.4 

84 .......................................... 23.8 

85 .......................................... 24.6 

86 .......................................... 25.0 

87 .......................................... 26.1 

88 .......................................... 26.1 

89 .......................................... 26.9 

90 .......................................... 26.9 

91 .......................................... 26.9 

92 .......................................... 26.5 

93 .......................................... 25.7 

94 .......................................... 21.9 

95 .......................................... 16.5 

96 .......................................... 10.0 

97 .......................................... 4.6 

98 .......................................... 1.5 

99 .......................................... 0.4 

100 ........................................ 0.0 

101 ........................................ 0.0 

102 ........................................ 0.0 

103 ........................................ 0.0 

104 ........................................ 0.0 

105 ........................................ 0.0 

106 ........................................ 0.0 

107 ........................................ 0.0 

108 ........................................ 0.4 

109 ........................................ 1.2 

110 ........................................ 1.9 

111 ........................................ 3.8 

112 ........................................ 7.7 

113 ........................................ 11.5 

114 ........................................ 14.6 

115 ........................................ 18.0 

116 ........................................ 21.5 

117 ........................................ 25.0 

118 ........................................ 28.4 

119 ........................................ 30.7 

120 ........................................ 31.9 

121 ........................................ 32.3 

122 ........................................ 32.3 

123 ........................................ 31.9 

124 ........................................ 30.3 

125 ........................................ 28.0 

126 ........................................ 24.2 

127 ........................................ 20.0 

128 ........................................ 16.1 

129 ........................................ 11.5 

130 ........................................ 8.1 

131 ........................................ 5.0 

132 ........................................ 3.5 

133 ........................................ 1.9 

134 ........................................ 0.0 

135 ........................................ 0.0 

136 ........................................ 0.0 

137 ........................................ 0.0 

138 ........................................ 0.0 

139 ........................................ 0.0 

140 ........................................ 0.0 

141 ........................................ 0.0 

142 ........................................ 0.0 

143 ........................................ 1.5 

144 ........................................ 6.9 

145 ........................................ 12.7 

146 ........................................ 16.5 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

147 ........................................ 20.0 

148 ........................................ 23.0 

149 ........................................ 25.7 

150 ........................................ 28.0 

151 ........................................ 30.7 

152 ........................................ 32.6 

153 ........................................ 34.2 

154 ........................................ 35.3 

155 ........................................ 36.9 

156 ........................................ 36.9 

157 ........................................ 37.2 

158 ........................................ 37.6 

159 ........................................ 37.6 

160 ........................................ 37.6 

161 ........................................ 37.2 

162 ........................................ 37.2 

163 ........................................ 36.9 

164 ........................................ 36.5 

165 ........................................ 36.5 

166 ........................................ 34.9 

167 ........................................ 33.4 

168 ........................................ 31.9 

169 ........................................ 29.2 

170 ........................................ 25.0 

171 ........................................ 25.0 

172 ........................................ 26.1 

173 ........................................ 27.6 

174 ........................................ 29.2 

175 ........................................ 31.1 

176 ........................................ 32.3 

177 ........................................ 34.2 

178 ........................................ 34.9 

179 ........................................ 35.7 

180 ........................................ 36.5 

181 ........................................ 36.9 

182 ........................................ 36.9 

183 ........................................ 37.2 

184 ........................................ 37.6 

185 ........................................ 37.2 

186 ........................................ 37.6 

187 ........................................ 38.0 

188 ........................................ 38.4 

189 ........................................ 39.2 

190 ........................................ 39.6 

191 ........................................ 39.9 

192 ........................................ 40.7 

193 ........................................ 40.3 

194 ........................................ 41.1 

195 ........................................ 41.1 

196 ........................................ 40.7 

197 ........................................ 31.9 

198 ........................................ 23.9 

199 ........................................ 15.9 

200 ........................................ 7.9 

201 ........................................ 2.7 

202 ........................................ 0.4 

203 ........................................ 0.4 

204 ........................................ 2.7 

205 ........................................ 3.8 

206 ........................................ 3.8 

207 ........................................ 1.5 

208 ........................................ 0.0 

209 ........................................ 0.0 

210 ........................................ 0.0 

211 ........................................ 0.0 

212 ........................................ 0.0 

213 ........................................ 0.0 

214 ........................................ 0.0 

215 ........................................ 0.0 

216 ........................................ 0.0 

217 ........................................ 0.0 

218 ........................................ 0.0 

219 ........................................ 0.0 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

220 ........................................ 0.0 

221 ........................................ 0.0 

222 ........................................ 0.0 

223 ........................................ 0.0 

224 ........................................ 0.0 

225 ........................................ 0.0 

226 ........................................ 0.0 

227 ........................................ 0.0 

228 ........................................ 0.0 

229 ........................................ 0.0 

230 ........................................ 0.0 

231 ........................................ 0.0 

232 ........................................ 0.0 

233 ........................................ 0.0 

234 ........................................ 0.0 

235 ........................................ 0.0 

236 ........................................ 0.0 

237 ........................................ 0.0 

238 ........................................ 1.5 

239 ........................................ 5.0 

240 ........................................ 8.8 

241 ........................................ 11.5 

242 ........................................ 14.2 

243 ........................................ 15.4 

244 ........................................ 16.1 

245 ........................................ 16.1 

246 ........................................ 16.9 

247 ........................................ 16.5 

248 ........................................ 16.9 

249 ........................................ 18.0 

250 ........................................ 19.2 

251 ........................................ 20.4 

252 ........................................ 20.4 

253 ........................................ 21.1 

254 ........................................ 21.1 

255 ........................................ 22.3 

256 ........................................ 23.0 

257 ........................................ 23.8 

258 ........................................ 24.2 

259 ........................................ 24.6 

260 ........................................ 25.0 

261 ........................................ 25.7 

262 ........................................ 25.7 

263 ........................................ 26.5 

264 ........................................ 27.6 

265 ........................................ 28.4 

266 ........................................ 29.2 

267 ........................................ 30.3 

268 ........................................ 31.1 

269 ........................................ 31.1 

270 ........................................ 30.7 

271 ........................................ 31.1 

272 ........................................ 29.6 

273 ........................................ 29.2 

274 ........................................ 29.2 

275 ........................................ 28.8 

276 ........................................ 28.0 

277 ........................................ 23.0 

278 ........................................ 21.1 

279 ........................................ 21.5 

280 ........................................ 20.7 

281 ........................................ 20.7 

282 ........................................ 19.6 

283 ........................................ 16.5 

284 ........................................ 13.1 

285 ........................................ 9.6 

286 ........................................ 7.3 

287 ........................................ 3.8 

288 ........................................ 0.8 

289 ........................................ 0.0 

290 ........................................ 0.0 

291 ........................................ 0.0 

292 ........................................ 0.0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

293 ........................................ 0.0 

294 ........................................ 0.0 

295 ........................................ 0.0 

296 ........................................ 0.0 

297 ........................................ 0.0 

298 ........................................ 0.0 

299 ........................................ 0.0 

300 ........................................ 0.0 

301 ........................................ 0.0 

302 ........................................ 0.0 

303 ........................................ 0.0 

304 ........................................ 0.0 

305 ........................................ 0.0 

306 ........................................ 0.0 

307 ........................................ 0.0 

308 ........................................ 0.0 

309 ........................................ 0.0 

310 ........................................ 0.0 

311 ........................................ 0.0 

312 ........................................ 0.0 

313 ........................................ 0.4 

314 ........................................ 2.7 

315 ........................................ 7.3 

316 ........................................ 11.5 

317 ........................................ 15.4 

318 ........................................ 18.4 

319 ........................................ 20.7 

320 ........................................ 24.2 

321 ........................................ 26.9 

322 ........................................ 29.6 

323 ........................................ 31.1 

324 ........................................ 32.6 

325 ........................................ 33.8 

326 ........................................ 34.9 

327 ........................................ 36.9 

328 ........................................ 39.2 

329 ........................................ 41.1 

330 ........................................ 43.0 

331 ........................................ 43.8 

332 ........................................ 44.5 

333 ........................................ 45.3 

334 ........................................ 45.3 

335 ........................................ 44.9 

336 ........................................ 44.5 

337 ........................................ 43.8 

338 ........................................ 43.4 

339 ........................................ 42.6 

340 ........................................ 41.9 

341 ........................................ 41.5 

342 ........................................ 40.7 

343 ........................................ 40.3 

344 ........................................ 41.1 

345 ........................................ 41.5 

346 ........................................ 42.6 

347 ........................................ 43.4 

348 ........................................ 44.2 

349 ........................................ 44.9 

350 ........................................ 45.7 

351 ........................................ 46.5 

352 ........................................ 46.8 

353 ........................................ 47.2 

354 ........................................ 48.0 

355 ........................................ 47.6 

356 ........................................ 48.4 

357 ........................................ 48.0 

358 ........................................ 47.2 

359 ........................................ 46.1 

360 ........................................ 45.7 

361 ........................................ 44.9 

362 ........................................ 44.2 

363 ........................................ 43.8 

364 ........................................ 44.5 

365 ........................................ 44.9 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

366 ........................................ 45.3 

367 ........................................ 46.5 

368 ........................................ 48.0 

369 ........................................ 48.8 

370 ........................................ 49.5 

371 ........................................ 49.9 

372 ........................................ 49.9 

373 ........................................ 49.9 

374 ........................................ 49.5 

375 ........................................ 49.5 

376 ........................................ 48.8 

377 ........................................ 48.8 

378 ........................................ 48.8 

379 ........................................ 48.4 

380 ........................................ 48.8 

381 ........................................ 49.5 

382 ........................................ 50.3 

383 ........................................ 50.7 

384 ........................................ 51.8 

385 ........................................ 52.6 

386 ........................................ 53.4 

387 ........................................ 54.1 

388 ........................................ 55.3 

389 ........................................ 55.3 

390 ........................................ 56.1 

391 ........................................ 56.4 

392 ........................................ 56.4 

393 ........................................ 56.4 

394 ........................................ 57.2 

395 ........................................ 56.8 

396 ........................................ 57.6 

397 ........................................ 57.6 

398 ........................................ 57.6 

399 ........................................ 58.0 

400 ........................................ 58.0 

401 ........................................ 58.4 

402 ........................................ 58.4 

403 ........................................ 58.8 

404 ........................................ 59.1 

405 ........................................ 58.8 

406 ........................................ 58.8 

407 ........................................ 58.0 

408 ........................................ 58.0 

409 ........................................ 57.6 

410 ........................................ 57.6 

411 ........................................ 57.6 

412 ........................................ 57.6 

413 ........................................ 57.6 

414 ........................................ 59.1 

415 ........................................ 59.5 

416 ........................................ 59.9 

417 ........................................ 60.3 

418 ........................................ 60.3 

419 ........................................ 61.1 

420 ........................................ 60.3 

421 ........................................ 59.9 

422 ........................................ 59.5 

423 ........................................ 59.1 

424 ........................................ 59.1 

425 ........................................ 59.5 

426 ........................................ 59.5 

427 ........................................ 59.5 

428 ........................................ 59.9 

429 ........................................ 60.3 

430 ........................................ 60.7 

431 ........................................ 60.7 

432 ........................................ 61.4 

433 ........................................ 61.8 

434 ........................................ 61.8 

435 ........................................ 61.8 

436 ........................................ 61.8 

437 ........................................ 61.1 

438 ........................................ 60.7 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

439 ........................................ 60.3 

440 ........................................ 60.3 

441 ........................................ 60.3 

442 ........................................ 59.5 

443 ........................................ 58.8 

444 ........................................ 59.1 

445 ........................................ 58.8 

446 ........................................ 58.8 

447 ........................................ 58.8 

448 ........................................ 58.4 

449 ........................................ 58.0 

450 ........................................ 58.0 

451 ........................................ 58.0 

452 ........................................ 58.4 

453 ........................................ 59.1 

454 ........................................ 59.5 

455 ........................................ 59.9 

456 ........................................ 59.9 

457 ........................................ 60.3 

458 ........................................ 61.1 

459 ........................................ 61.1 

460 ........................................ 61.1 

461 ........................................ 61.4 

462 ........................................ 61.4 

463 ........................................ 61.1 

464 ........................................ 60.7 

465 ........................................ 59.9 

466 ........................................ 59.1 

467 ........................................ 59.1 

468 ........................................ 59.1 

469 ........................................ 59.9 

470 ........................................ 59.5 

471 ........................................ 59.9 

472 ........................................ 58.8 

473 ........................................ 58.0 

474 ........................................ 57.6 

475 ........................................ 56.8 

476 ........................................ 56.1 

477 ........................................ 55.3 

478 ........................................ 54.1 

479 ........................................ 52.6 

480 ........................................ 49.2 

481 ........................................ 46.1 

482 ........................................ 43.0 

483 ........................................ 37.2 

484 ........................................ 29.6 

485 ........................................ 21.5 

486 ........................................ 16.5 

487 ........................................ 15.7 

488 ........................................ 18.4 

489 ........................................ 21.5 

490 ........................................ 25.0 

491 ........................................ 27.3 

492 ........................................ 29.2 

493 ........................................ 30.7 

494 ........................................ 31.5 

495 ........................................ 31.1 

496 ........................................ 31.1 

497 ........................................ 30.3 

498 ........................................ 30.0 

499 ........................................ 30.0 

500 ........................................ 29.6 

501 ........................................ 30.0 

502 ........................................ 28.8 

503 ........................................ 28.8 

504 ........................................ 28.0 

505 ........................................ 28.4 

506 ........................................ 28.0 

507 ........................................ 28.4 

508 ........................................ 28.4 

509 ........................................ 28.8 

510 ........................................ 28.4 

511 ........................................ 28.4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30091 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

512 ........................................ 28.0 

513 ........................................ 26.5 

514 ........................................ 24.2 

515 ........................................ 22.7 

516 ........................................ 20.4 

517 ........................................ 17.7 

518 ........................................ 15.7 

519 ........................................ 13.1 

520 ........................................ 10.8 

521 ........................................ 8.4 

522 ........................................ 7.3 

523 ........................................ 5.0 

524 ........................................ 3.8 

525 ........................................ 3.5 

526 ........................................ 1.9 

527 ........................................ 0.8 

528 ........................................ 0.0 

529 ........................................ 0.0 

530 ........................................ 0.0 

531 ........................................ 0.8 

532 ........................................ 1.9 

533 ........................................ 3.8 

534 ........................................ 6.9 

535 ........................................ 9.6 

536 ........................................ 11.1 

537 ........................................ 11.1 

538 ........................................ 10.4 

539 ........................................ 8.8 

540 ........................................ 9.2 

541 ........................................ 10.0 

542 ........................................ 10.4 

543 ........................................ 10.4 

544 ........................................ 5.4 

545 ........................................ 1.9 

546 ........................................ 0.0 

547 ........................................ 0.0 

548 ........................................ 0.0 

549 ........................................ 0.0 

550 ........................................ 0.0 

551 ........................................ 0.0 

552 ........................................ 0.0 

553 ........................................ 0.0 

554 ........................................ 0.0 

555 ........................................ 0.0 

556 ........................................ 0.0 

557 ........................................ 0.0 

558 ........................................ 0.0 

559 ........................................ 0.0 

560 ........................................ 0.0 

561 ........................................ 0.0 

562 ........................................ 0.0 

563 ........................................ 0.0 

564 ........................................ 0.0 

565 ........................................ 0.0 

566 ........................................ 0.0 

567 ........................................ 0.0 

568 ........................................ 0.0 

569 ........................................ 0.0 

570 ........................................ 0.0 

571 ........................................ 0.0 

572 ........................................ 0.4 

573 ........................................ 1.5 

574 ........................................ 3.5 

575 ........................................ 6.1 

576 ........................................ 10.4 

577 ........................................ 14.2 

578 ........................................ 16.9 

579 ........................................ 19.2 

580 ........................................ 20.0 

581 ........................................ 21.5 

582 ........................................ 23.4 

583 ........................................ 24.6 

584 ........................................ 24.2 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

585 ........................................ 20.0 

586 ........................................ 16.9 

587 ........................................ 13.4 

588 ........................................ 13.4 

589 ........................................ 15.7 

590 ........................................ 18.4 

591 ........................................ 21.1 

592 ........................................ 23.4 

593 ........................................ 25.3 

594 ........................................ 27.6 

595 ........................................ 28.8 

596 ........................................ 30.3 

597 ........................................ 30.7 

598 ........................................ 31.5 

599 ........................................ 31.1 

600 ........................................ 31.1 

601 ........................................ 30.3 

602 ........................................ 30.3 

603 ........................................ 30.3 

604 ........................................ 30.7 

605 ........................................ 31.1 

606 ........................................ 32.3 

607 ........................................ 32.6 

608 ........................................ 32.6 

609 ........................................ 32.6 

610 ........................................ 31.1 

611 ........................................ 26.9 

612 ........................................ 22.3 

613 ........................................ 18.0 

614 ........................................ 13.8 

615 ........................................ 9.6 

616 ........................................ 4.6 

617 ........................................ 6.1 

618 ........................................ 10.0 

619 ........................................ 14.2 

620 ........................................ 17.3 

621 ........................................ 20.0 

622 ........................................ 21.5 

623 ........................................ 22.3 

624 ........................................ 22.3 

625 ........................................ 22.3 

626 ........................................ 22.3 

627 ........................................ 23.0 

628 ........................................ 23.0 

629 ........................................ 22.7 

630 ........................................ 22.3 

631 ........................................ 21.9 

632 ........................................ 22.7 

633 ........................................ 23.8 

634 ........................................ 25.0 

635 ........................................ 25.3 

636 ........................................ 25.7 

637 ........................................ 26.5 

638 ........................................ 26.9 

639 ........................................ 27.3 

640 ........................................ 28.0 

641 ........................................ 29.2 

642 ........................................ 30.0 

643 ........................................ 30.0 

644 ........................................ 29.6 

645 ........................................ 29.6 

646 ........................................ 28.8 

647 ........................................ 28.4 

648 ........................................ 28.0 

649 ........................................ 27.3 

650 ........................................ 25.7 

651 ........................................ 24.6 

652 ........................................ 25.0 

653 ........................................ 26.5 

654 ........................................ 28.0 

655 ........................................ 29.6 

656 ........................................ 30.7 

657 ........................................ 32.3 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

658 ........................................ 33.0 

659 ........................................ 34.2 

660 ........................................ 34.6 

661 ........................................ 35.3 

662 ........................................ 36.1 

663 ........................................ 36.1 

664 ........................................ 36.9 

665 ........................................ 36.9 

666 ........................................ 37.6 

667 ........................................ 37.6 

668 ........................................ 38.4 

669 ........................................ 38.0 

670 ........................................ 37.6 

671 ........................................ 37.6 

672 ........................................ 37.2 

673 ........................................ 36.9 

674 ........................................ 36.1 

675 ........................................ 35.7 

676 ........................................ 36.1 

677 ........................................ 35.7 

678 ........................................ 35.7 

679 ........................................ 35.7 

680 ........................................ 36.1 

681 ........................................ 36.1 

682 ........................................ 35.7 

683 ........................................ 35.7 

684 ........................................ 34.9 

685 ........................................ 34.6 

686 ........................................ 34.2 

687 ........................................ 33.8 

688 ........................................ 33.4 

689 ........................................ 33.0 

690 ........................................ 30.3 

691 ........................................ 29.2 

692 ........................................ 28.4 

693 ........................................ 25.0 

694 ........................................ 21.1 

695 ........................................ 16.9 

696 ........................................ 13.4 

697 ........................................ 13.1 

698 ........................................ 12.3 

699 ........................................ 12.7 

700 ........................................ 15.7 

701 ........................................ 19.2 

702 ........................................ 22.3 

703 ........................................ 24.6 

704 ........................................ 25.7 

705 ........................................ 26.5 

706 ........................................ 26.5 

707 ........................................ 26.9 

708 ........................................ 27.3 

709 ........................................ 27.3 

710 ........................................ 27.6 

711 ........................................ 28.4 

712 ........................................ 28.8 

713 ........................................ 28.8 

714 ........................................ 29.2 

715 ........................................ 28.8 

716 ........................................ 28.8 

717 ........................................ 28.0 

718 ........................................ 28.0 

719 ........................................ 27.6 

720 ........................................ 26.5 

721 ........................................ 24.6 

722 ........................................ 20.7 

723 ........................................ 16.5 

724 ........................................ 15.0 

725 ........................................ 14.2 

726 ........................................ 14.2 

727 ........................................ 13.8 

728 ........................................ 13.8 

729 ........................................ 11.9 

730 ........................................ 8.4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

731 ........................................ 4.2 

732 ........................................ 1.2 

733 ........................................ 0.0 

734 ........................................ 0.0 

735 ........................................ 0.0 

736 ........................................ 0.0 

737 ........................................ 0.0 

738 ........................................ 0.0 

739 ........................................ 0.0 

740 ........................................ 0.0 

741 ........................................ 0.0 

742 ........................................ 0.0 

743 ........................................ 0.0 

744 ........................................ 0.0 

745 ........................................ 0.0 

746 ........................................ 0.0 

747 ........................................ 0.0 

748 ........................................ 0.0 

749 ........................................ 0.0 

750 ........................................ 0.0 

751 ........................................ 0.0 

752 ........................................ 0.0 

753 ........................................ 0.0 

754 ........................................ 0.0 

755 ........................................ 0.0 

756 ........................................ 0.0 

757 ........................................ 0.0 

758 ........................................ 0.0 

759 ........................................ 0.0 

760 ........................................ 0.0 

761 ........................................ 0.0 

762 ........................................ 0.0 

763 ........................................ 1.5 

764 ........................................ 5.4 

765 ........................................ 9.2 

766 ........................................ 11.5 

767 ........................................ 14.6 

768 ........................................ 17.3 

769 ........................................ 19.2 

770 ........................................ 21.1 

771 ........................................ 20.7 

772 ........................................ 20.7 

773 ........................................ 19.6 

774 ........................................ 18.4 

775 ........................................ 16.9 

776 ........................................ 16.9 

777 ........................................ 16.5 

778 ........................................ 16.9 

779 ........................................ 16.9 

780 ........................................ 16.9 

781 ........................................ 17.3 

782 ........................................ 19.2 

783 ........................................ 20.4 

784 ........................................ 21.1 

785 ........................................ 22.3 

786 ........................................ 22.3 

787 ........................................ 22.7 

788 ........................................ 22.3 

789 ........................................ 22.7 

790 ........................................ 22.3 

791 ........................................ 23.8 

792 ........................................ 25.7 

793 ........................................ 27.6 

794 ........................................ 29.6 

795 ........................................ 30.0 

796 ........................................ 29.2 

797 ........................................ 27.6 

798 ........................................ 25.0 

799 ........................................ 23.8 

800 ........................................ 23.4 

801 ........................................ 24.2 

802 ........................................ 23.4 

803 ........................................ 23.0 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

804 ........................................ 20.4 

805 ........................................ 18.8 

806 ........................................ 17.3 

807 ........................................ 15.0 

808 ........................................ 13.1 

809 ........................................ 9.2 

810 ........................................ 6.9 

811 ........................................ 4.6 

812 ........................................ 4.6 

813 ........................................ 4.6 

814 ........................................ 4.2 

815 ........................................ 5.4 

816 ........................................ 4.6 

817 ........................................ 3.5 

818 ........................................ 2.3 

819 ........................................ 2.3 

820 ........................................ 1.9 

821 ........................................ 3.1 

822 ........................................ 6.1 

823 ........................................ 4.6 

824 ........................................ 2.7 

825 ........................................ 2.3 

826 ........................................ 2.3 

827 ........................................ 3.1 

828 ........................................ 4.2 

829 ........................................ 3.5 

830 ........................................ 3.8 

831 ........................................ 4.2 

832 ........................................ 3.5 

833 ........................................ 3.5 

834 ........................................ 3.5 

835 ........................................ 4.6 

836 ........................................ 5.8 

837 ........................................ 3.5 

838 ........................................ 0.8 

839 ........................................ 3.5 

840 ........................................ 3.8 

841 ........................................ 2.3 

842 ........................................ 0.0 

843 ........................................ 1.2 

844 ........................................ 6.9 

845 ........................................ 13.8 

846 ........................................ 18.8 

847 ........................................ 23.8 

848 ........................................ 27.3 

849 ........................................ 30.7 

850 ........................................ 33.8 

851 ........................................ 37.6 

852 ........................................ 40.7 

853 ........................................ 43.8 

854 ........................................ 46.1 

855 ........................................ 48.0 

856 ........................................ 49.5 

857 ........................................ 51.5 

858 ........................................ 53.0 

859 ........................................ 54.5 

860 ........................................ 55.7 

861 ........................................ 56.8 

862 ........................................ 58.0 

863 ........................................ 59.1 

864 ........................................ 60.3 

865 ........................................ 61.1 

866 ........................................ 61.8 

867 ........................................ 61.8 

868 ........................................ 61.8 

869 ........................................ 61.8 

870 ........................................ 62.6 

871 ........................................ 63.4 

872 ........................................ 63.0 

873 ........................................ 63.0 

874 ........................................ 62.6 

875 ........................................ 61.8 

876 ........................................ 61.8 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

877 ........................................ 62.2 

878 ........................................ 62.2 

879 ........................................ 62.6 

880 ........................................ 63.7 

881 ........................................ 64.5 

882 ........................................ 64.9 

883 ........................................ 66.0 

884 ........................................ 66.0 

885 ........................................ 66.8 

886 ........................................ 66.4 

887 ........................................ 66.8 

888 ........................................ 67.2 

889 ........................................ 66.4 

890 ........................................ 66.4 

891 ........................................ 66.0 

892 ........................................ 65.7 

893 ........................................ 65.7 

894 ........................................ 66.4 

895 ........................................ 66.0 

896 ........................................ 65.7 

897 ........................................ 65.3 

898 ........................................ 65.3 

899 ........................................ 64.5 

900 ........................................ 64.5 

901 ........................................ 64.1 

902 ........................................ 63.7 

903 ........................................ 63.7 

904 ........................................ 63.7 

905 ........................................ 64.5 

906 ........................................ 64.5 

907 ........................................ 64.9 

908 ........................................ 64.5 

909 ........................................ 64.1 

910 ........................................ 64.9 

911 ........................................ 65.3 

912 ........................................ 65.3 

913 ........................................ 65.3 

914 ........................................ 64.1 

915 ........................................ 63.4 

916 ........................................ 63.0 

917 ........................................ 63.4 

918 ........................................ 64.1 

919 ........................................ 64.9 

920 ........................................ 65.3 

921 ........................................ 64.5 

922 ........................................ 64.1 

923 ........................................ 63.4 

924 ........................................ 63.7 

925 ........................................ 63.4 

926 ........................................ 63.4 

927 ........................................ 63.4 

928 ........................................ 63.4 

929 ........................................ 63.7 

930 ........................................ 64.5 

931 ........................................ 65.3 

932 ........................................ 64.9 

933 ........................................ 63.7 

934 ........................................ 63.0 

935 ........................................ 59.9 

936 ........................................ 55.3 

937 ........................................ 50.7 

938 ........................................ 49.2 

939 ........................................ 48.0 

940 ........................................ 46.1 

941 ........................................ 44.2 

942 ........................................ 41.1 

943 ........................................ 39.9 

944 ........................................ 36.1 

945 ........................................ 32.6 

946 ........................................ 29.2 

947 ........................................ 24.6 

948 ........................................ 20.7 

949 ........................................ 19.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30093 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

950 ........................................ 16.5 

951 ........................................ 15.0 

952 ........................................ 11.9 

953 ........................................ 9.6 

954 ........................................ 8.4 

955 ........................................ 5.8 

956 ........................................ 1.2 

957 ........................................ 0.0 

958 ........................................ 0.0 

959 ........................................ 0.0 

960 ........................................ 1.2 

961 ........................................ 3.1 

962 ........................................ 5.0 

963 ........................................ 8.4 

964 ........................................ 11.5 

965 ........................................ 14.6 

966 ........................................ 16.9 

967 ........................................ 18.8 

968 ........................................ 21.1 

969 ........................................ 23.8 

970 ........................................ 26.5 

971 ........................................ 28.0 

972 ........................................ 29.6 

973 ........................................ 30.7 

974 ........................................ 32.6 

975 ........................................ 34.2 

976 ........................................ 35.3 

977 ........................................ 36.1 

978 ........................................ 36.9 

979 ........................................ 38.0 

980 ........................................ 38.0 

981 ........................................ 38.0 

982 ........................................ 38.0 

983 ........................................ 38.0 

984 ........................................ 37.2 

985 ........................................ 36.9 

986 ........................................ 36.1 

987 ........................................ 35.7 

988 ........................................ 34.9 

989 ........................................ 34.9 

990 ........................................ 33.8 

991 ........................................ 31.5 

992 ........................................ 28.8 

993 ........................................ 25.7 

994 ........................................ 24.6 

995 ........................................ 23.4 

996 ........................................ 22.3 

997 ........................................ 21.5 

998 ........................................ 20.0 

999 ........................................ 20.0 

1000 ...................................... 19.2 

1001 ...................................... 19.2 

1002 ...................................... 18.0 

1003 ...................................... 11.9 

1004 ...................................... 6.9 

1005 ...................................... 2.7 

1006 ...................................... 0.8 

1007 ...................................... 0.4 

1008 ...................................... 0.0 

1009 ...................................... 0.0 

1010 ...................................... 0.0 

1011 ...................................... 0.0 

1012 ...................................... 0.0 

1013 ...................................... 0.0 

1014 ...................................... 0.0 

1015 ...................................... 0.0 

1016 ...................................... 0.0 

1017 ...................................... 0.0 

1018 ...................................... 0.0 

1019 ...................................... 0.0 

1020 ...................................... 0.0 

1021 ...................................... 0.0 

1022 ...................................... 0.0 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1023 ...................................... 0.4 

1024 ...................................... 2.7 

1025 ...................................... 6.1 

1026 ...................................... 9.2 

1027 ...................................... 11.5 

1028 ...................................... 14.2 

1029 ...................................... 16.1 

1030 ...................................... 18.0 

1031 ...................................... 20.0 

1032 ...................................... 21.5 

1033 ...................................... 23.0 

1034 ...................................... 24.2 

1035 ...................................... 25.0 

1036 ...................................... 25.7 

1037 ...................................... 26.9 

1038 ...................................... 27.6 

1039 ...................................... 27.6 

1040 ...................................... 28.4 

1041 ...................................... 29.2 

1042 ...................................... 29.2 

1043 ...................................... 30.0 

1044 ...................................... 29.6 

1045 ...................................... 29.6 

1046 ...................................... 28.8 

1047 ...................................... 28.0 

1048 ...................................... 23.8 

1049 ...................................... 18.8 

1050 ...................................... 11.9 

1051 ...................................... 6.1 

1052 ...................................... 1.5 

1053 ...................................... 1.5 

1054 ...................................... 4.2 

1055 ...................................... 8.1 

1056 ...................................... 10.4 

1057 ...................................... 13.1 

1058 ...................................... 15.4 

1059 ...................................... 18.0 

1060 ...................................... 20.4 

1061 ...................................... 23.0 

1062 ...................................... 25.3 

1063 ...................................... 27.3 

1064 ...................................... 28.8 

1065 ...................................... 30.3 

1066 ...................................... 31.1 

1067 ...................................... 32.3 

1068 ...................................... 31.9 

1069 ...................................... 32.3 

1070 ...................................... 31.9 

1071 ...................................... 31.1 

1072 ...................................... 28.8 

1073 ...................................... 25.0 

1074 ...................................... 22.7 

1075 ...................................... 18.8 

1076 ...................................... 15.4 

1077 ...................................... 13.4 

1078 ...................................... 11.9 

1079 ...................................... 8.8 

1080 ...................................... 5.0 

1081 ...................................... 1.9 

1082 ...................................... 2.3 

1083 ...................................... 2.7 

1084 ...................................... 3.5 

1085 ...................................... 6.5 

1086 ...................................... 10.8 

1087 ...................................... 13.8 

1088 ...................................... 16.1 

1089 ...................................... 18.4 

1090 ...................................... 20.4 

1091 ...................................... 21.9 

1092 ...................................... 21.9 

1093 ...................................... 20.7 

1094 ...................................... 17.3 

1095 ...................................... 13.1 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1096 ...................................... 9.6 

1097 ...................................... 8.8 

1098 ...................................... 10.8 

1099 ...................................... 12.7 

1100 ...................................... 14.2 

1101 ...................................... 14.6 

1102 ...................................... 13.1 

1103 ...................................... 11.1 

1104 ...................................... 11.1 

1105 ...................................... 11.1 

1106 ...................................... 13.1 

1107 ...................................... 15.7 

1108 ...................................... 18.4 

1109 ...................................... 20.7 

1110 ...................................... 23.8 

1111 ...................................... 25.7 

1112 ...................................... 28.0 

1113 ...................................... 30.0 

1114 ...................................... 31.1 

1115 ...................................... 32.3 

1116 ...................................... 34.2 

1117 ...................................... 35.7 

1118 ...................................... 36.9 

1119 ...................................... 38.8 

1120 ...................................... 40.3 

1121 ...................................... 41.5 

1122 ...................................... 42.2 

1123 ...................................... 43.0 

1124 ...................................... 43.8 

1125 ...................................... 43.8 

1126 ...................................... 43.4 

1127 ...................................... 43.0 

1128 ...................................... 42.2 

1129 ...................................... 41.9 

1130 ...................................... 41.5 

1131 ...................................... 41.9 

1132 ...................................... 41.9 

1133 ...................................... 41.9 

1134 ...................................... 42.2 

1135 ...................................... 42.6 

1136 ...................................... 42.6 

1137 ...................................... 42.6 

1138 ...................................... 42.6 

1139 ...................................... 42.6 

1140 ...................................... 42.6 

1141 ...................................... 42.6 

1142 ...................................... 42.2 

1143 ...................................... 43.0 

1144 ...................................... 43.4 

1145 ...................................... 43.0 

1146 ...................................... 42.6 

1147 ...................................... 41.9 

1148 ...................................... 40.7 

1149 ...................................... 36.9 

1150 ...................................... 32.6 

1151 ...................................... 28.0 

1152 ...................................... 23.4 

1153 ...................................... 18.4 

1154 ...................................... 14.6 

1155 ...................................... 12.3 

1156 ...................................... 9.2 

1157 ...................................... 5.8 

1158 ...................................... 1.9 

1159 ...................................... 0.4 

1160 ...................................... 0.0 

1161 ...................................... 0.0 

1162 ...................................... 0.0 

1163 ...................................... 0.0 

1164 ...................................... 0.0 

1165 ...................................... 0.4 

1166 ...................................... 4.2 

1167 ...................................... 9.2 

1168 ...................................... 11.9 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30094 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1169 ...................................... 14.2 

1170 ...................................... 15.7 

1171 ...................................... 15.0 

1172 ...................................... 14.2 

1173 ...................................... 13.4 

1174 ...................................... 13.8 

1175 ...................................... 14.6 

1176 ...................................... 14.6 

1177 ...................................... 14.2 

1178 ...................................... 16.1 

1179 ...................................... 15.7 

1180 ...................................... 15.7 

1181 ...................................... 14.6 

1182 ...................................... 13.1 

1183 ...................................... 10.0 

1184 ...................................... 7.3 

1185 ...................................... 3.5 

1186 ...................................... 0.8 

1187 ...................................... 0.0 

1188 ...................................... 0.0 

1189 ...................................... 0.0 

1190 ...................................... 0.0 

1191 ...................................... 0.4 

1192 ...................................... 2.7 

1193 ...................................... 7.3 

1194 ...................................... 11.5 

1195 ...................................... 15.4 

1196 ...................................... 19.2 

1197 ...................................... 21.9 

1198 ...................................... 23.8 

1199 ...................................... 25.0 

1200 ...................................... 26.1 

1201 ...................................... 27.3 

1202 ...................................... 28.8 

1203 ...................................... 30.0 

1204 ...................................... 29.6 

1205 ...................................... 29.6 

1206 ...................................... 28.8 

1207 ...................................... 26.1 

1208 ...................................... 22.3 

1209 ...................................... 19.2 

1210 ...................................... 16.5 

1211 ...................................... 12.7 

1212 ...................................... 9.6 

1213 ...................................... 6.9 

1214 ...................................... 4.2 

1215 ...................................... 2.3 

1216 ...................................... 0.8 

1217 ...................................... 0.0 

1218 ...................................... 0.0 

1219 ...................................... 0.0 

1220 ...................................... 0.0 

1221 ...................................... 0.0 

1222 ...................................... 0.0 

1223 ...................................... 0.0 

1224 ...................................... 0.0 

1225 ...................................... 0.0 

1226 ...................................... 0.0 

1227 ...................................... 0.0 

1228 ...................................... 0.0 

1229 ...................................... 0.0 

1230 ...................................... 0.0 

1231 ...................................... 0.0 

1232 ...................................... 0.0 

1233 ...................................... 0.0 

1234 ...................................... 0.0 

1235 ...................................... 0.0 

1236 ...................................... 0.0 

1237 ...................................... 0.0 

1238 ...................................... 0.0 

1239 ...................................... 0.0 

1240 ...................................... 3.5 

1241 ...................................... 10.4 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1242 ...................................... 15.4 

1243 ...................................... 17.3 

1244 ...................................... 17.3 

1245 ...................................... 18.4 

1246 ...................................... 21.5 

1247 ...................................... 24.6 

1248 ...................................... 27.3 

1249 ...................................... 30.0 

1250 ...................................... 31.5 

1251 ...................................... 31.9 

1252 ...................................... 32.6 

1253 ...................................... 33.4 

1254 ...................................... 34.9 

1255 ...................................... 36.5 

1256 ...................................... 37.6 

1257 ...................................... 39.2 

1258 ...................................... 40.3 

1259 ...................................... 40.7 

1260 ...................................... 41.1 

1261 ...................................... 40.7 

1262 ...................................... 40.7 

1263 ...................................... 40.7 

1264 ...................................... 41.5 

1265 ...................................... 42.6 

1266 ...................................... 43.0 

1267 ...................................... 44.5 

1268 ...................................... 45.3 

1269 ...................................... 45.3 

1270 ...................................... 44.9 

1271 ...................................... 43.4 

1272 ...................................... 40.3 

1273 ...................................... 38.0 

1274 ...................................... 36.1 

1275 ...................................... 36.5 

1276 ...................................... 38.0 

1277 ...................................... 39.2 

1278 ...................................... 40.7 

1279 ...................................... 42.2 

1280 ...................................... 43.4 

1281 ...................................... 44.9 

1282 ...................................... 45.7 

1283 ...................................... 46.1 

1284 ...................................... 46.8 

1285 ...................................... 46.5 

1286 ...................................... 46.5 

1287 ...................................... 46.5 

1288 ...................................... 46.1 

1289 ...................................... 46.1 

1290 ...................................... 46.1 

1291 ...................................... 46.8 

1292 ...................................... 47.6 

1293 ...................................... 48.0 

1294 ...................................... 48.4 

1295 ...................................... 48.0 

1296 ...................................... 48.0 

1297 ...................................... 47.2 

1298 ...................................... 46.5 

1299 ...................................... 46.8 

1300 ...................................... 47.2 

1301 ...................................... 48.4 

1302 ...................................... 48.4 

1303 ...................................... 48.8 

1304 ...................................... 48.4 

1305 ...................................... 47.6 

1306 ...................................... 46.5 

1307 ...................................... 44.2 

1308 ...................................... 42.2 

1309 ...................................... 41.5 

1310 ...................................... 41.1 

1311 ...................................... 40.7 

1312 ...................................... 40.3 

1313 ...................................... 39.6 

1314 ...................................... 39.2 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1315 ...................................... 38.8 

1316 ...................................... 38.0 

1317 ...................................... 37.6 

1318 ...................................... 37.2 

1319 ...................................... 36.5 

1320 ...................................... 34.6 

1321 ...................................... 31.5 

1322 ...................................... 29.6 

1323 ...................................... 29.2 

1324 ...................................... 28.8 

1325 ...................................... 28.8 

1326 ...................................... 28.0 

1327 ...................................... 28.0 

1328 ...................................... 28.4 

1329 ...................................... 29.6 

1330 ...................................... 30.0 

1331 ...................................... 30.3 

1332 ...................................... 29.2 

1333 ...................................... 26.5 

1334 ...................................... 25.3 

1335 ...................................... 25.0 

1336 ...................................... 24.6 

1337 ...................................... 24.6 

1338 ...................................... 25.3 

1339 ...................................... 26.1 

1340 ...................................... 27.3 

1341 ...................................... 28.4 

1342 ...................................... 29.2 

1343 ...................................... 29.2 

1344 ...................................... 29.6 

1345 ...................................... 30.0 

1346 ...................................... 31.1 

1347 ...................................... 32.6 

1348 ...................................... 33.8 

1349 ...................................... 34.6 

1350 ...................................... 34.9 

1351 ...................................... 34.6 

1352 ...................................... 34.9 

1353 ...................................... 34.6 

1354 ...................................... 34.9 

1355 ...................................... 34.9 

1356 ...................................... 34.9 

1357 ...................................... 34.2 

1358 ...................................... 33.8 

1359 ...................................... 32.6 

1360 ...................................... 31.5 

1361 ...................................... 30.0 

1362 ...................................... 28.8 

1363 ...................................... 27.3 

1364 ...................................... 23.8 

1365 ...................................... 23.0 

1366 ...................................... 23.0 

1367 ...................................... 22.3 

1368 ...................................... 20.4 

1369 ...................................... 18.8 

1370 ...................................... 17.7 

1371 ...................................... 16.1 

1372 ...................................... 14.6 

1373 ...................................... 12.7 

1374 ...................................... 11.1 

1375 ...................................... 9.2 

1376 ...................................... 8.8 

1377 ...................................... 7.3 

1378 ...................................... 6.1 

1379 ...................................... 5.0 

1380 ...................................... 4.2 

1381 ...................................... 3.5 

1382 ...................................... 2.7 

1383 ...................................... 2.3 

1384 ...................................... 1.5 

1385 ...................................... 1.2 

1386 ...................................... 0.0 

1387 ...................................... 1.2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30095 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1388 ...................................... 4.2 

1389 ...................................... 7.3 

1390 ...................................... 8.8 

1391 ...................................... 10.8 

1392 ...................................... 12.3 

1393 ...................................... 13.1 

1394 ...................................... 12.3 

1395 ...................................... 12.3 

1396 ...................................... 11.5 

1397 ...................................... 11.5 

1398 ...................................... 11.1 

1399 ...................................... 11.1 

1400 ...................................... 11.1 

1401 ...................................... 13.1 

1402 ...................................... 15.0 

1403 ...................................... 16.9 

1404 ...................................... 16.9 

1405 ...................................... 16.1 

1406 ...................................... 15.7 

1407 ...................................... 15.4 

1408 ...................................... 15.0 

1409 ...................................... 13.8 

1410 ...................................... 10.8 

1411 ...................................... 8.4 

1412 ...................................... 6.1 

1413 ...................................... 4.2 

1414 ...................................... 3.5 

1415 ...................................... 3.5 

1416 ...................................... 1.5 

1417 ...................................... 0.0 

1418 ...................................... 0.0 

1419 ...................................... 0.0 

1420 ...................................... 0.0 

1421 ...................................... 0.0 

1422 ...................................... 0.0 

1423 ...................................... 0.0 

1424 ...................................... 0.0 

1425 ...................................... 0.0 

1426 ...................................... 0.0 

1427 ...................................... 0.0 

1428 ...................................... 0.0 

1429 ...................................... 0.0 

1430 ...................................... 0.0 

1431 ...................................... 0.0 

1432 ...................................... 0.0 

1433 ...................................... 0.0 

1434 ...................................... 0.0 

1435 ...................................... 0.0 

1436 ...................................... 0.0 

1437 ...................................... 0.0 

1438 ...................................... 0.0 

1439 ...................................... 0.0 

1440 ...................................... 0.0 

1441 ...................................... 0.0 

1442 ...................................... 0.0 

1443 ...................................... 0.0 

1444 ...................................... 0.0 

1445 ...................................... 0.0 

1446 ...................................... 0.0 

1447 ...................................... 0.0 

1448 ...................................... 0.0 

1449 ...................................... 0.0 

1450 ...................................... 0.0 

1451 ...................................... 0.0 

1452 ...................................... 0.0 

1453 ...................................... 0.0 

1454 ...................................... 0.0 

1455 ...................................... 0.0 

1456 ...................................... 1.2 

1457 ...................................... 4.2 

1458 ...................................... 7.3 

1459 ...................................... 8.8 

1460 ...................................... 10.8 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1461 ...................................... 12.3 

1462 ...................................... 13.1 

1463 ...................................... 12.3 

1464 ...................................... 12.3 

1465 ...................................... 11.5 

1466 ...................................... 11.5 

1467 ...................................... 11.1 

1468 ...................................... 11.1 

1469 ...................................... 11.1 

1470 ...................................... 13.1 

1471 ...................................... 15.0 

1472 ...................................... 16.9 

1473 ...................................... 16.9 

1474 ...................................... 16.1 

1475 ...................................... 15.7 

1476 ...................................... 15.4 

1477 ...................................... 15.0 

1478 ...................................... 13.8 

1479 ...................................... 10.8 

1480 ...................................... 8.4 

1481 ...................................... 6.1 

1482 ...................................... 4.2 

1483 ...................................... 3.5 

1484 ...................................... 3.5 

1485 ...................................... 1.5 

1486 ...................................... 0.0 

1487 ...................................... 0.0 

1488 ...................................... 0.0 

1489 ...................................... 0.0 

1490 ...................................... 0.0 

1491 ...................................... 0.0 

1492 ...................................... 0.0 

1493 ...................................... 0.0 

1494 ...................................... 0.0 

1495 ...................................... 0.0 

1496 ...................................... 0.0 

1497 ...................................... 0.0 

1498 ...................................... 1.2 

1499 ...................................... 3.5 

1500 ...................................... 7.7 

1501 ...................................... 11.1 

1502 ...................................... 13.8 

1503 ...................................... 16.5 

1504 ...................................... 18.4 

1505 ...................................... 20.4 

1506 ...................................... 20.7 

1507 ...................................... 19.6 

1508 ...................................... 17.3 

1509 ...................................... 12.3 

1510 ...................................... 8.1 

1511 ...................................... 6.1 

1512 ...................................... 9.6 

1513 ...................................... 12.7 

1514 ...................................... 15.7 

1515 ...................................... 18.0 

1516 ...................................... 20.4 

1517 ...................................... 21.9 

1518 ...................................... 23.4 

1519 ...................................... 23.8 

1520 ...................................... 24.6 

1521 ...................................... 25.0 

1522 ...................................... 26.1 

1523 ...................................... 26.1 

1524 ...................................... 26.9 

1525 ...................................... 26.9 

1526 ...................................... 26.9 

1527 ...................................... 26.5 

1528 ...................................... 25.7 

1529 ...................................... 21.9 

1530 ...................................... 16.5 

1531 ...................................... 10.0 

1532 ...................................... 4.6 

1533 ...................................... 1.5 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1534 ...................................... 0.4 

1535 ...................................... 0.0 

1536 ...................................... 0.0 

1537 ...................................... 0.0 

1538 ...................................... 0.0 

1539 ...................................... 0.0 

1540 ...................................... 0.0 

1541 ...................................... 0.0 

1542 ...................................... 0.0 

1543 ...................................... 0.4 

1544 ...................................... 1.2 

1545 ...................................... 1.9 

1546 ...................................... 3.8 

1547 ...................................... 7.7 

1548 ...................................... 11.5 

1549 ...................................... 14.6 

1550 ...................................... 18.0 

1551 ...................................... 21.5 

1552 ...................................... 25.0 

1553 ...................................... 28.4 

1554 ...................................... 30.7 

1555 ...................................... 31.9 

1556 ...................................... 32.3 

1557 ...................................... 32.3 

1558 ...................................... 31.9 

1559 ...................................... 30.3 

1560 ...................................... 28.0 

1561 ...................................... 24.2 

1562 ...................................... 20.0 

1563 ...................................... 16.1 

1564 ...................................... 11.5 

1565 ...................................... 8.1 

1566 ...................................... 5.0 

1567 ...................................... 3.5 

1568 ...................................... 1.9 

1569 ...................................... 0.0 

1570 ...................................... 0.0 

1571 ...................................... 0.0 

1572 ...................................... 0.0 

1573 ...................................... 0.0 

1574 ...................................... 0.0 

1575 ...................................... 0.0 

1576 ...................................... 0.0 

1577 ...................................... 0.0 

1578 ...................................... 1.5 

1579 ...................................... 6.9 

1580 ...................................... 12.7 

1581 ...................................... 16.5 

1582 ...................................... 20.0 

1583 ...................................... 23.0 

1584 ...................................... 25.7 

1585 ...................................... 28.0 

1586 ...................................... 30.7 

1587 ...................................... 32.6 

1588 ...................................... 34.2 

1589 ...................................... 35.3 

1590 ...................................... 36.9 

1591 ...................................... 36.9 

1592 ...................................... 37.2 

1593 ...................................... 37.6 

1594 ...................................... 37.6 

1595 ...................................... 37.6 

1596 ...................................... 37.2 

1597 ...................................... 37.2 

1598 ...................................... 36.9 

1599 ...................................... 36.5 

1600 ...................................... 36.5 

1601 ...................................... 34.9 

1602 ...................................... 33.4 

1603 ...................................... 31.9 

1604 ...................................... 29.2 

1605 ...................................... 25.0 

1606 ...................................... 25.0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1607 ...................................... 26.1 

1608 ...................................... 27.6 

1609 ...................................... 29.2 

1610 ...................................... 31.1 

1611 ...................................... 32.3 

1612 ...................................... 34.2 

1613 ...................................... 34.9 

1614 ...................................... 35.7 

1615 ...................................... 36.5 

1616 ...................................... 36.9 

1617 ...................................... 36.9 

1618 ...................................... 37.2 

1619 ...................................... 37.6 

1620 ...................................... 37.2 

1621 ...................................... 37.6 

1622 ...................................... 38.0 

1623 ...................................... 38.4 

1624 ...................................... 39.2 

1625 ...................................... 39.6 

1626 ...................................... 39.9 

1627 ...................................... 40.7 

1628 ...................................... 40.3 

1629 ...................................... 41.1 

1630 ...................................... 41.1 

1631 ...................................... 40.7 

1632 ...................................... 31.9 

1633 ...................................... 23.9 

1634 ...................................... 15.9 

1635 ...................................... 7.9 

1636 ...................................... 2.7 

1637 ...................................... 0.4 

1638 ...................................... 0.4 

1639 ...................................... 2.7 

1640 ...................................... 3.8 

1641 ...................................... 3.8 

1642 ...................................... 1.5 

1643 ...................................... 0.0 

1644 ...................................... 0.0 

1645 ...................................... 0.0 

1646 ...................................... 0.0 

1647 ...................................... 0.0 

1648 ...................................... 0.0 

1649 ...................................... 0.0 

1650 ...................................... 0.0 

1651 ...................................... 0.0 

1652 ...................................... 0.0 

1653 ...................................... 0.0 

1654 ...................................... 0.0 

1655 ...................................... 0.0 

1656 ...................................... 0.0 

1657 ...................................... 0.0 

1658 ...................................... 0.0 

1659 ...................................... 0.0 

1660 ...................................... 0.0 

1661 ...................................... 0.0 

1662 ...................................... 0.0 

1663 ...................................... 0.0 

1664 ...................................... 0.0 

1665 ...................................... 0.0 

1666 ...................................... 0.0 

1667 ...................................... 0.0 

1668 ...................................... 0.0 

1669 ...................................... 0.0 

1670 ...................................... 0.0 

1671 ...................................... 0.0 

1672 ...................................... 0.0 

1673 ...................................... 1.5 

1674 ...................................... 5.0 

1675 ...................................... 8.8 

1676 ...................................... 11.5 

1677 ...................................... 14.2 

1678 ...................................... 15.4 

1679 ...................................... 16.1 

Time 

(sec.) 

Speed 

(mph) 

1680 ...................................... 16.1 

1681 ...................................... 16.9 

1682 ...................................... 16.5 

1683 ...................................... 16.9 

1684 ...................................... 18.0 

1685 ...................................... 19.2 

1686 ...................................... 20.4 

1687 ...................................... 20.4 

1688 ...................................... 21.1 

1689 ...................................... 21.1 

1690 ...................................... 22.3 

1691 ...................................... 23.0 

1692 ...................................... 23.8 

1693 ...................................... 24.2 

1694 ...................................... 24.6 

1695 ...................................... 25.0 

1696 ...................................... 25.7 

1697 ...................................... 25.7 

1698 ...................................... 26.5 

1699 ...................................... 27.6 

1700 ...................................... 28.4 

1701 ...................................... 29.2 

1702 ...................................... 30.3 

1703 ...................................... 31.1 

1704 ...................................... 31.1 

1705 ...................................... 30.7 

1706 ...................................... 31.1 

1707 ...................................... 29.6 

1708 ...................................... 29.2 

1709 ...................................... 29.2 

1710 ...................................... 28.8 

1711 ...................................... 28.0 

1712 ...................................... 23.0 

1713 ...................................... 21.1 

1714 ...................................... 21.5 

1715 ...................................... 20.7 

1716 ...................................... 20.7 

1717 ...................................... 19.6 

1718 ...................................... 16.5 

1719 ...................................... 13.1 

1720 ...................................... 9.6 

1721 ...................................... 7.3 

1722 ...................................... 3.8 

1723 ...................................... 0.8 

1724 ...................................... 0.0 

1725 ...................................... 0.0 

1726 ...................................... 0.0 

1727 ...................................... 0.0 

1728 ...................................... 0.0 

1729 ...................................... 0.0 

1730 ...................................... 0.0 

1731 ...................................... 0.0 

1732 ...................................... 0.0 

1733 ...................................... 0.0 

1734 ...................................... 0.0 

1735 ...................................... 0.0 

(d) EPA driving schedule for testing heavyduty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

This driving schedule applies for testing 

vehicles subject to evaporative emission 

standards under subpart A of this part. 

* * * * * 

Appendix XIII Through Appendix 

XVIII to Part 86—[Removed] 

■ 188. Appendix XIII through Appendix 

XVIII to part 86 are removed. 

PART 600—FUEL ECONOMY AND 

GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST 

EMISSIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES 

■ 189. The authority citation for part 

600 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901–32919q, 

Pub. L. 109–58. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 190. Section 600.011 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and (c)(3) 

to read as follows: 

§ 600.011 Incorporation by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. 

Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959, (610) 832–9585, http:// 

www.astm.org/. 

(1) ASTM D975–11 Standard 

Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, 

approved March 1, 2011, IBR approved 

for § 600.107–08(b). 

(2) ASTM D 1298–99 (Reapproved 

2005) Standard Practice for Density, 

Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or 

API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and 

Liquid Petroleum Products by 

Hydrometer Method, approved 

November 1, 2005, IBR approved for 

§§ 600.113–12(f) and (g) and 600.510– 

12(g). 

(3) ASTM D 1945–03 (Reapproved 

2010) Standard Test Method for 

Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas 

Chromatography, approved January 1, 

2010, IBR approved for § 600.113–12(f). 

(4) ASTM D 3338/D 3338M–09 

Standard Test Method for Estimation of 

Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation 

Fuels, approved April 15, 2009, IBR 

approved for § 600.113–12(f). 

(5) ASTM D 3343–05 (Reapproved 

2010) Standard Test Method for 

Estimation of Hydrogen Content of 

Aviation Fuels, approved October 1, 

2010, IBR approved for § 600.113–12(f). 

(c) * * * 

(2) SAE J1634, Revised October 2012, 

Battery Electric Vehicle Energy 

Consumption and Range Test 

Procedure, IBR approved for 

§§ 600.116–12(a) and 600.311–12(j) and 

(k). 

(3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice 

for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions 

and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric 

Vehicles, Including Plug-In Hybrid 

Vehicles, June 2010, IBR approved for 

§§ 600.114–12(c) and (f), 600.116–12(b) 

and (c), and 600.311–12(d), (j), and (k). 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30097 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

§§ 600.113–08 and 600.114–08 [Removed] 

■ 191. Remove §§ 600.113–08 and 

600.114–08. 

■ 192. Section 600.116–12 is amended 

as follows: 

■ a. By revising the section heading. 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(5). 

■ c. By redesignating paragraphs (b) and 

(c) as paragraphs (c) and (d), 

respectively. 

■ d. By adding a new paragraph (b). 

■ e. By revising the redesignated 

paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1) 

introductory text, and (c)(2) 

introductory text. 

§ 600.116–12 Special procedures related to 

electric vehicles and hybrid electric 

vehicles. 

(a) * * * 

(5) We may approve alternate 

measurement procedures with respect to 

electric vehicles if they are necessary or 

appropriate for meeting the objectives of 

this part. For example, we may approve 

the use of an earlier version of SAE 

J1634 for carryover vehicles, or if you 

show that it is equivalent for your 

vehicle. 

* * * * * 

(b) Determine performance values for 

hybrid electric vehicles that have no 

plug-in capability as specified in 

§§ 600.210 and 600.311 using the 

procedures for charge-sustaining 

operation from SAE J1711 (incorporated 

by reference in § 600.011). We may 

approve alternate measurement 

procedures with respect to these 

vehicles if that is necessary or 

appropriate for meeting the objectives of 

this part. 

(c) Determine performance values for 

hybrid electric vehicles that have plugin capability as specified in §§ 600.210 

and 600.311 using the procedures of 

SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 600.011), with the following 

clarifications and modifications: 

(1) To determine fuel economy and 

CREE values to demonstrate compliance 

with CAFE and GHG standards, 

calculate composite values representing 

combined operation during chargedepleting and charge-sustaining 

operation using the following utility 

factors except as specified in this 

paragraph (b): 

* * * * * 

(2) To determine fuel economy and 

CO2 emission values for labeling 

purposes, calculate composite values 

representing combined operation during 

charge-depleting and charge-sustaining 

operation using the following utility 

factors except as specified in this 

paragraph (b): 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

§§ 600.206–08, 600.207–08, 600.208–08, 

600.209–08, and 600.210–08 [Removed] 

■ 193. Remove §§ 600.206–08, 600.207– 

08, 600.208–08, 600.209–08, and 

600.210–08. 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

§§ 600.302–08 and 600.311–08 [Removed] 

■ 194. Remove 600.302–08 and 

600.311–08. 

■ 195. Section 600.311–12 is amended 

by revising paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 600.311–12 Determination of values for 

fuel economy labels. 

* * * * * 

(g) Smog rating. Establish a rating for 

exhaust emissions other than CO2 based 

on the applicable emission standards for 

the appropriate model year as shown in 

Tables 1 through 3 of this section. For 

Independent Commercial Importers that 

import vehicles not subject to Tier 2 or 

Tier 3 emission standards, the vehicle’s 

smog rating is 1. Similarly, if a 

manufacturer certifies vehicles to 

emission standards that are less 

stringent than all the identified 

standards for any reason, the vehicle’s 

smog rating is 1. If EPA or California 

emission standards change in the future, 

we may revise the emission levels 

corresponding to each rating for future 

model years as appropriate to reflect the 

changed standards. If this occurs, we 

would publish the revised ratings as 

described in § 600.302–12(k), allowing 

sufficient lead time to make the 

changes; we would also expect to 

initiate a rulemaking to update the smog 

rating in the regulation. 

TABLE 1 OF § 600.311–12—CRITERIA

FOR ESTABLISHING SMOG RATING

FOR MODEL YEAR 2025 AND LATER

Rating U.S. EPA Tier 3 

emission standard 

California Air 

Resources 

Board LEV III 

emission 

standard 

1 ....... Bin 160 ................ LEV 160 

2 ....... Bin 125 ................ ULEV125 

4 ....... Bin 70 .................. ULEV70 

5 ....... Bin 50 .................. ULEV50 

6 ....... Bin 30 .................. SULEV30 

7 ....... Bin 20 .................. SULEV20 

8 ....... ............................. TZEV 

10 ..... Bin 0 .................... ZEV 

TABLE 2 OF § 600.311–12—CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING SMOG RATING FOR MODEL YEARS 2018–2024 

Rating U.S. EPA Tier 3 emission standard U.S EPA Tier 2 emission standard 

California Air 

Resources 

Board LEV III 

emission 

standard 

1 ............................................................... Bin 160 ................................................... Bin 5 through Bin 8 ................................ LEV 160 

3 ............................................................... Bin 125 ................................................... Bin 4 ....................................................... ULEV125 

5 ............................................................... Bin 70 ..................................................... Bin 3 ....................................................... ULEV70 

6 ............................................................... Bin 50 ..................................................... ................................................................ ULEV50 

7 ............................................................... Bin 30 ..................................................... Bin 2 ....................................................... SULEV30 

8 ............................................................... Bin 20 ..................................................... ................................................................ SULEV20 

9 ............................................................... ................................................................ ................................................................ TZEV 

10 ............................................................. Bin 0 ....................................................... Bin 1 ....................................................... ZEV 

TABLE 3 OF § 600.311–12—CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING SMOG RATING THROUGH MODEL YEAR 2017 

Rating U.S. EPA Tier 2 emission standard California Air Resources Board 

LEV II emission standard 

1 ................................................................................... ...................................................................................... ULEV & LEV II large trucks. 

2 ................................................................................... Bin 8 ............................................................................ SULEV II large trucks. 

3 ................................................................................... Bin 7 ............................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 OF § 600.311–12—CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING SMOG RATING THROUGH MODEL YEAR 2017—Continued 

Rating U.S. EPA Tier 2 emission standard California Air Resources Board 

LEV II emission standard 

4 ................................................................................... Bin 6 ............................................................................ LEV II, option 1. 

5 ................................................................................... Bin 5 ............................................................................ LEV II. 

6 ................................................................................... Bin 4 ............................................................................ ULEV II. 

7 ................................................................................... Bin 3 ............................................................................

8 ................................................................................... Bin 2 ............................................................................ SULEV II. 

9 ................................................................................... ...................................................................................... PZEV. 

10 ................................................................................. Bin 1 ............................................................................ ZEV. 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

§§ 600.507–08, 600.509–08, 600.510–08, and 

600.512–08 [Removed] 

■ 196. Remove §§ 600.507–08, 600.509– 

08, 600.510–08, and 600.512–08. 

Appendix IV and Appendix V to Part 

600—[Removed and Reserved] 

■ 197. Remove and reserve Appendix IV 

and Appendix V to Part 600. 

PART 1036—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW AND IN–USE HEAVY– 

DUTY HIGHWAY ENGINES 

■ 198. The authority citation for part 

1036 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 199. Section 1036.115 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1036.115 Other requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) You must design and produce your 

engines to comply with evaporative 

emission standards as follows: 

(1) For complete heavy-duty vehicles 

you produce, you must certify the 

vehicles to emission standards as 

specified in 40 CFR 1037.103. 

(2) For incomplete heavy-duty 

vehicles, and for engines used in 

vehicles you do not produce, you do not 

need to certify your engines to 

evaporative emission standards or 

otherwise meet those standards. 

However, vehicle manufacturers 

certifying their vehicles with your 

engines may depend on you to produce 

your engines according to their 

specifications. Also, your engines must 

meet applicable exhaust emission 

standards in the installed configuration. 

PART 1037—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 

FROM NEW HEAVY–DUTY MOTOR 

VEHICLES 

■ 200. The authority citation for part 

1037 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 201. Section 1037.101 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1037.101 Overview of emission 

standards for heavy-duty vehicles. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Fuel evaporative emissions. These 

requirements are described in 40 CFR 

part 86 and § 1037.103. 

(c) * * * 

(3) For evaporative and refueling 

emissions, vehicles are regulated based 

on the type of fuel they use. Vehicles 

fueled with volatile liquid fuels or 

gaseous fuels are subject to evaporative 

emission standards. Vehicles up to a 

certain size that are fueled with 

gasoline, diesel fuel, ethanol, methanol, 

or LPG are subject to refueling emission 

standards. 

■ 202. A new § 1037.103 is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 1037.103 Evaporative emission 

standards. 

(a) Applicability. Evaporative 

emission standards apply to heavy-duty 

vehicles as follows: 

(1) Complete and incomplete heavyduty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR must meet evaporative and 

refueling emission standards as 

specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, 

instead of the requirements specified in 

this section, except that incomplete 

heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR must meet evaporative 

emission standards as specified in 40 

CFR part 86, subpart A through model 

year 2017. 

(2) Heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 

pounds GVWR that run on volatile 

liquid fuel (such as gasoline or ethanol) 

or gaseous fuel (such as natural gas or 

LPG) must meet evaporative emission 

standards as specified in this section 

starting in model year 2018. 

(b) Emission standards. The 

evaporative emission standards 

specified in 40 CFR 86.1813 apply for 

vehicles subject to standards under this 

section based on emission 

measurements using the procedures 

specified in § 1037.530. These standards 

phase in over model years 2018 through 

2022. Count vehicles subject to 

standards under this section the same as 

heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR to comply with the 

phase-in requirements specified in 40 

CFR 86.1813. These vehicles may 

generate and use emission credits as 

described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, 

but only for vehicles that are tested for 

certification (instead of relying on the 

provisions of paragraph (c) of this 

section). 

(c) Compliance demonstration. You 

may provide a statement in the 

application for certification that 

vehicles comply with evaporative and 

refueling emission standards instead of 

submitting test data if you include an 

engineering analysis describing how 

vehicles include design parameters, 

equipment, operating controls, or other 

elements of design that adequately 

demonstrate that vehicles comply with 

the standards. We would expect 

emission control components and 

systems to exhibit a comparable degree 

of control relative to vehicles that 

comply based on testing. For example, 

vehicles that comply under this 

paragraph (c) should rely on comparable 

material specifications to limit fuel 

permeation, and components should be 

sized and calibrated to correspond with 

the appropriate fuel capacities, fuel flow 

rates, purge strategies, and other vehicle 

operating characteristics. You may 

alternatively show that design 

parameters are comparable to those for 

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR certified under 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart S. 

(d) Incomplete vehicles. If you sell 

incomplete vehicles, you must identify 

the maximum fuel tank capacity for 

which you designed the vehicle’s 

evaporative emission control system. 

(e) Useful life. Your vehicles must 

meet the evaporative emission standards 

of this section throughout their useful 

life, expressed in service miles or 

calendar years, whichever comes first. 

The useful life values for the standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30099 

of this section are those that apply for 

criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86. 

(f) Auxiliary engines and separate fuel 

systems. The provisions of this 

paragraph (g) apply for vehicles with 

auxiliary engines. This includes any 

engines installed in the final vehicle 

configuration that contribute no motive 

power through the vehicle’s 

transmission. 

(1) Auxiliary engines and associated 

fuel-system components must be 

installed when testing complete 

vehicles. If the auxiliary engine draws 

fuel from a separate fuel tank, you must 

fill the extra fuel tank before the start of 

diurnal testing as described for the 

vehicle’s main fuel tank. Use good 

engineering judgment to ensure that any 

nonmetal portions of the fuel system 

related to the auxiliary engine have 

reached stabilized levels of permeation 

emissions. The auxiliary engine must 

not operate during the running loss test 

or any other portion of testing under 

this section. 

(2) For testing with incomplete 

vehicles, you may omit installation of 

auxiliary engines and associated fuelsystem components as long as those 

components installed in the final 

configuration are certified to meet the 

applicable emission standards for Small 

SI equipment described in 40 CFR 

1054.112 or for Large SI engines in 40 

CFR 1048.105. For any fuel-system 

components that you do not install, 

your installation instructions must 

describe this certification requirement. 

■ 203. Section 1037.104 is amended by 

adding paragraph (h)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1037.104 Exhaust emission standards 

for CO2, CH4, and N2O for heavy-duty 

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) The evaporative and refueling 

emission standards in § 1037.103. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 204. Section 1037.230 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1037.230 Vehicle families, sub-families, 

and configurations. 

* * * * * 

(e) Divide your vehicles that are 

subject to evaporative emission 

standards into groups of vehicles with 

similar physical features expected to 

affect evaporative emissions. Group 

vehicles in the same evaporative 

emission family if they are the same in 

all the following aspects, unless we 

approve a better way of grouping 

vehicles into families that have similar 

emission control characteristics: 

(1) Method of vapor storage, including 

the number of vapor storage devices, the 

working material, and the total working 

capacity of vapor storage (as determined 

under 40 CFR 86.132–96(h)(1)(iv)). You 

may consider the working capacity to be 

the same if the values differ by 20 grams 

or less. 

(2) Method of purging stored vapors. 

(3) Material for liquid and vapor fuel 

lines. 

* * * * * 

■ 205. A new § 1037.243 is added to 

subpart C to read as follows: 

§ 1037.243 Demonstrating compliance with 

evaporative emission standards. 

(a) For purposes of certification, your 

vehicle family is considered in 

compliance with the evaporative 

emission standards in subpart B of this 

part if you prepare an engineering 

analysis showing that your vehicles in 

the family will comply with applicable 

standards throughout the useful life, 

and there are no test results from an 

emission-data vehicle representing the 

family that exceed an emission 

standard. 

(b) Your evaporative emission family 

is deemed not to comply if your 

engineering analysis is not adequate to 

show that all the vehicles in the family 

will comply with applicable emission 

standards throughout the useful life, or 

if a test result from an emission-data 

vehicle representing the family exceeds 

an emission standard. 

(c) To compare emission levels with 

emission standards, apply deterioration 

factors to the measured emission levels. 

Establish an additive deterioration 

factor based on an engineering analysis 

that takes into account the expected 

aging from in-use vehicles. 

(d) Apply the deterioration factor to 

the official emission result, as described 

in paragraph (c) of this section, then 

round the adjusted figure to the same 

number of decimal places as the 

emission standard. Compare the 

rounded emission levels to the emission 

standard for each emission-data vehicle. 

(e) Your analysis to demonstrate 

compliance with emission standards 

must take into account your design 

strategy for vehicles that require testing. 

Specifically, vehicles above 14,000 

pounds GVWR are presumed to need 

the same technologies that are required 

for heavy-duty vehicles at or below 

14,000 pounds GVWR. Similarly, your 

analysis to establish a deterioration 

factor must take into account your 

testing to establish deterioration factors 

for smaller vehicles. 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

■ 206. Section 1037.501 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1037.501 General testing and modeling 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(a) Use the equipment and procedures 

specified in § 1037.530 to determine 

whether vehicles meet the diurnal, 

running loss, and hot soak emission 

standards specified in § 1037.103. 

* * * * * 

■ 207. A new § 1037.530 is added to 

subpart F to read as follows: 

§ 1037.530 Evaporative emission test 

procedures. 

Apply the provisions of 40 CFR part 

86, subpart B, to demonstrate 

compliance with the diurnal, running 

loss, and hot soak emission standards as 

specified in § 1037.103, with the 

following exceptions: 

(a) Use drive cycles for heavy-duty 

vehicles as follows: 

(1) The Heavy-Duty Urban 

Dynamometer Driving Schedule (HD– 

UDDS) is specified in 40 CFR part 86, 

Appendix I, paragraph (d). It represents 

about 5.6 miles of driving for a heavyduty vehicle in an urban area. 

(2) For the preconditioning drive, 

operate the vehicle over one HD–UDDS 

instead of the drive specified in 40 CFR 

86.132. 

(3) For the dynamometer run 

preceding the diurnal emission test, 

operate the vehicle over one HD–UDDS 

instead of the FTP driving schedule. 

(4) For performing the running loss 

test and developing fuel tank 

temperature profiles, operate the vehicle 

over three consecutive HD–UDDS 

cycles, each separated by two minutes if 

idle operation, instead of the driving 

specified in 40 CFR 86.134. 

(b) The vehicle may be driven onto 

the dynamometer, as long as the vehicle 

is driven at minimum throttle and the 

total time of engine operation in the 

soak period before the diurnal emission 

test does not exceed 3 minutes. 

(c) Testing under this subpart does 

not require measurement of exhaust 

emissions. Disregard references in 40 

CFR part 86, subpart B, to procedures, 

equipment specifications, and 

recordkeeping related to measuring 

exhaust emissions. All references to the 

exhaust test under 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart B, are considered the 

‘‘dynamometer run’’ as part of the 

evaporative testing sequence under this 

subpart. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

PART 1065—ENGINE–TESTING 

PROCEDURES 

■ 208. The authority citation for part 

1065 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 209. Section 1065.1 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.1 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(h) This part describes procedures and 

specifications for measuring an engine’s 

exhaust emissions. While the 

measurements are geared toward 

engine-based measurements (in units of 

g/kW·hr), many of these provisions 

apply equally to vehicle-based 

measurements (in units of g/mile or g/ 

kilometer). 40 CFR part 1066 describes 

the analogous procedures for vehiclebased emission measurements, and in 

many cases states that specific 

provisions of this part 1065 also apply 

for those vehicle-based measurements. 

Where material from this part 1065 

applies for vehicle-based measurements 

under 40 CFR part 1066, it is sometimes 

necessary to include parenthetical 

statements in this part 1065 to properly 

cite secondary references that are 

different for vehicle-based testing. See 

40 CFR part 1066 and the standardsetting part for additional information. 

■ 210. Section 1065.15 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.15 Overview of procedures for 

laboratory and field testing. 

* * * * * 

(a) In the standard-setting part, we set 

brake-specific emission standards in g/ 

(kW·hr) (or g/(hp·hr)), for the following 

constituents: 

(1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX. 

(2) Hydrocarbons (HC), which may be 

expressed in the following ways: 

(i) Total hydrocarbons, THC. 

(ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons, 

NMHC, which results from subtracting 

methane (CH4) from THC. 

(iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, 

THCE, which results from adjusting 

THC mathematically to be equivalent on 

a carbon-mass basis. 

(iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbonequivalent, NMHCE, which results from 

adjusting NMHC mathematically to be 

equivalent on a carbon-mass basis. 

(3) Particulate mass, PM. 

(4) Carbon monoxide, CO. 

(5) Carbon dioxide, CO2. 

(6) Methane, CH4. 

(7) Nitrous oxide, N2O. 

(b) Note that some engines are not 

subject to standards for all the emission 

constituents identified in paragraph (a) 

of this section. Note also that the 

standard-setting part may include 

standards for pollutants not listed in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 211. Section 1065.20 is amended by 

italicizing the heading for paragraph (g) 

and revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.20 Units of measure and overview 

of calculations. 

(a) System of units. The procedures in 

this part generally follow the 

International System of Units (SI), as 

detailed in NIST Special Publication 

811, which we incorporate by reference 

in § 1065.1010. The following 

exceptions apply: 

(1) We designate angular speed, fn, of 

an engine’s crankshaft in revolutions 

per minute (r/min), rather than the SI 

unit of radians per second (rad/s). This 

is based on the commonplace use of r/ 

min in many engine dynamometer 

laboratories. 

(2) We designate brake-specific 

emissions in grams per kilowatt-hour (g/ 

(kW·hr)), rather than the SI unit of 

grams per megajoule (g/MJ). In addition, 

we use the symbol hr to identify hour, 

rather than the SI convention of using 

h. This is based on the fact that engines 

are generally subject to emission 

standards expressed in g/kW·hr. If we 

specify engine standards in grams per 

horsepower·hour (g/(hp·hr)) in the 

standard-setting part, convert units as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(3) We designate temperatures in 

units of degrees Celsius (°C) unless a 

calculation requires an absolute 

temperature. In that case, we designate 

temperatures in units of Kelvin (K). For 

conversion purposes throughout this 

part, 0 °C equals 273.15 K. Always use 

absolute temperature values for 

multiplying or dividing by temperature. 

(b) Concentrations. This part does not 

rely on amounts expressed in parts per 

million. Rather, we express such 

amounts in the following SI units: 

(1) For ideal gases, mmol/mol, 

formerly ppm (volume). 

(2) For all substances, cm3/m3, 

formerly ppm (volume). 

(3) For all substances, mg/kg, formerly 

ppm (mass). 

(c) Absolute pressure. Measure 

absolute pressure directly or calculate it 

as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus 

a differential pressure that is referenced 

to atmospheric pressure. Always use 

absolute pressure values for multiplying 

or dividing by pressure. 

* * * * * 

■ 212. Section 1065.25 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.25 Recordkeeping. 

The procedures in this part include 

various requirements to record data or 

other information. Refer to the standardsetting part and § 1065.695 regarding 

recordkeeping requirements. You must 

promptly send us organized, written 

records in English if we ask for them. 

We may review them at any time. 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

■ 213. Section 1065.130 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.130 Engine exhaust. 

(a) General. Use the exhaust system 

installed with the engine or one that 

represents a typical in-use 

configuration. This includes any 

applicable aftertreatment devices. We 

refer to exhaust piping as an exhaust 

stack; this is equivalent to a tailpipe for 

vehicle configurations. 

* * * * * 

■ 214. Section 1065.140 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.140 Dilution for gaseous and PM 

constituents. 

(a) General. You may dilute exhaust 

with ambient air, purified air, or 

nitrogen. References in this part to 

‘‘dilution air’’ may include any of these. 

For gaseous emission measurement, the 

dilution air must be at least 15 °C. Note 

that the composition of the dilution air 

affects some gaseous emission 

measurement instruments’ response to 

emissions. We recommend diluting 

exhaust at a location as close as possible 

to the location where ambient air 

dilution would occur in use. Dilution 

may occur in a single stage or in 

multiple stages. For dilution in multiple 

stages, the first stage is considered 

primary dilution and later stages are 

considered secondary dilution. 

(b) Dilution-air conditions and 

background concentrations. Before 

dilution air is mixed with exhaust, you 

may precondition it by increasing or 

decreasing its temperature or humidity. 

You may also remove constituents to 

reduce their background concentrations. 

The following provisions apply to 

removing constituents or accounting for 

background concentrations: 

(1) You may measure constituent 

concentrations in the dilution air and 

compensate for background effects on 

test results. See § 1065.650 for 

calculations that compensate for 

background concentrations (40 CFR 

1066.620 for vehicle testing). 

(2) Measure these background 

concentrations the same way you 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30101 

measure diluted exhaust constituents, or 

measure them in a way that does not 

affect your ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

standards. For example, you may use 

the following simplifications for 

background sampling: 

(i) You may disregard any 

proportional sampling requirements. 

(ii) You may use unheated gaseous 

sampling systems. 

(iii) You may use unheated PM 

sampling systems. 

(iv) You may use continuous 

sampling if you use batch sampling for 

diluted emissions. 

(v) You may use batch sampling if you 

use continuous sampling for diluted 

emissions. 

(3) For removing background PM, we 

recommend that you filter all dilution 

air, including primary full-flow dilution 

air, with high-efficiency particulate air 

(HEPA) filters that have an initial 

minimum collection efficiency 

specification of 99.97% (see § 1065.1001 

for procedures related to HEPAfiltration efficiencies). Ensure that 

HEPA filters are installed properly so 

that background PM does not leak past 

the HEPA filters. If you choose to 

correct for background PM without 

using HEPA filtration, demonstrate that 

the background PM in the dilution air 

contributes less than 50% to the net PM 

collected on the sample filter. You may 

correct net PM without restriction if you 

use HEPA filtration. 

(c) Full-flow dilution; constantvolume sampling (CVS). You may dilute 

the full flow of raw exhaust in a dilution 

tunnel that maintains a nominally 

constant volume flow rate, molar flow 

rate or mass flow rate of diluted 

exhaust, as follows: 

(1) Construction. Use a tunnel with 

inside surfaces of 300 series stainless 

steel. Electrically ground the entire 

dilution tunnel. We recommend a thinwalled and insulated dilution tunnel to 

minimize temperature differences 

between the wall and the exhaust gases. 

You may not use any flexible tubing in 

the dilution tunnel upstream of the PM 

sample probe. You may use 

nonconductive flexible tubing 

downstream of the PM sample probe 

and upstream of the CVS flow meter; 

use good engineering judgment to select 

a tubing material that is not prone to 

leaks, and configure the tubing to ensure 

smooth flow at the CVS flow meter. 

(2) Pressure control. Maintain static 

pressure at the location where raw 

exhaust is introduced into the tunnel 

within ±1.2 kPa of atmospheric 

pressure. You may use a booster blower 

to control this pressure. If you test using 

more careful pressure control and you 

show by engineering analysis or by test 

data that you require this level of 

control to demonstrate compliance at 

the applicable standards, we will 

maintain the same level of static 

pressure control when we test. 

(3) Mixing. Introduce raw exhaust into 

the tunnel by directing it downstream 

along the centerline of the tunnel. If you 

dilute directly from the exhaust stack, 

the end of the exhaust stack is 

considered to be the start of the dilution 

tunnel. You may introduce a fraction of 

dilution air radially from the tunnel’s 

inner surface to minimize exhaust 

interaction with the tunnel walls. You 

may configure the system with 

turbulence generators such as orifice 

plates or fins to achieve good mixing. 

We recommend a minimum Reynolds 

number, Re#, of 4000 for the diluted 

exhaust stream, where Re# is based on 

the inside diameter of the dilution 

tunnel. Re# is defined in § 1065.640. 

(4) Flow measurement 

preconditioning. You may condition the 

diluted exhaust before measuring its 

flow rate, as long as this conditioning 

takes place downstream of any heated 

HC or PM sample probes, as follows: 

(i) You may use flow straighteners, 

pulsation dampeners, or both of these. 

(ii) You may use a filter. 

(iii) You may use a heat exchanger to 

control the temperature upstream of any 

flow meter, but you must take steps to 

prevent aqueous condensation as 

described in paragraph (c)(6) of this 

section. 

(5) Flow measurement. Section 

1065.240 describes measurement 

instruments for diluted exhaust flow. 

(6) Aqueous condensation. This 

paragraph (c)(6) describes how you must 

address aqueous condensation in the 

CVS. As described below, you may meet 

these requirements by preventing or 

limiting aqueous condensation in the 

CVS from the exhaust inlet to the last 

emission sample probe. See that 

paragraph for provisions related to the 

CVS between the last emission sample 

probe and the CVS flow meter. You may 

heat and/or insulate the dilution tunnel 

walls, as well as the bulk stream tubing 

downstream of the tunnel to prevent or 

limit aqueous condensation. Where we 

allow aqueous condensation to occur, 

use good engineering judgment to 

ensure that the condensation does not 

affect your ability to demonstrate that 

your engines comply with the 

applicable standards (see § 1065.10(a)). 

(i) Preventing aqueous condensation. 

To prevent condensation, you must 

keep the temperature of internal 

surfaces, excluding any sample probes, 

above the dew point of the dilute 

exhaust passing through the CVS 

tunnel. Use good engineering judgment 

to monitor temperatures in the CVS. For 

the purposes of this paragraph (c)(6), 

assume that aqueous condensation is 

pure water condensate only, even 

though the definition of ‘‘aqueous 

condensation’’ in § 1065.1001 includes 

condensation of any constituents that 

contain water. No specific verification 

check is required under this paragraph 

(c)(6)(i), but we may ask you to show 

how you comply with this requirement. 

You may use engineering analysis, CVS 

tunnel design, alarm systems, 

measurements of wall temperatures, and 

calculation of water dew point to 

demonstrate compliance with this 

requirement. For optional CVS heat 

exchangers, you may use the lowest 

water temperature at the inlet(s) and 

outlet(s) to determine the minimum 

internal surface temperature. 

(ii) Limiting aqueous condensation. 

This paragraph (c)(6)(ii) specifies limits 

of allowable condensation and requires 

you to verify that the amount of 

condensation that occurs during each 

test interval does not exceed the 

specified limits. 

(A) Use chemical balance equations in 

§ 1065.655 to calculate the mole fraction 

of water in the dilute exhaust 

continuously during testing. 

Alternatively, you may continuously 

measure the mole fraction of water in 

the dilute exhaust prior to any 

condensation during testing. Use good 

engineering judgment to select, calibrate 

and verify water analyzers/detectors. 

The linearity verification requirements 

of § 1065.307 do not apply to water 

analyzers/detectors used to correct for 

the water content in exhaust samples. 

(B) Use good engineering judgment to 

select and monitor locations on the CVS 

tunnel walls prior to the last emission 

sample probe. If you are also verifying 

limited condensation from the last 

emission sample probe to the CVS flow 

meter, use good engineering judgment to 

select and monitor locations on the CVS 

tunnel walls, optional CVS heat 

exchanger, and CVS flow meter. For 

optional CVS heat exchangers, you may 

use the lowest water temperature at the 

inlet(s) and outlet(s) to determine the 

minimum internal surface temperature. 

Identify the minimum surface 

temperature on a continuous basis. 

(C) Identify the maximum potential 

mole fraction of dilute exhaust lost on 

a continuous basis during the entire test 

interval. This value must be less than or 

equal to 0.02. Calculate on a continuous 

basis the mole fraction of water that 

would be in equilibrium with liquid 

water at the measured minimum surface 

temperature. Subtract this mole fraction 

from the mole fraction of water that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

would be in the exhaust without 

condensation (either measured or from 

the chemical balance), and set any 

negative values to zero. This difference 

is the potential mole fraction of the 

dilute exhaust that would be lost due to 

water condensation on a continuous 

basis. 

(D) Integrate the product of the molar 

flow rate of the dilute exhaust and the 

potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust 

lost, and divide by the totalized dilute 

exhaust molar flow over the test 

interval. This is the potential mole 

fraction of the dilute exhaust that would 

be lost due to water condensation over 

the entire test interval. Note that this 

assumes no re-evaporation. This value 

must be less than or equal to 0.005. 

(7) Flow compensation. Maintain 

nominally constant molar, volumetric or 

mass flow of diluted exhaust. You may 

maintain nominally constant flow by 

either maintaining the temperature and 

pressure at the flow meter or by directly 

controlling the flow of diluted exhaust. 

You may also directly control the flow 

of proportional samplers to maintain 

proportional sampling. For an 

individual test, verify proportional 

sampling as described in § 1065.545. 

(d) Partial-flow dilution (PFD). You 

may dilute a partial flow of raw or 

previously diluted exhaust before 

measuring emissions. Section 1065.240 

describes PFD-related flow 

measurement instruments. PFD may 

consist of constant or varying dilution 

ratios as described in paragraphs (d)(2) 

and (3) of this section. An example of 

a constant dilution ratio PFD is a 

‘‘secondary dilution PM’’ measurement 

system. 

(1) Applicability. (i) You may use PFD 

to extract a proportional raw exhaust 

sample for any batch or continuous PM 

emission sampling over any transient 

duty cycle, any steady-state duty cycle, 

or any ramped-modal cycle. 

(ii) You may use PFD to extract a 

proportional raw exhaust sample for any 

batch or continuous gaseous emission 

sampling over any transient duty cycle, 

any steady-state duty cycle, or any 

ramped-modal cycle. 

(iii) You may use PFD to extract a 

proportional raw exhaust sample for any 

batch or continuous field-testing. 

(iv) You may use PFD to extract a 

proportional diluted exhaust sample 

from a CVS for any batch or continuous 

emission sampling. 

(v) You may use PFD to extract a 

constant raw or diluted exhaust sample 

for any continuous emission sampling. 

(vi) You may use PFD to extract a 

constant raw or diluted exhaust sample 

for any steady-state emission sampling. 

(2) Constant dilution-ratio PFD. Do 

one of the following for constant 

dilution-ratio PFD: 

(i) Dilute an already proportional 

flow. For example, you may do this as 

a way of performing secondary dilution 

from a CVS tunnel to achieve overall 

dilution ratio for PM sampling. 

(ii) Continuously measure constituent 

concentrations. For example, you might 

dilute to precondition a sample of raw 

exhaust to control its temperature, 

humidity, or constituent concentrations 

upstream of continuous analyzers. In 

this case, you must take into account the 

dilution ratio before multiplying the 

continuous concentration by the 

sampled exhaust flow rate. 

(iii) Extract a proportional sample 

from a separate constant dilution ratio 

PFD system. For example, you might 

use a variable-flow pump to 

proportionally fill a gaseous storage 

medium such as a bag from a PFD 

system. In this case, the proportional 

sampling must meet the same 

specifications as varying dilution ratio 

PFD in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

(iv) For each mode of a discrete-mode 

test (such as a locomotive notch setting 

or a specific setting for speed and 

torque), use a constant dilution ratio for 

any PM sampling. You must change the 

overall PM sampling system dilution 

ratio between modes so that the dilution 

ratio on the mode with the highest 

exhaust flow rate meets § 1065.140(e)(2) 

and the dilution ratios on all other 

modes is higher than this (minimum) 

dilution ratio by the ratio of the 

maximum exhaust flow rate to the 

exhaust flow rate of the corresponding 

other mode. This is the same dilution 

ratio requirement for RMC or field 

transient testing. You must account for 

this change in dilution ratio in your 

emission calculations. 

(3) Varying dilution-ratio PFD. All the 

following provisions apply for varying 

dilution-ratio PFD: 

(i) Use a control system with sensors 

and actuators that can maintain 

proportional sampling over intervals as 

short as 200 ms (i.e., 5 Hz control). 

(ii) For control input, you may use 

any sensor output from one or more 

measurements; for example, intake-air 

flow, fuel flow, exhaust flow, engine 

speed, and intake manifold temperature 

and pressure. 

(iii) Account for any emission transit 

time in the PFD system, as necessary. 

(iv) You may use preprogrammed data 

if they have been determined for the 

specific test site, duty cycle, and test 

engine from which you dilute 

emissions. 

(v) We recommend that you run 

practice cycles to meet the verification 

criteria in § 1065.545. Note that you 

must verify every emission test by 

meeting the verification criteria with the 

data from that specific test. Data from 

previously verified practice cycles or 

other tests may not be used to verify a 

different emission test. 

(vi) You may not use a PFD system 

that requires preparatory tuning or 

calibration with a CVS or with the 

emission results from a CVS. Rather, 

you must be able to independently 

calibrate the PFD. 

(e) Dilution air temperature, dilution 

ratio, residence time, and temperature 

control of PM samples. Dilute PM 

samples at least once upstream of 

transfer lines. You may dilute PM 

samples upstream of a transfer line 

using full-flow dilution, or partial-flow 

dilution immediately downstream of a 

PM probe. In the case of partial-flow 

dilution, you may have up to 26 cm of 

insulated length between the end of the 

probe and the dilution stage, but we 

recommend that the length be as short 

as practical. The intent of these 

specifications is to minimize heat 

transfer to or from the emission sample 

before the final stage of dilution, other 

than the heat you may need to add to 

prevent aqueous condensation. This is 

accomplished by initially cooling the 

sample through dilution. Configure 

dilution systems as follows: 

(1) Set the dilution air temperature to 

(25 ±5) °C. Use good engineering 

judgment to select a location to measure 

this temperature that is as close as 

practical upstream of the point where 

dilution air mixes with raw exhaust. 

(2) For any PM dilution system (i.e., 

CVS or PFD), add dilution air to the raw 

exhaust such that the minimum overall 

ratio of diluted exhaust to raw exhaust 

is within the range of (5:1 to 7:1) and is 

at least 2:1 for any primary dilution 

stage. Base this minimum value on the 

maximum engine exhaust flow rate for 

a given test interval. Either measure the 

maximum exhaust flow during a 

practice run of the test interval or 

estimate it based on good engineering 

judgment (for example, you might rely 

on manufacturer-published literature). 

(3) Configure any PM dilution system 

to have an overall residence time of (1.0 

to 5.5) s, as measured from the location 

of initial dilution air introduction to the 

location where PM is collected on the 

sample media. Also configure the 

system to have a residence time of at 

least 0.50 s, as measured from the 

location of final dilution air 

introduction to the location where PM 

is collected on the sample media. When 

determining residence times within 

sampling system volumes, use an 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30103 

assumed flow temperature of 25 °C and 

pressure of 101.325 kPa. 

(4) Control sample temperature to a 

(47 ±5) °C tolerance, as measured 

anywhere within 20 cm upstream or 

downstream of the PM storage media 

(such as a filter). Measure this 

temperature with a bare-wire junction 

thermocouple with wires that are (0.500 

±0.025) mm diameter, or with another 

suitable instrument that has equivalent 

performance. 

■ 215. Section 1065.145 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.145 Gaseous and PM probes, 

transfer lines, and sampling system 

components. 

(a) Continuous and batch sampling. 

Determine the total mass of each 

constituent with continuous or batch 

sampling. Both types of sampling 

systems have probes, transfer lines, and 

other sampling system components that 

are described in this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) Gaseous and PM sample probes. A 

probe is the first fitting in a sampling 

system. It protrudes into a raw or 

diluted exhaust stream to extract a 

sample, such that its inside and outside 

surfaces are in contact with the exhaust. 

A sample is transported out of a probe 

into a transfer line, as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section. The 

following provisions apply to sample 

probes: 

(1) Probe design and construction. 

Use sample probes with inside surfaces 

of 300 series stainless steel or, for raw 

exhaust sampling, use any nonreactive 

material capable of withstanding raw 

exhaust temperatures. Locate sample 

probes where constituents are mixed to 

their mean sample concentration. Take 

into account the mixing of any 

crankcase emissions that may be routed 

into the raw exhaust. Locate each probe 

to minimize interference with the flow 

to other probes. We recommend that all 

probes remain free from influences of 

boundary layers, wakes, and eddies— 

especially near the outlet of a rawexhaust stack where unintended 

dilution might occur. Make sure that 

purging or back-flushing of a probe does 

not influence another probe during 

testing. You may use a single probe to 

extract a sample of more than one 

constituent as long as the probe meets 

all the specifications for each 

constituent. 

(2) Gaseous sample probes. Use either 

single-port or multi-port probes for 

sampling gaseous emissions. You may 

orient these probes in any direction 

relative to the raw or diluted exhaust 

flow. For some probes, you must control 

sample temperatures, as follows: 

(i) For probes that extract NOX from 

diluted exhaust, control the probe’s wall 

temperature to prevent aqueous 

condensation. 

(ii) For probes that extract 

hydrocarbons for THC or NMHC 

analysis from the diluted exhaust of 

compression-ignition engines, twostroke spark-ignition engines, or fourstroke spark-ignition engines at or below 

19 kW, we recommend heating the 

probe to minimize hydrocarbon 

contamination consistent with good 

engineering judgment. If you routinely 

fail the contamination check in the 

1065.520 pretest check, we recommend 

heating the probe section to 

approximately 190 °C to minimize 

contamination. 

(3) PM sample probes. Use PM probes 

with a single opening at the end. Orient 

PM probes to face directly upstream. If 

you shield a PM probe’s opening with 

a PM pre-classifier such as a hat, you 

may not use the preclassifier we specify 

in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. We 

recommend sizing the inside diameter 

of PM probes to approximate isokinetic 

sampling at the expected mean flow 

rate. 

(d) Transfer lines. You may use 

transfer lines to transport an extracted 

sample from a probe to an analyzer, 

storage medium, or dilution system, 

noting certain restrictions for PM 

sampling in § 1065.140(e). Minimize the 

length of all transfer lines by locating 

analyzers, storage media, and dilution 

systems as close to probes as practical. 

We recommend that you minimize the 

number of bends in transfer lines and 

that you maximize the radius of any 

unavoidable bend. Avoid using 90° 

elbows, tees, and cross-fittings in 

transfer lines. Where such connections 

and fittings are necessary, take steps, 

using good engineering judgment, to 

ensure that you meet the temperature 

tolerances in this paragraph (d). This 

may involve measuring temperature at 

various locations within transfer lines 

and fittings. You may use a single 

transfer line to transport a sample of 

more than one constituent, as long as 

the transfer line meets all the 

specifications for each constituent. The 

following construction and temperature 

tolerances apply to transfer lines: 

(1) Gaseous samples. Use transfer 

lines with inside surfaces of 300 series 

stainless steel, PTFE, VitonTM, or any 

other material that you demonstrate has 

better properties for emission sampling. 

For raw exhaust sampling, use a nonreactive material capable of 

withstanding raw exhaust temperatures. 

You may use in-line filters if they do not 

react with exhaust constituents and if 

the filter and its housing meet the same 

temperature requirements as the transfer 

lines, as follows: 

(i) For NOX transfer lines upstream of 

either an NO2-to-NO converter that 

meets the specifications of § 1065.378 or 

a chiller that meets the specifications of 

§ 1065.376, maintain a sample 

temperature that prevents aqueous 

condensation. 

(ii) For THC transfer lines for testing 

compression-ignition engines, twostroke spark-ignition engines, or fourstroke spark-ignition engines at or below 

19 kW, maintain a wall temperature 

tolerance throughout the entire line of 

(191 ±11) °C. If you sample from raw 

exhaust, you may connect an unheated, 

insulated transfer line directly to a 

probe. Design the length and insulation 

of the transfer line to cool the highest 

expected raw exhaust temperature to no 

lower than 191 °C, as measured at the 

transfer line’s outlet. For dilute 

sampling, you may use a transition zone 

between the probe and transfer line of 

up to 92 cm to allow your wall 

temperature to transition to 

(191 ±11) °C. 

(2) PM samples. We recommend 

heated transfer lines or a heated 

enclosure to minimize temperature 

differences between transfer lines and 

exhaust constituents. Use transfer lines 

that are inert with respect to PM and are 

electrically conductive on the inside 

surfaces. We recommend using PM 

transfer lines made of 300 series 

stainless steel. Electrically ground the 

inside surface of PM transfer lines. 

(e) Optional sample-conditioning 

components for gaseous sampling. You 

may use the following sampleconditioning components to prepare 

gaseous samples for analysis, as long as 

you do not install or use them in a way 

that adversely affects your ability to 

show that your engines comply with all 

applicable gaseous emission standards. 

(1) NO 2-to-NO converter. You may 

use an NO2-to-NO converter that meets 

the converter conversion verification 

specified in § 1065.378 at any point 

upstream of a NOX analyzer, sample 

bag, or other storage medium. 

(2) Sample dryer. You may use either 

type of sample dryer described in this 

paragraph (e)(2) to decrease the effects 

of water on gaseous emission 

measurements. You may not use a 

chemical dryer, or use dryers upstream 

of PM sample filters. 

(i) Osmotic-membrane. You may use 

an osmotic-membrane dryer upstream of 

any gaseous analyzer or storage 

medium, as long as it meets the 

temperature specifications in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. Because osmoticmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

membrane dryers may deteriorate after 

prolonged exposure to certain exhaust 

constituents, consult with the 

membrane manufacturer regarding your 

application before incorporating an 

osmotic-membrane dryer. Monitor the 

dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, 

ptotal, downstream of an osmoticmembrane dryer. You may use 

continuously recorded values of Tdew

and ptotal in the amount of water 

calculations specified in § 1065.645. For 

our testing we may use average 

temperature and pressure values over 

the test interval or a nominal pressure 

value that we estimate as the dryer’s 

average pressure expected during testing 

as constant values in the amount of 

water calculations specified in 

§ 1065.645. For your testing, you may 

use the maximum temperature or 

minimum pressure values observed 

during a test interval or duty cycle or 

the high alarm temperature setpoint or 

low alarm pressure setpoint as constant 

values in the calculations specified in 

§ 1065.645. For your testing, you may 

also use a nominal ptotal, which you may 

estimate as the dryer’s lowest absolute 

pressure expected during testing. 

(ii) Thermal chiller. You may use a 

thermal chiller upstream of some gas 

analyzers and storage media. You may 

not use a thermal chiller upstream of a 

THC measurement system for 

compression-ignition engines, twostroke spark-ignition engines, or fourstroke spark-ignition engines at or below 

19 kW. If you use a thermal chiller 

upstream of an NO2-to-NO converter or 

in a sampling system without an NO2- 

to-NO converter, the chiller must meet 

the NO2 loss-performance check 

specified in § 1065.376. Monitor the 

dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, 

ptotal, downstream of a thermal chiller. 

You may use continuously recorded 

values of Tdew and ptotal in the amount 

of water calculations specified in 

§ 1065.645. If it is valid to assume the 

degree of saturation in the thermal 

chiller, you may calculate Tdew based on 

the known chiller performance and 

continuous monitoring of chiller 

temperature, Tchiller. If it is valid to 

assume a constant temperature offset 

between Tchiller and Tdew, due to a known 

and fixed amount of sample reheat 

between the chiller outlet and the 

temperature measurement location, you 

may factor in this assumed temperature 

offset value into emission calculations. 

If we ask for it, you must show by 

engineering analysis or by data the 

validity of any assumptions allowed by 

this paragraph (e)(2)(ii). For our testing 

we may use average temperature and 

pressure values over the test interval or 

a nominal pressure value that we 

estimate as the dryer’s average pressure 

expected during testing as constant 

values in the calculations specified in 

§ 1065.645. For your testing you may 

use the maximum temperature and 

minimum pressure values observed 

during a test interval or duty cycle or 

the high alarm temperature setpoint and 

the low alarm pressure setpoint as 

constant values in the amount of water 

calculations specified in § 1065.645. For 

your testing you may also use a nominal 

ptotal, which you may estimate as the 

dryer’s lowest absolute pressure 

expected during testing. 

(3) Sample pumps. You may use 

sample pumps upstream of an analyzer 

or storage medium for any gas. Use 

sample pumps with inside surfaces of 

300 series stainless steel, PTFE, or any 

other material that you demonstrate has 

better properties for emission sampling. 

For some sample pumps, you must 

control temperatures, as follows: 

(i) If you use a NOX sample pump 

upstream of either an NO2-to-NO 

converter that meets § 1065.378 or a 

chiller that meets § 1065.376, it must be 

heated to prevent aqueous 

condensation. 

(ii) For testing compression-ignition 

engines, 2-stroke spark-ignition engines, 

or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at 

or below 19 kW, if you use a THC 

sample pump upstream of a THC 

analyzer or storage medium, its inner 

surfaces must be heated to a tolerance 

of (191 ±11) °C. 

(4) Ammonia Scrubber. You may use 

ammonia scrubbers for any or all 

gaseous sampling systems to prevent 

interference with NH3, poisoning of the 

NO2-to-NO converter, and deposits in 

the sampling system or analyzers. 

Follow the ammonia scrubber 

manufacturer’s recommendations or use 

good engineering judgment in applying 

ammonia scrubbers. 

* * * * * 

■ 216. Section 1065.170 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and 

(c)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.170 Batch sampling for gaseous 

and PM constituents. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Verify proportional sampling after 

an emission test as described in 

§ 1065.545. Use good engineering 

judgment to select storage media that 

will not significantly change measured 

emission levels (either up or down). For 

example, do not use sample bags for 

storing emissions if the bags are 

permeable with respect to emissions or 

if they off gas emissions to the extent 

that it affects your ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable gaseous 

emission standards. As another 

example, do not use PM filters that 

irreversibly absorb or adsorb gases to the 

extent that it affects your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable PM emission standard. 

* * * * * 

(b) Gaseous sample storage media. 

Store gas volumes in sufficiently clean 

containers that minimally off-gas or 

allow permeation of gases. Use good 

engineering judgment to determine 

acceptable thresholds of storage media 

cleanliness and permeation. To clean a 

container, you may repeatedly purge 

and evacuate a container and you may 

heat it. Use a flexible container (such as 

a bag) within a temperature-controlled 

environment, or use a temperature 

controlled rigid container that is 

initially evacuated or has a volume that 

can be displaced, such as a piston and 

cylinder arrangement. Use containers 

meeting the specifications in the Table1 

of this section, noting that you may 

request to use other container materials 

under § 1065.10. Sample temperatures 

must stay within the following ranges 

for each container material: 

(1) Up to 40 °C for TedlarTM and 

KynarTM. 

(2) (191 ±11) °C for TeflonTM and 300 

series stainless steel used with 

measuring THC or NMHC from 

compression-ignition engines, twostroke spark-ignition engines, and fourstroke spark-ignition engines at or below 

19 kW. For all other engines and 

pollutants, these materials are good for 

sample temperatures up to 202 °C. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30105 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.170–CONTAINER MATERIALS FOR GASEOUS BATCH SAMPLING

Emissions 

Engine type 

Compression-ignition 

Two-stroke spark-ignition 

Four-stroke spark-ignition at or below 19 kW 

All other engines 

CO, CO2, O2, CH4, C2H6, 

C3H8, NO, NO2, N2O.

TedlarTM, KynarTM, TeflonTM, or 300 series stainless 

steel.

TedlarTM, KynarTM, TeflonTM, or 300 series stainless 

steel. 

THC, NMHC ......................... TeflonTM or 300 series stainless steel ............................ TedlarTM, KynarTM, TeflonTM, or 300 series stainless 

steel. 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) If you expect that a filter’s total 

surface concentration of PM will exceed 

400 mg, assuming a 38 mm diameter 

filter stain area, for a given test interval, 

you may use filter media with a 

minimum initial collection efficiency of 

98%; otherwise you must use a filter 

media with a minimum initial 

collection efficiency of 99.7%. 

Collection efficiency must be measured 

as described in ASTM D2986 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1065.1010), though you may rely on 

the sample-media manufacturer’s 

measurements reflected in their product 

ratings to show that you meet this 

requirement. 

* * * * * 

Subpart C—[Amended] 

■ 217. Section 1065.201 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (d), (e), and (h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.201 Overview and general 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(b) Instrument types. You may use any 

of the specified instruments as 

described in this subpart to perform 

emission tests. If you want to use one of 

these instruments in a way that is not 

specified in this subpart, or if you want 

to use a different instrument, you must 

first get us to approve your alternate 

procedure under § 1065.10. Where we 

specify more than one instrument for a 

particular measurement, we may 

identify which instrument serves as the 

reference for comparing with an 

alternate procedure. You may generally 

use instruments with compensation 

algorithms that are functions of other 

gaseous measurements and the engine’s 

known or assumed fuel properties. The 

target value for any compensation 

algorithm is 0% (that is, no bias high 

and no bias low), regardless of the 

uncompensated signal’s bias. 

* * * * * 

(d) Redundant systems. For all 

measurement instruments described in 

this subpart, you may use data from 

multiple instruments to calculate test 

results for a single test. If you use 

redundant systems, use good 

engineering judgment to use multiple 

measured values in calculations or to 

disregard individual measurements. 

Note that you must keep your results 

from all measurements. This 

requirement applies whether or not you 

actually use the measurements in your 

calculations. 

(e) Range. You may use an 

instrument’s response above 100% of its 

operating range if this does not affect 

your ability to show that your engines 

comply with the applicable emission 

standards. Note that we require 

additional testing and reporting if an 

analyzer responds above 100% of its 

range. Auto-ranging analyzers do not 

require additional testing or reporting. 

* * * * * 

(h) Recommended practices. This 

subpart identifies a variety of 

recommended but not required practices 

for proper measurements. We believe in 

most cases it is necessary to follow these 

recommended practices for accurate and 

repeatable measurements. However, we 

do not specifically require you to follow 

these recommended practices to 

perform a valid test, as long as you meet 

the required calibrations and 

verifications of measurement systems 

specified in subpart D of this part. 

Similarly, we are not required to follow 

all recommended practices, as long as 

we meet the required calibrations and 

verifications. Our decision to follow or 

not follow a given recommendation 

when we perform a test does not depend 

on whether you followed it during your 

testing. 

■ 218. Section 1065.202 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.202 Data updating, recording, and 

control. 

Your test system must be able to 

update data, record data and control 

systems related to operator demand, the 

dynamometer, sampling equipment, and 

measurement instruments. Use data 

acquisition and control systems that can 

record at the specified minimum 

frequencies, as follows: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.202—DATA RECORDING AND CONTROL MINIMUM FREQUENCIES

Applicable test protocol section Measured values 

Minimum 

command 

and control 

frequency 

Minimum recording 

frequency 

§ 1065.510 ................................. Speed and torque during an engine step-map ............................ 1 Hz ............ 1 mean value per step. 

§ 1065.510 ................................. Speed and torque during an engine sweep-map ......................... 5 Hz ............ 1 Hz means. 

§ 1065.514 .................................

§ 1065.530 .................................

Transient duty cycle reference and feedback speeds and 

torques.

5 Hz ............. 1 Hz means. 

§ 1065.514 .................................

§ 1065.530 .................................

Steady-state and ramped-modal duty cycle reference and feedback speeds and torques.1 Hz ............ 1 Hz. 

§ 1065.520 .................................

§ 1065.530 .................................

§ 1065.550 .................................

Continuous concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers ................. N/A .............. 1 Hz. 

§ 1065.520 .................................

§ 1065.530 .................................

§ 1065.550 .................................

Batch concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers .......................... N/A .............. 1 mean value per test interval. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.202—DATA RECORDING AND CONTROL MINIMUM FREQUENCIES—Continued 

Applicable test protocol section Measured values 

Minimum 

command 

and control 

frequency 

Minimum recording 

frequency 

§ 1065.530 .................................

§ 1065.545 .................................

Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS with a heat exchanger upstream of the flow measurement.N/A .............. 1 Hz. 

§ 1065.530 .................................

§ 1065.545 .................................

Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS without a heat exchanger 

upstream of the flow measurement.

N/A .............. 1 Hz means. 

§ 1065.530 .................................

§ 1065.545 .................................

Intake-air or raw-exhaust flow rate ............................................... N/A .............. 1 Hz means. 

§ 1065.530 .................................

§ 1065.545 .................................

Dilution air if actively controlled .................................................... 5 Hz ............ 1 Hz means. 

§ 1065.530 .................................

§ 1065.545 .................................

Sample flow from a CVS that has a heat exchanger .................. 1 Hz ............. 1 Hz. 

§ 1065.530 .................................

§ 1065.545 .................................

Sample flow from a CVS does not have a heat exchanger ........ 5 Hz ............. 1 Hz means. 

■ 219. Section 1065.205 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.205 Performance specifications for 

measurement instruments. 

Your test system as a whole must 

meet all the calibrations, verifications, 

and test-validation criteria specified 

outside of this section for laboratory 

testing or field testing, as applicable. We 

recommend that your instruments meet 

the specifications in Table 1 of this 

section for all ranges you use for testing. 

We also recommend that you keep any 

documentation you receive from 

instrument manufacturers showing that 

your instruments meet the 

specifications in Table 1 of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 220. Section 1065.225 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.225 Intake-air flow meter. 

(a) Application. You may use an 

intake-air flow meter in combination 

with a chemical balance of fuel, inlet 

air, and exhaust to calculate raw 

exhaust flow as described in 

§ 1065.655(e) and (f), as follows: 

(1) Use the actual value of calculated 

raw exhaust in the following cases: 

(i) For multiplying raw exhaust flow 

rate with continuously sampled 

concentrations. 

(ii) For multiplying total raw exhaust 

flow with batch-sampled 

concentrations. 

(iii) For verifying minimum dilution 

ratio for PM batch sampling as 

described in § 1065.546. 

(iv) For calculating the dilution air 

flow for background correction as 

described in § 1065.667. 

(2) In the following cases, you may 

use an intake-air flow meter signal that 

does not give the actual value of raw 

exhaust, as long as it is linearly 

proportional to the exhaust flow rate’s 

actual calculated value: 

(i) For feedback control of a 

proportional sampling system, such as a 

partial-flow dilution system. 

(ii) For multiplying with continuously 

sampled gas concentrations, if the same 

signal is used in a chemical-balance 

calculation to determine work from 

brake-specific fuel consumption and 

fuel consumed. 

* * * * * 

■ 221. Section 1065.230 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.230 Raw exhaust flow meter. 

* * * * * 

(d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool 

raw exhaust upstream of a raw-exhaust 

flow meter, as long as you observe all 

the following provisions: 

(1) Do not sample PM downstream of 

the cooling. 

(2) If cooling causes exhaust 

temperatures above 202 °C to decrease 

to below 180 °C, do not sample NMHC 

downstream of the cooling for 

compression-ignition engines, twostroke spark-ignition engines, or fourstroke spark-ignition engines at or below 

19 kW. 

(3) The cooling must not cause 

aqueous condensation. 

■ 222. Section 1065.240 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.240 Dilution air and diluted exhaust 

flow meters. 

* * * * * 

(d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool 

diluted exhaust upstream of a diluteexhaust flow meter, as long as you 

observe all the following provisions: 

(1) Do not sample PM downstream of 

the cooling. 

(2) If cooling causes exhaust 

temperatures above 202 °C to decrease 

to below 180 °C, do not sample NMHC 

downstream of the cooling for 

compression-ignition engines, twostroke spark-ignition engines, or fourstroke spark-ignition engines at or below 

19 kW. 

(3) The cooling must not cause 

aqueous condensationas described in 

§ 1065.140(c)(6). 

■ 223. Section 1065.250 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.250 Nondispersive infrared 

analyzer. 

* * * * * 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use an NDIR 

analyzer that meets the specifications in 

Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that your 

NDIR-based system must meet the 

calibration and verifications in 

§§ 1065.350 and 1065.355 and it must 

also meet the linearity verification in 

§ 1065.307. 

■ 224. Section 1065.260 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e) and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.260 Flame-ionization detector. 

* * * * * 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use a FID analyzer 

that meets the specifications in Table 1 

of § 1065.205. Note that your FID-based 

system for measuring THC, THCE, or 

CH4 must meet all the verifications for 

hydrocarbon measurement in subpart D 

of this part, and it must also meet the 

linearity verification in § 1065.307. 

(c) Heated FID analyzers. For 

measuring THC or THCE from 

compression-ignition engines, twostroke spark-ignition engines, and fourstroke spark-ignition engines at or below 

19 kW, you must use heated FID 

analyzers that maintain all surfaces that 

are exposed to emissions at a 

temperature of (191 ±11) °C. 

* * * * * 

(e) NMHC and NMOG. For 

demonstrating compliance with NMHC 

standards, you may either measure THC 

and CH4 and determine NMHC as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30107 

described in § 1065.660(b)(2) or (3), or 

you may measure THC and determine 

NMHC mass as described in 

§ 1065.660(b)(1). See 40 CFR 1066.665 

for methods to demonstrate compliance 

with NMOG standards for vehicle 

testing. 

(f) CH 4. For reporting CH4 or for 

demonstrating compliance with CH4

standards, you may use a FID analyzer 

with a nonmethane cutter as described 

in § 1065.265 or you may use a GC–FID 

as described in § 1065.267. Determine 

CH4 as described in § 1065.660(c). 

■ 225. Section 1065.267 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.267 Gas chromatograph with a 

flame ionization detector. 

* * * * * 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use a GC–FID that 

meets the specifications in Table 1 of 

§ 1065.205 and that the measurement be 

done according to SAE J1151 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1065.1010). The GC–FID must meet 

the linearity verification in § 1065.307. 

■ 226. A new § 1065.269 is added to 

subpart C to read as follows: 

§ 1065.269 Photoacoustic analyzer for 

methanol and ethanol. 

(a) Application. You may use a 

photoacoustic analyzer to measure 

ethanol and/or methanol concentrations 

in diluted exhaust for batch sampling. 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use a 

photoacoustic analyzer that meets the 

specifications in Table 1 of § 1065.205. 

Note that your photoacoustic system 

must meet the calibration and 

verifications in § 1065.369 and it must 

also meet the linearity verification in 

§ 1065.307. Use an optical wheel 

configuration that gives analytical 

priority to measurement of the least 

stable components in the sample. Select 

a sample integration time of at least 5 

seconds. Take into account sample 

chamber and sample line volumes when 

determining flush times for your 

instrument. 

■ 227. Section 1065.270 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.270 Chemiluminescent detector. 

* * * * * 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use a CLD that 

meets the specifications in Table 1 of 

§ 1065.205. Note that your CLD-based 

system must meet the quench 

verification in § 1065.370 and it must 

also meet the linearity verification in 

§ 1065.307. You may use a heated or 

unheated CLD, and you may use a CLD 

that operates at atmospheric pressure or 

under a vacuum. 

* * * * * 

■ 228. Section 1065.272 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.272 Nondispersive ultraviolet 

analyzer. 

* * * * * 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use an NDUV 

analyzer that meets the specifications in 

Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that your 

NDUV-based system must meet the 

verifications in § 1065.372 and it must 

also meet the linearity verification in 

§ 1065.307. 

* * * * * 

■ 229. Section 1065.275 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.275 N2O measurement devices. 

* * * * * 

(b) Instrument types. You may use any 

of the following analyzers to measure 

N2O: 

(1) Nondispersive infrared (NDIR) 

analyzer. 

(2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) 

analyzer. Use appropriate analytical 

procedures for interpretation of infrared 

spectra. For example, EPA Test Method 

320 is considered a valid method for 

spectral interpretation (see http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/ 

method320.html). 

(3) Laser infrared analyzer. Examples 

of laser infrared analyzers are pulsedmode high-resolution narrow band midinfrared analyzers, and modulated 

continuous wave high-resolution 

narrow band mid-infrared analyzers. 

(4) Photoacoustic analyzer. Use an 

optical wheel configuration that gives 

analytical priority to measurement of 

the least stable components in the 

sample. Select a sample integration time 

of at least 5 seconds. Take into account 

sample chamber and sample line 

volumes when determining flush times 

for your instrument. 

(5) Gas chromatograph analyzer. You 

may use a gas chromatograph with an 

electron-capture detector (GC–ECD) to 

measure N2O concentrations of diluted 

exhaust for batch sampling. 

(i) You may use a packed or porous 

layer open tubular (PLOT) column 

phase of suitable polarity and length to 

achieve adequate resolution of the N2O 

peak for analysis. Examples of 

acceptable columns are a PLOT column 

consisting of bonded polystyrenedivinylbenzene or a Porapack Q packed 

column. Take the column temperature 

profile and carrier gas selection into 

consideration when setting up your 

method to achieve adequate N2O peak 

resolution. 

(ii) Use good engineering judgment to 

zero your instrument and correct for 

drift. You do not need to follow the 

specific procedures in §§ 1065.530 and 

1065.550(b) that would otherwise apply. 

For example, you may perform a span 

gas measurement before and after 

sample analysis without zeroing and use 

the average area counts of the pre-span 

and post-span measurements to generate 

a response factor (area counts/span gas 

concentration), which you then 

multiply by the area counts from your 

sample to generate the sample 

concentration. 

* * * * * 

■ 230. Section 1065.280 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.280 Paramagnetic and 

magnetopneumatic O2 detection analyzers. 

* * * * * 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use a PMD or MPD 

analyzer that meets the specifications in 

Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that it must 

meet the linearity verification in 

§ 1065.307. 

■ 231. Section 1065.284 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.284 Zirconia (ZrO2) analyzer. 

* * * * * 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use a ZrO2

analyzer that meets the specifications in 

Table 1 of § 1065.205. Note that your 

ZrO2-based system must meet the 

linearity verification in § 1065.307. 

■ 232. Section 1065.295 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.295 PM inertial balance for fieldtesting analysis. 

* * * * * 

(b) Component requirements. We 

recommend that you use a balance that 

meets the specifications in Table 1 of 

§ 1065.205. Note that your balancebased system must meet the linearity 

verification in § 1065.307. If the balance 

uses an internal calibration process for 

routine spanning and linearity 

verifications, the process must be NISTtraceable. 

* * * * * 

Subpart D—[Amended] 

■ 233. Section 1065.303 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.303 Summary of required 

calibration and verifications. 

The following table summarizes the 

required and recommended calibrations 

and verifications described in this 

subpart and indicates when these have 

to be performed: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.303—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATIONS

Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequency 1

§ 1065.305: Accuracy, repeatability and noise ... Accuracy: Not required, but recommended for initial installation. 

Repeatability: Not required, but recommended for initial installation. 

Noise: Not required, but recommended for initial installation. 

§ 1065.307: Linearity verification ......................... Speed: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. 

Torque: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. 

Electrical power, current, and voltage: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing 

and after major maintenance.2

Fuel flow rate: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

Intake-air, dilution air, diluted exhaust, and batch sampler flow rates: Upon initial installation, 

within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance, unless flow is verified by propane check or by carbon or oxygen balance. 

Raw exhaust flow rate: Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing and after major 

maintenance, unless flow is verified by propane check or by carbon or oxygen balance. 

Gas dividers: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

Gas analyzers (unless otherwise noted): Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing 

and after major maintenance. 

FTIR and photoacoustic analyzers: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and 

after major maintenance. 

GC–ECD: Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

PM balance: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. 

Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing 

and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.308: Continuous gas analyzer system response and updating-recording verification— 

for gas analyzers not continuously compensated for other gas species.

Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response. 

§ 1065.309: Continuous gas analyzer system-response and updating-recording verification— 

for gas analyzers continuously compensated 

for other gas species.

Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response. 

§ 1065.310: Torque ............................................. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.315: Pressure, temperature, dewpoint .... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.320: Fuel flow .......................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.325: Intake flow ....................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.330: Exhaust flow .................................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.340: Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) ............. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.341: CVS and batch sampler 

verification 3.

Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.342 Sample dryer verification .................. For thermal chillers: upon installation and after major maintenance. 

For osmotic membranes; upon installation, within 35 days of testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.345: Vacuum leak .................................... For laboratory testing: upon initial installation of the sampling system, within 8 hours before 

the start of the first test interval of each duty-cycle sequence, and after maintenance such 

as pre-filter changes. 

For field testing: after each installation of the sampling system on the vehicle, prior to the start 

of the field test, and after maintenance such as pre-filter changes. 

§ 1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O interference ............ Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and H2O interference.Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.360: FID calibration, THC FID optimization, and THC FID verification.Calibrate all FID analyzers: upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

Optimize and determine CH4 response for THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation and 

after major maintenance. 

Verify CH4 response for THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation, within 185 days before 

testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.362: Raw exhaust FID O2 interference ... For all FID analyzers: upon initial installation, and after major maintenance. 

For THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and after FID optimization according to § 1065.360. 

§ 1065.365: Nonmethane cutter penetration ....... Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.369: H2O, CO, and CO2 interference 

verification for ethanol photoacoustic analyzers.

Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.370: CLD CO2 and H2O quench ............. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.372: NDUV HC and H2O interference ..... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.375: N2O analyzer interference ............... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.376: Chiller NO2 penetration ................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.378: NO2-to-NO converter conversion .... Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1065.390: PM balance and weighing ............... Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after 

major maintenance. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30109 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.303—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATIONS—Continued 

Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequency 1

Zero, span, and reference sample verifications: within 12 hours of weighing, and after major 

maintenance. 

§ 1065.395: Inertial PM balance and weighing ... Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after 

major maintenance. 

Other verifications: upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

1Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently than we specify, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and good 

engineering judgment. 2Perform linearity verification either for electrical power or for current and voltage. 

3The CVS verification described in § 1065.341 is not required for systems that agree within ±2% based on a chemical balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and diluted exhaust. 

■ 234. Section 1065.305 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(10)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.305 Verifications for accuracy, 

repeatability, and noise. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(10) * * * 

(i) Your measurement systems meet 

all the other required calibration, 

verification, and validation 

specifications that apply as specified in 

the regulations. 

* * * * * 

■ 235. Section 1065.307 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.307 Linearity verification. 

(a) Scope and frequency. Perform 

linearity verification on each 

measurement system listed in Table 1 of 

this section at least as frequently as 

indicated in Table 1 of § 1065.303, 

consistent with measurement system 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

good engineering judgment. The intent 

of linearity verification is to determine 

that a measurement system responds 

accurately and proportionally over the 

measurement range of interest. Linearity 

verification generally consists of 

introducing a series of at least 10 

reference values to a measurement 

system. The measurement system 

quantifies each reference value. The 

measured values are then collectively 

compared to the reference values by 

using a least-squares linear regression 

and the linearity criteria specified in 

Table 1 of this section. 

(b) Performance requirements. If a 

measurement system does not meet the 

applicable linearity criteria referenced 

in Table 1 of this section, correct the 

deficiency by re-calibrating, servicing, 

or replacing components as needed. 

Repeat the linearity verification after 

correcting the deficiency to ensure that 

the measurement system meets the 

linearity criteria. Before you may use a 

measurement system that does not meet 

linearity criteria, you must demonstrate 

to us that the deficiency does not 

adversely affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standards. 

(c) Procedure. Use the following 

linearity verification protocol, or use 

good engineering judgment to develop a 

different protocol that satisfies the 

intent of this section, as described in 

paragraph (a) of this section: 

(1) In this paragraph (c), the letter ‘‘y’’ 

denotes a generic measured quantity, 

the superscript over-bar denotes an 

arithmetic mean (such as), and the 

subscript ‘‘ref’’ denotes the known or 

reference quantity being measured. 

(2) Use good engineering judgment to 

operate a measurement system at 

normal operating conditions. This may 

include any specified adjustment or 

periodic calibration of the measurement 

system. 

(3) If applicable, zero the instrument 

as you would before an emission test by 

introducing a zero signal. Depending on 

the instrument, this may be a zeroconcentration gas, a reference signal, a 

set of reference thermodynamic 

conditions, or some combination of 

these. For gas analyzers, use a zero gas 

that meets the specifications of 

§ 1065.750 and introduce it directly at 

the analyzer port. 

(4) If applicable, span the instrument 

as you would before an emission test by 

introducing a span signal. Depending on 

the instrument, this may be a spanconcentration gas, a reference signal, a 

set of reference thermodynamic 

conditions, or some combination of 

these. For gas analyzers, use a span gas 

that meets the specifications of 

§ 1065.750 and introduce it directly at 

the analyzer port. 

(5) If applicable, after spanning the 

instrument, check zero with the same 

signal you used in paragraph (c)(3) of 

this section. Based on the zero reading, 

use good engineering judgment to 

determine whether or not to rezero and 

or re-span the instrument before 

continuing. 

(6) For all measured quantities, use 

the instrument manufacturer’s 

recommendations and good engineering 

judgment to select reference values, yrefi, 

that cover a range of values that you 

expect would prevent extrapolation 

beyond these values during emission 

testing. We recommend selecting a zero 

reference signal as one of the reference 

values for the linearity verification. For 

pressure, temperature, dewpoint, power, 

current, voltage, photoacoustic 

analyzers, and GC–ECD linearity 

verifications, we recommend at least 

three reference values. For all other 

linearity verifications select at least ten 

reference values. 

(7) Use the instrument manufacturer’s 

recommendations and good engineering 

judgment to select the order in which 

you will introduce the series of 

reference values. For example, you may 

select the reference values randomly to 

avoid correlation with previous 

measurements and to avoid hysteresis; 

you may select reference values in 

ascending or descending order to avoid 

long settling times of reference signals; 

or you may select values to ascend and 

then descend to incorporate the effects 

of any instrument hysteresis into the 

linearity verification. 

(8) Generate reference quantities as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section. For gas analyzers, use gas 

concentrations known to be within the 

specifications of § 1065.750 and 

introduce them directly at the analyzer 

port. 

(9) Introduce a reference signal to the 

measurement instrument. 

(10) Allow time for the instrument to 

stabilize while it measures the value at 

the reference condition. Stabilization 

time may include time to purge an 

instrument and time to account for its 

response. 

(11) At a recording frequency of at 

least f Hz, specified in Table 1 of 

§ 1065.205, measure the value at the 

reference condition for 30 seconds (you 

may select a longer sampling period if 

the recording update frequency is less 

than 0.5 Hz) and record the arithmetic 

mean of the recorded values, y ̄i,. Refer to 

§ 1065.602 for an example of calculating 

an arithmetic mean. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(12) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(c)(9) though (11) of this section until 

measurements are complete at each of 

the reference conditions. 

(13) Use the arithmetic means, y ̄i,, and 

reference values, y ̄ refi, to calculate leastsquares linear regression parameters and 

statistical values to compare to the 

minimum performance criteria specified 

in Table 1 of this section. Use the 

calculations described in § 1065.602. 

Using good engineering judgment, you 

may weight the results of individual 

data pairs (i.e. (yrefi, y ̄i,)), in the linear 

regression calculations. 

(d) Reference signals. This paragraph 

(d) describes recommended methods for 

generating reference values for the 

linearity-verification protocol in 

paragraph (c) of this section. Use 

reference values that simulate actual 

values, or introduce an actual value and 

measure it with a referencemeasurement system. In the latter case, 

the reference value is the value reported 

by the reference-measurement system. 

Reference values and referencemeasurement systems must be NISTtraceable. We recommend using 

calibration reference quantities that are 

NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty, 

if not specified elsewhere in this part 

1065. Use the following recommended 

methods to generate reference values or 

use good engineering judgment to select 

a different reference: 

(1) Speed. Run the engine or 

dynamometer at a series of steady-state 

speeds and use a strobe, photo 

tachometer, or laser tachometer to 

record reference speeds. 

(2) Torque. Use a series of calibration 

weights and a calibration lever arm to 

simulate engine torque. You may 

instead use the engine or dynamometer 

itself to generate a nominal torque that 

is measured by a reference load cell or 

proving ring in series with the torquemeasurement system. In this case, use 

the reference load cell measurement as 

the reference value. Refer to § 1065.310 

for a torque-calibration procedure 

similar to the linearity verification in 

this section. 

(3) Electrical power, current, and 

voltage. You must perform linearity 

verification for either electrical power, 

or for current and voltage. Perform 

linearity verifications using a reference 

meter and controlled sources of current 

and voltage. We recommend using a 

complete calibration system that is 

suitable for the electrical power 

distribution industry. 

(4) Fuel rate. Operate the engine at a 

series of constant fuel-flow rates or recirculate fuel back to a tank through the 

fuel flow meter at different flow rates. 

Use a gravimetric reference 

measurement (such as a scale, balance, 

or mass comparator) at the inlet to the 

fuel-measurement system. Use a 

stopwatch or timer to measure the time 

intervals over which reference masses of 

fuel are introduced to the fuel 

measurement system. The reference fuel 

mass divided by the time interval is the 

reference fuel flow rate. 

(5) Flow rates—inlet air, dilution air, 

diluted exhaust, raw exhaust, or sample 

flow. Use a reference flow meter with a 

blower or pump to simulate flow rates. 

Use a restrictor, diverter valve, a 

variable-speed blower or a variablespeed pump to control the range of flow 

rates. Use the reference meter’s response 

as the reference values. 

(i) Reference flow meters. Because the 

flow range requirements for these 

various flows are large, we allow a 

variety of reference meters. For 

example, for diluted exhaust flow for a 

full-flow dilution system, we 

recommend a reference subsonic venturi 

flow meter with a restrictor valve and a 

blower to simulate flow rates. For inlet 

air, dilution air, diluted exhaust for 

partial-flow dilution, raw exhaust, or 

sample flow, we allow reference meters 

such as critical flow orifices, critical 

flow venturis, laminar flow elements, 

master mass flow standards, or Roots 

meters. Make sure the reference meter is 

calibrated by the flow-meter 

manufacturer and its calibration is 

NIST-traceable. If you use the difference 

of two flow measurements to determine 

a net flow rate, you may use one of the 

measurements as a reference for the 

other. 

(ii) Reference flow values. Because the 

reference flow is not absolutely 

constant, sample and record values of 

n ̇ refi, for 30 seconds and use the 

arithmetic mean of the values, n ̇ ref, as 

the reference value. Refer to § 1065.602 

for an example of calculating arithmetic 

mean. 

(6) Gas division. Use one of the two 

reference signals: 

(i) At the outlet of the gas-division 

system, connect a gas analyzer that 

meets the linearity verification 

described in this section and has not 

been linearized with the gas divider 

being verified. For example, verify the 

linearity of an analyzer using a series of 

reference analytical gases directly from 

compressed gas cylinders that meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. We 

recommend using a FID analyzer or a 

PMD or MPD O2 analyzer because of 

their inherent linearity. Operate this 

analyzer consistent with how you 

would operate it during an emission 

test. Connect a span gas to the gasdivider inlet. Use the gas-division 

system to divide the span gas with 

purified air or nitrogen. Select gas 

divisions that you typically use. Use a 

selected gas division as the measured 

value. Use the analyzer response 

divided by the span gas concentration as 

the reference gas-division value. 

Because the instrument response is not 

absolutely constant, sample and record 

values of xrefi for 30 seconds and use the 

arithmetic mean of the values, x ̄ refi, as 

the reference value. Refer to § 1065.602 

for an example of calculating arithmetic 

mean. 

(ii) Using good engineering judgment 

and the gas divider manufacturer’s 

recommendations, use one or more 

reference flow meters to measure the 

flow rates of the gas divider and verify 

the gas-division value. 

(7) Continuous constituent 

concentration. For reference values, use 

a series of gas cylinders of known gas 

concentration or use a gas-division 

system that is known to be linear with 

a span gas. Gas cylinders, gas-division 

systems, and span gases that you use for 

reference values must meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. 

(8) Temperature. You may perform 

the linearity verification for temperature 

measurement systems with 

thermocouples, RTDs, and thermistors 

by removing the sensor from the system 

and using a simulator in its place. Use 

a NIST-traceable simulator that is 

independently calibrated and, as 

appropriate, cold-junctioncompensated. The simulator uncertainty 

scaled to absolute temperature must be 

less than 0.5% of Tmax. If you use this 

option, you must use sensors that the 

supplier states are accurate to better 

than 0.5% of Tmax compared with their 

standard calibration curve. 

(9) Mass. For linearity verification for 

gravimetric PM balances, use external 

calibration weights that that meet the 

requirements in § 1065.790. 

(e) Measurement systems that require 

linearity verification. Table 1 of this 

section indicates measurement systems 

that require linearity verification, 

subject to the following provisions: 

(1) Perform linearity verification more 

frequently based on the instrument 

manufacturer’s recommendation or good 

engineering judgment. 

(2) The expression ‘‘xmin’’ refers to the 

reference value used during linearity 

verification that is closest to zero. This 

is the value used to calculate the first 

tolerance in Table 1 of this section using 

the intercept, a0. Note that this value 

may be zero, positive, or negative 

depending on the reference values. For 

example, if the reference values chosen 

to validate a pressure transducer vary 

from ¥10 to ¥1 kPa, xmin is ¥1 kPa. If 

the reference values used to validate a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30111 

temperature device vary from 290 to 390 

K, xmin is 290 K. 

(3) The expression ‘‘max’’ generally 

refers to the absolute value of the 

reference value used during linearity 

verification that is furthest from zero. 

This is the value used to scale the first 

and third tolerances in Table 1 of this 

section using a0 and SEE. For example, 

if the reference values chosen to 

validate a pressure transducer vary from 

¥10 to ¥1 kPa, then pmax is +10 kPa. 

If the reference values used to validate 

a temperature device vary from 290 to 

390 K, then Tmax is 390 K. For gas 

dividers where ‘‘max’’ is expressed as, 

xmax/xspan ́; xmax is the maximum gas 

concentration used during the 

verification, xspan is the undivided, 

undiluted, span gas concentration, and 

the resulting ratio is the maximum 

divider point reference value used 

during the verification (typically 1). The 

following are special cases where ‘‘max’’ 

refers to a different value: 

(i) For linearity verification with a PM 

balance, mmax refers to the typical mass 

of a PM filter. 

(ii) For linearity verification of torque 

on the engine’s primary output shaft, 

Tmax refers to the manufacturer’s 

specified engine torque peak value of 

the lowest torque engine to be tested. 

(4) The specified ranges are inclusive. 

For example, a specified range of 0.98– 

1.02 for a1 means 0.98≤a1≤1.02. 

(5) Linearity verification is optional 

for systems that pass the flow-rate 

verification for diluted exhaust as 

described in § 1065.341 (the propane 

check) or for systems that agree within 

±2% based on a chemical balance of 

carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, 

and exhaust. 

(6) You must meet the a1 criteria for 

these quantities only if the absolute 

value of the quantity is required, as 

opposed to a signal that is only linearly 

proportional to the actual value. 

(7) Linearity verification is required 

for the following temperature 

measurements: 

(i) The following temperature 

measurements always require linearity 

verification: 

(A) Air intake. 

(B) Aftertreatment bed(s), for engines 

tested with aftertreatment devices 

subject to cold-start testing. 

(C) Dilution air for PM sampling, 

including CVS, double-dilution, and 

partial-flow systems. 

(D) PM sample. 

(E) Chiller sample, for gaseous 

sampling systems that use thermal 

chillers to dry samples and use chiller 

temperature to calculate the dewpoint at 

the outlet of the chiller. For your testing, 

if you choose to use a high alarm 

temperature setpoint for the chiller 

temperature as a constant value in 

determining the amount of water 

removed from the emission sample, you 

may use good engineering judgment to 

verify the accuracy of the high alarm 

temperature setpoint instead of linearity 

verification on the chiller temperature. 

To verify that the alarm trip point value 

is no less than 2.0 °C below the 

reference value at the trip point, we 

recommend that you input a reference 

simulated temperature signal below the 

alarm trip point and increase this signal 

until the high alarm trips. 

(ii) Linearity verification is required 

for the following temperature 

measurements if these temperature 

measurements are specified by the 

engine manufacturer: 

(A) Fuel inlet. 

(B) Air outlet to the test cell’s charge 

air cooler air outlet, for engines tested 

with a laboratory heat exchanger that 

simulates an installed charge air cooler. 

(C) Coolant inlet to the test cell’s 

charge air cooler, for engines tested with 

a laboratory heat exchanger that 

simulates an installed charge air cooler. 

(D) Oil in the sump/pan. 

(E) Coolant before the thermostat, for 

liquid-cooled engines. 

(8) Linearity verification is required 

for the following pressure 

measurements: 

(i) The following pressure 

measurements always require linearity 

verification: 

(A) Air intake restriction. 

(B) Exhaust back pressure. 

(C) Barometer. 

(D) CVS inlet gage pressure. 

(E) Sample dryer, for gaseous 

sampling systems that use either 

osmotic-membrane or thermal chillers 

to dry samples. For your testing, if you 

choose to use a low alarm pressure 

setpoint for the sample dryer pressure as 

a constant value in determining the 

amount of water removed from the 

emission sample, you may use good 

engineering judgment to verify the 

accuracy of the low alarm pressure 

setpoint instead of linearity verification 

on the sample dryer pressure. To verify 

that the trip point value is no more than 

4.0 kPa above the reference value at the 

trip point, we recommend that you 

input a reference pressure signal above 

the alarm trip point and decrease this 

signal until the low alarm trips. 

(ii) Linearity verification is required 

for the following pressure 

measurements if these pressure 

measurements are specified by the 

engine manufacturer: 

(A) The test cell’s charge air cooler 

and interconnecting pipe pressure drop, 

for turbo-charged engines tested with a 

laboratory heat exchanger that simulates 

an installed charge air cooler. 

(B) Fuel outlet. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.307—MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE LINEARITY VERIFICATION

Measurement system Quantity Linearity criteria 

cmin(a1¥1)+a0 a1 SEE r 2

Speed ...................................... ƒn ≤0.05% · ƒnmax ........................ 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · ƒnmax ............................. ≥0.990 

Torque ..................................... T ≤1% · Tmax .............................. 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · Tmax .............................. ≥0.990 

Electrical power ....................... P ≤1% · Pmax .............................. 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · Pmax .............................. ≥0.990 

Current .................................... I ≤1% · Imax ................................ 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · Imax ................................ ≥0.990 

Voltage .................................... U ≤1% · Umax .............................. 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · Umax .............................. ≥0.990 

Fuel flow rate .......................... m ̇ ≤1% · m ̇ max .............................. 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · m ̇ max .............................. ≥0.990 

Intake-air flow rate1 ................. n ̇ ≤1% · n ̇ max ............................... 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · n ̇ max ............................... ≥0.990 

Dilution air flow rate1 .............. n ̇ ≤1% · n ̇ max ............................... 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · n ̇ max ............................... ≥0.990 

Diluted exhaust flow rate1 ....... n ̇ ≤1% · n ̇ max ............................... 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · n ̇ max ............................... ≥0.990 

Raw exhaust flow rate1 ........... n ̇ ≤1% · n ̇ max ............................... 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · n ̇ max ............................... ≥0.990 

Batch sampler flow rates1 ....... n ̇ ≤1% · n ̇ max ............................... 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · n ̇ max ............................... ≥0.990 

Gas dividers ............................ c/cspan ≤0.5% · cmax/xspan .................... 0.98–1.02 ≤2% · cmax/xspan ....................... ≥0.990 

Gas analyzers for laboratory 

testing.

c ≤0.5% · cmax ............................ 0.99–1.01 ≤1% · cmax ............................... ≥0.998 

Gas analyzers for field testing c ≤1% · cmax ............................... 0.99–1.01 ≤1% · cmax ............................... ≥0.998 

PM balance ............................. m ≤1% · mmax .............................. 0.99–1.01 ≤1% · mmax .............................. ≥0.998 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30112 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.307—MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE LINEARITY VERIFICATION—Continued 

Pressures ................................ p ≤1% · pmax ............................... 0.99–1.01 ≤1% · pmax ............................... ≥0.998 

Dewpoint for intake air, PMstabilization and balance environments.Tdew ≤0.5% · Tdewmax ....................... 0.99–1.01 ≤0.5% · Tdewmax - .................... ≥0.998 

Other dewpoint measurements Tdew ≤1% · Tdewmax .......................... 0.99–1.01 ≤1% · Tdewmax - ....................... ≥0.998 

Analog-to-digital conversion of 

temperature signals.

T ≤1% · Tmax .............................. 0.99–1.01 ≤1% · Tmax .............................. ≥0.998 

1For flow meters that determine volumetric flow rate, V ̇ std, you may substitute V ̇ std for n ̇ as the quantity and substitute V ̇ stdmax for n ̇ max. 

■ 236. Section 1065.308 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) and adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.308 Continuous gas analyzer 

system-response and updating-recording 

verification—for gas analyzers not 

continuously compensated for other gas 

species. 

* * * * * 

(d) Procedure. Use the following 

procedure to verify the response of each 

continuous gas analyzer: 

(1) Instrument setup. Follow the 

analyzer manufacturer’s start-up and 

operating instructions. Adjust the 

measurement system as needed to 

optimize performance. Run this 

verification with the analyzer operating 

in the same manner you will use for 

emission testing. If the analyzer shares 

its sampling system with other 

analyzers, and if gas flow to the other 

analyzers will affect the system 

response time, then start up and operate 

the other analyzers while running this 

verification test. You may run this 

verification test on multiple analyzers 

sharing the same sampling system at the 

same time. If you use any analog or realtime digital filters during emission 

testing, you must operate those filters in 

the same manner during this 

verification. 

(2) Equipment setup. We recommend 

using minimal lengths of gas transfer 

lines between all connections and fastacting three-way valves (2 inlets, 1 

outlet) to control the flow of zero and 

blended span gases to the sample 

system’s probe inlet or a tee near the 

outlet of the probe. If you inject the gas 

at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you 

may correct the transformation time, t50,

for an estimate of the transport time 

from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally 

the gas flow rate is higher than the 

sample flow rate and the excess is 

overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If 

the gas flow rate is lower than the 

sample flow rate, the gas concentrations 

must be adjusted to account for the 

dilution from ambient air drawn into 

the probe. We recommend you use the 

final, stabilized analyzer reading as the 

final gas concentration. Select span 

gases for the species being measured. 

You may use binary or multi-gas span 

gases. You may use a gas blending or 

mixing device to blend span gases. A 

gas blending or mixing device is 

recommended when blending span 

gases diluted in N2 with span gases 

diluted in air. You may use a multi-gas 

span gas, such as NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-CH4, 

to verify multiple analyzers at the same 

time. If you use standard binary span 

gases, you must run separate response 

tests for each analyzer. In designing 

your experimental setup, avoid pressure 

pulsations due to stopping the flow 

through the gas-blending device. The 

change in gas concentration must be at 

least 20% of the analyzer’s range. 

(3) Data collection. (i) Start the flow 

of zero gas. 

(ii) Allow for stabilization, accounting 

for transport delays and the slowest 

analyzer’s full response. 

(iii) Start recording data. For this 

verification you must record data at a 

frequency greater than or equal to that 

of the updating-recording frequency 

used during emission testing. You may 

not use interpolation or filtering to alter 

the recorded values. 

(iv) Switch the flow to allow the 

blended span gases to flow to the 

analyzer. If you intend to use the data 

from this test to determine t50 for time 

alignment, record this time as t0.

(v) Allow for transport delays and the 

slowest analyzer’s full response. 

(vi) Switch the flow to allow zero gas 

to flow to the analyzer. If you intend to 

use the data from this test to determine 

t50 for time alignment, record this time 

as t100.

(vii) Allow for transport delays and 

the slowest analyzer’s full response. 

(viii) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(d)(3)(iv) through (vii) of this section to 

record seven full cycles, ending with 

zero gas flowing to the analyzers. 

(ix) Stop recording. 

* * * * * 

(g) Optional procedure. Instead of 

using a three-way valve to switch 

between zero and span gases, you may 

use a fast-acting two-way valve to 

switch sampling between ambient air 

and span gas at the probe inlet. For this 

alternate procedure, the following 

provisions apply: 

(1) If your probe is sampling from a 

continuously flowing gas stream (such 

as a CVS tunnel), you may adjust the 

span gas flow rate to be different than 

the sample flow rate. 

(2) If your probe is sampling from a 

gas stream that is not continuously 

flowing (such as a raw exhaust stack), 

you must adjust the span gas flow rate 

to be less than the sample flow rate so 

ambient air is always drawn into the 

probe inlet. This avoids errors 

associated with overflowing span gas 

out of the probe inlet and drawing the 

span gas back in when sampling 

ambient air. 

(3) When sampling ambient air with 

or without span gas, all the analyzer 

readings must be stable within ±0.5% of 

the target gas concentration step size. If 

any analyzer reading is outside the 

specified range, you must resolve the 

problem and verify that all the analyzer 

readings meet this specification. 

(4) For oxygen analyzers, you may use 

purified N2 as the zero gas and ambient 

air (plus purified N2 if needed) as the 

reference gas. Perform the verification 

with seven repeat measurements that 

each consist of stabilizing with purified 

N2, switching to ambient air and 

observing the analyzer’s response rise 

and stabilized reading, followed by 

switching back to purified N2 and 

observing the analyzer’s response fall 

and stabilized reading. 

■ 237. Section 1065.309 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) and 

adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.309 Continuous gas analyzer 

system-response and updating-recording 

verification—for gas analyzers continuously 

compensated for other gas species. 

(a) Scope and frequency. This section 

describes a verification procedure for 

system response and updating-recording 

frequency for continuous gas analyzers 

that output a single gas species mole 

fraction (i.e., concentration) based on a 

continuous combination of multiple gas 

species measured with multiple 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30113 

detectors (i.e., gas analyzers 

continuously compensated for other gas 

species). See § 1065.308 for verification 

procedures that apply to continuous gas 

analyzers that are not continuously 

compensated for other gas species or 

that use only one detector for gaseous 

species. Perform this verification to 

determine the system response of the 

continuous gas analyzer and its 

sampling system. This verification is 

required for continuous gas analyzers 

used for transient or ramped-modal 

testing. You need not perform this 

verification for batch gas analyzers or 

for continuous gas analyzers that are 

used only for discrete-mode testing. For 

this check we consider water vapor a 

gaseous constituent. This verification 

does not apply to any processing of 

individual analyzer signals that are 

time-aligned to their t50 times and were 

verified according to § 1065.308. For 

example, this verification does not 

apply to correction for water removed 

from the sample done in post-processing 

according to § 1065.659 (40 CFR 

1066.640 for vehicle testing) and it does 

not apply to NMHC determination from 

THC and CH4 according to § 1065.660. 

Perform this verification after initial 

installation (i.e., test cell 

commissioning) and after any 

modifications to the system that would 

change the system response. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Equipment setup. We recommend 

using minimal lengths of gas transfer 

lines between all connections and fastacting three-way valves (2 inlets, 1 

outlet) to control the flow of zero and 

blended span gases to the sample 

system’s probe inlet or a tee near the 

outlet of the probe. If you inject the gas 

at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you 

may correct the transformation time, t50,

for an estimate of the transport time 

from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally 

the gas flow rate is higher than the 

sample flow rate and the excess is 

overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If 

the gas flow rate is lower than the 

sample flow rate, the gas concentrations 

must be adjusted to account for the 

dilution from ambient air drawn into 

the probe. We recommend you use the 

final, stabilized analyzer reading as the 

final gas concentration. Select span 

gases for the species being continuously 

combined, other than H2O. Select 

concentrations of compensating species 

that will yield concentrations of these 

species at the analyzer inlet that covers 

the range of concentrations expected 

during testing. You may use binary or 

multi-gas span gases. You may use a gas 

blending or mixing device to blend span 

gases. A gas blending or mixing device 

is recommended when blending span 

gases diluted in N2 with span gases 

diluted in air. You may use a multi-gas 

span gas, such as NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-CH4, 

to verify multiple analyzers at the same 

time. In designing your experimental 

setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to 

stopping the flow through the gas 

blending device. The change in gas 

concentration must be at least 20% of 

the analyzer’s range. If H2O correction is 

applicable, then span gases must be 

humidified before entering the analyzer; 

however, you may not humidify NO2

span gas by passing it through a sealed 

humidification vessel that contains 

water. You must humidify NO2 span gas 

with another moist gas stream. We 

recommend humidifying your NO-COCO2-C3H8-CH4, balance N2 blended gas 

by flowing the gas mixture through a 

sealed vessel that humidifies the gas by 

bubbling it through distilled water and 

then mixing the gas with dry NO2 gas, 

balance purified air. If your system does 

not use a sample dryer to remove water 

from the sample gas, you must humidify 

your span gas to the highest sample H2O 

content that you estimate during 

emission sampling. If your system uses 

a sample dryer during testing, it must 

pass the sample dryer verification check 

in § 1065.342, and you must humidify 

your span gas to an H2O content greater 

than or equal to the level determined in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2). If you are humidifying 

span gases without NO2, use good 

engineering judgment to ensure that the 

wall temperatures in the transfer lines, 

fittings, and valves from the 

humidifying system to the probe are 

above the dewpoint required for the 

target H2O content. If you are 

humidifying span gases with NO2, use 

good engineering judgment to ensure 

that there is no condensation in the 

transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the 

point where humidified gas is mixed 

with NO2 span gas to the probe. We 

recommend that you design your setup 

so that the wall temperatures in the 

transfer lines, fittings, and valves from 

the humidifying system to the probe are 

at least 5 °C above the local sample gas 

dewpoint. Operate the measurement 

and sample handling system as you do 

for emission testing. Make no 

modifications to the sample handling 

system to reduce the risk of 

condensation. Flow humidified gas 

through the sampling system before this 

check to allow stabilization of the 

measurement system’s sampling 

handling system to occur, as it would 

for an emission test. 

* * * * * 

(g) Optional procedure. Follow the 

optional procedures in § 1065.308(g), 

noting that you may use compensating 

gases mixed with ambient air for oxygen 

analyzers. 

(h) Analyzers with H2O compensation 

sampling downstream of a sample 

dryer. You may omit humidifying the 

span gas as described in this paragraph 

(h). If an analyzer compensates only for 

H2O, you may apply the requirements of 

§ 1065.308 instead of the requirements 

of this section. You may omit 

humidifying the span gas if you meet 

the following conditions: 

(1) The analyzer is located 

downstream of a sample dryer. 

(2) The maximum value for H2O mole 

fraction downstream of the dryer must 

be less than or equal to 0.010. Verify 

this during each sample dryer 

verification according to § 1065.342. 

■ 238. Section 1065.310 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.310 Torque calibration. 

* * * * * 

(d) Strain gage, load transducer, or 

proving ring calibration. This technique 

applies force either by hanging weights 

on a lever arm (these weights and their 

lever arm length are not used as part of 

the reference torque determination) or 

by operating the dynamometer at 

different torques. Apply at least six 

force combinations for each applicable 

torque-measuring range, spacing the 

force quantities about equally over the 

range. Oscillate or rotate the 

dynamometer during calibration to 

reduce frictional static hysteresis. In this 

case, the reference torque is determined 

by multiplying the force output from the 

reference meter (such as a strain gage, 

load transducer, or proving ring) by its 

effective lever-arm length, which you 

measure from the point where the force 

measurement is made to the 

dynamometer’s rotational axis. Make 

sure you measure this length 

perpendicular to the reference meter’s 

measurement axis and perpendicular to 

the dynamometer’s rotational axis. 

■ 239. Section 1065.315 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.315 Pressure, temperature, and 

dewpoint calibration. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Temperature. We recommend 

digital dry-block or stirred-liquid 

temperature calibrators, with data 

logging capabilities to minimize 

transcription errors. We recommend 

using calibration reference quantities 

that are NIST-traceable within 0.5% 

uncertainty. You may perform linearity 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30114 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

verification for temperature 

measurement systems with 

thermocouples, RTDs, and thermistors 

by removing the sensor from the system 

and using a simulator in its place. Use 

a NIST-traceable simulator that is 

independently calibrated and, as 

appropriate, cold-junction compensated. 

The simulator uncertainty scaled to 

absolute temperature must be less than 

0.5% of Tmax. If you use this option, you 

must use sensors that the supplier states 

are accurate to better than 0.5% of Tmax

compared with their standard 

calibration curve. 

* * * * * 

■ 240. Section 1065.341 is amended by 

revising the section heading and 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (d) 

introductory text, and (f)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.341 CVS, PFD, and batch sampler 

verification (propane check). 

(a) A propane check serves as a CVS 

verification to determine if there is a 

discrepancy in measured values of 

diluted exhaust flow. You may use the 

same procedure to verify PFDs and 

batch samplers. For purposes of PFD 

and batch sampler verification, read the 

term CVS to mean PFD or batch sampler 

as appropriate. A propane check also 

serves as a batch-sampler verification to 

determine if there is a discrepancy in a 

batch sampling system that extracts a 

sample from a CVS, as described in 

paragraph (g) of this section. Using good 

engineering judgment and safe 

practices, this check may be performed 

using a gas other than propane, such as 

CO2 or CO. A failed propane check 

might indicate one or more problems 

that may require corrective action, as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

(d) If you performed the vacuum-side 

leak verification of the HC sampling 

system as described in paragraph (c)(8) 

of this section, you may use the HC 

contamination procedure in 

§ 1065.520(f) to verify HC 

contamination. Otherwise, zero, span, 

and verify contamination of the HC 

sampling system, as follows: 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Calculate total C3H8 mass based on 

your CVS and HC data as described in 

§ 1065.650 (40 CFR 1066.610 for vehicle 

testing) and § 1065.660, using the molar 

mass of C3H8, MC3H8, instead the 

effective molar mass of HC, MHC.

* * * * * 

■ 241. Section 1065.350 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) and adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.350 H2O interference verification for 

CO2 NDIR analyzers. 

* * * * * 

(d) Procedure. Perform the 

interference verification as follows: 

(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the 

CO2 NDIR analyzer as you would before 

an emission test. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during emission testing, 

you may run this verification test with 

the dryer if it meets the requirements of 

§ 1065.342. Operate the dryer at the 

same conditions as you will for an 

emission test. You may also run this 

verification test without the sample 

dryer. 

(2) Create a humidified test gas by 

bubbling zero gas that meets the 

specifications in § 1065.750 through 

distilled H2O in a sealed vessel. If the 

sample is not passed through a dryer 

during emission testing, control the 

vessel temperature to generate an H2O 

level at least as high as the maximum 

expected during emission testing. If the 

sample is passed through a dryer during 

emission testing, control the vessel 

temperature to generate an H2O level at 

least as high as the level determined in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. 

(3) Introduce the humidified test gas 

into the sample system. You may 

introduce it downstream of any sample 

dryer, if one is used during testing. 

(4) If the sample is not passed through 

a dryer during this verification test, 

measure the H2O mole fraction, xH2O, of 

the humidified test gas, as close as 

possible to the inlet of the analyzer. For 

example, measure dewpoint, Tdew, and 

absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate 

xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets 

the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during this verification 

test, you must verify that the H2O 

content of the humidified test gas 

downstream of the vessel meets the 

requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section based on either direct 

measurement of the H2O content (e.g., 

dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate 

based on the vessel pressure and 

temperature. Use good engineering 

judgment to estimate the H2O content. 

For example, you may use previous 

direct measurements of H2O content to 

verify the vessel’s level of saturation. 

(5) If a sample dryer is not used in this 

verification test, use good engineering 

judgment to prevent condensation in the 

transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the 

point where xH2O is measured to the 

analyzer. We recommend that you 

design your system so the wall 

temperatures in the transfer lines, 

fittings, and valves from the point where 

xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 

least 5 °C above the local sample gas 

dewpoint. 

(6) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the transfer 

line and to account for analyzer 

response. 

(7) While the analyzer measures the 

sample’s concentration, record 30 

seconds of sampled data. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of this data. The 

analyzer meets the interference 

verification if this value is within (0.0 

±0.4) mmol/mol. 

(e) Exceptions. The following 

exceptions apply: 

(1) You may omit this verification if 

you can show by engineering analysis 

that for your CO2 sampling system and 

your emission-calculation procedures, 

the H2O interference for your CO2 NDIR 

analyzer always affects your brakespecific emission results within ±0.5% 

of each of the applicable standards. This 

specification also applies for vehicle 

testing, except that it relates to emission 

results in g/mile or g/kilometer. 

(2) You may use a CO2 NDIR analyzer 

that you determine does not meet this 

verification, as long as you try to correct 

the problem and the measurement 

deficiency does not adversely affect 

your ability to show that engines 

comply with all applicable emission 

standards. 

■ 242. Section 1065.355 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.355 H2O and CO2 interference 

verification for CO NDIR analyzers. 

* * * * * 

(d) Procedure. Perform the 

interference verification as follows: 

(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the 

CO NDIR analyzer as you would before 

an emission test. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during emission testing, 

you may run this verification test with 

the dryer if it meets the requirements of 

§ 1065.342. Operate the dryer at the 

same conditions as you will for an 

emission test. You may also run this 

verification test without the sample 

dryer. 

(2) Create a humidified CO2 test gas 

by bubbling a CO2 span gas that meets 

the specifications in § 1065.750 through 

distilled H2O in a sealed vessel. If the 

sample is not passed through a dryer 

during emission testing, control the 

vessel temperature to generate an H2O 

level at least as high as the maximum 

expected during emission testing. If the 

sample is passed through a dryer during 

emission testing, control the vessel 

temperature to generate an H2O level at 

least as high as the level determined in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30115 

CO2 span gas concentration at least as 

high as the maximum expected during 

testing. 

(3) Introduce the humidified CO2 test 

gas into the sample system. You may 

introduce it downstream of any sample 

dryer, if one is used during testing. 

(4) If the sample is not passed through 

a dryer during this verification test, 

measure the H2O mole fraction, cH2O, of 

the humidified CO2 test gas as close as 

possible to the inlet of the analyzer. For 

example, measure dewpoint, Tdew, and 

absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate 

xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets 

the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during this verification 

test, you must verify that the H2O 

content of the humidified test gas 

downstream of the vessel meets the 

requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section based on either direct 

measurement of the H2O content (e.g., 

dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate 

based on the vessel pressure and 

temperature. Use good engineering 

judgment to estimate the H2O content. 

For example, you may use previous 

direct measurements of H2O content to 

verify the vessel’s level of saturation. 

(5) If a sample dryer is not used in this 

verification test, use good engineering 

judgment to prevent condensation in the 

transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the 

point where xH2O is measured to the 

analyzer. We recommend that you 

design your system so that the wall 

temperatures in the transfer lines, 

fittings, and valves from the point where 

xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 

least 5 ßC above the local sample gas 

dewpoint. 

(6) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the transfer 

line and to account for analyzer 

response. 

(7) While the analyzer measures the 

sample’s concentration, record its 

output for 30 seconds. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of this data. 

(8) The analyzer meets the 

interference verification if the result of 

paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets 

the tolerance in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(9) You may also run interference 

procedures for CO2 and H2O separately. 

If the CO2 and H2O levels used are 

higher than the maximum levels 

expected during testing, you may scale 

down each observed interference value 

by multiplying the observed 

interference by the ratio of the 

maximum expected concentration value 

to the actual value used during this 

procedure. You may run separate 

interference concentrations of H2O 

(down to 0.025 mol/mol H2O content) 

that are lower than the maximum levels 

expected during testing, but you must 

scale up the observed H2O interference 

by multiplying the observed 

interference by the ratio of the 

maximum expected H2O concentration 

value to the actual value used during 

this procedure. The sum of the two 

scaled interference values must meet the 

tolerance in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 243. Section 1065.360 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b), (d), and 

(e) introductory text, and adding 

paragraph (e)(4), to read as follows: 

§ 1065.360 FID optimization and 

verification. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Verify the CH4 response within 

185 days before testing as described in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(b) Calibration. Use good engineering 

judgment to develop a calibration 

procedure, such as one based on the 

FID-analyzer manufacturer’s 

instructions and recommended 

frequency for calibrating the FID. 

Alternately, you may remove system 

components for off-site calibration. For 

a FID that measures THC, calibrate 

using C3H8 calibration gases that meet 

the specifications of § 1065.750. For a 

FID that measures CH4, calibrate using 

CH4 calibration gases that meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. We 

recommend FID analyzer zero and span 

gases that contain approximately the 

flow-weighted mean concentration of O2

expected during testing. If you use a FID 

to measure CH4 downstream of a 

nonmethane cutter, you may calibrate 

that FID using CH4 calibration gases 

with the cutter. Regardless of the 

calibration gas composition, calibrate on 

a carbon number basis of one (C1). For 

example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of 

concentration 200 mmol/mol, span the 

FID to respond with a value of 600 

mmol/mol. As another example, if you 

use a CH4 span gas with a concentration 

of 200 mmol/mol, span the FID to 

respond with a value of 200 mmol/mol. 

* * * * * 

(d) THC FID CH4 response factor 

determination. This procedure is only 

for FID analyzers that measure THC. 

Since FID analyzers generally have a 

different response to CH4 versus C3H8, 

determine each THC–FID analyzer’s CH4

response factor, RFCH4[THC–FID], after FID 

optimization. Use the most recent 

RFCH4[THC–FID] measured according to 

this section in the calculations for HC 

determination described in § 1065.660 

to compensate for CH4 response. 

Determine RFCH4[THC–FID] as follows, 

noting that you do not determine 

RFCH4[THC–FID] for FIDs that are 

calibrated and spanned using CH4 with 

a nonmethane cutter: 

(1) Select a C3H8 span gas 

concentration that you use to span your 

analyzers before emission testing. Use 

only span gases that meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. Record the 

C3H8 concentration of the gas. 

(2) Select a CH4 span gas 

concentration that you use to span your 

analyzers before emission testing. Use 

only span gases that meet the 

specifications of § 1065.750. Record the 

CH4 concentration of the gas. 

(3) Start and operate the FID analyzer 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(4) Confirm that the FID analyzer has 

been calibrated using C3H8. Calibrate on 

a carbon number basis of one (C1). For 

example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of 

concentration 200 mmol/mol, span the 

FID to respond with a value of 600 

mmol/mol. 

(5) Zero the FID with a zero gas that 

you use for emission testing. 

(6) Span the FID with the C3H8 span 

gas that you selected under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. 

(7) Introduce at the sample port of the 

FID analyzer, the CH4 span gas that you 

selected under paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section. 

(8) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the analyzer 

and to account for its response. 

(9) While the analyzer measures the 

CH4 concentration, record 30 seconds of 

sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic 

mean of these values. 

(10) For analyzers with multiple 

ranges, you need to perform the 

procedure in this paragraph (d) only on 

a single range. 

(11) Divide the mean measured 

concentration by the recorded span 

concentration of the CH4 calibration gas. 

The result is the FID analyzer’s response 

factor for CH4, RFCH4[THC–FID].

(e) THC FID CH4 response 

verification. This procedure is only for 

FID analyzers that measure THC. If the 

value of RFCH4[THC–FID] from paragraph 

(d) of this section is within ±5% of its 

most recent previously determined 

value, the THC FID passes the CH4

response verification. For example, if 

the most recent previous value for 

RFCH4[THC–FID] was 1.05 and it changed 

by ±0.05 to become 1.10 or it changed 

by ¥0.05 to become 1.00, either case 

would be acceptable because ±4.8% is 

less than ±5%. Verify RFCH4[THC–FID] as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30116 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(4) For analyzers with multiple 

ranges, you need to perform the 

procedure in this paragraph (e) only on 

a single range. 

■ 244. Section 1065.362 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d)(15) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.362 Non-stoichiometric raw 

exhaust FID O2 interference verification. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(15) For analyzers with multiple 

ranges, you need to perform the 

procedure in this paragraph (d) only on 

a single range. 

■ 245. Section 1065.365 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(1), (e)(1), 

(f) introductory text, and (f)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.365 Nonmethane cutter penetration 

fractions. 

(a) Scope and frequency. If you use a 

FID analyzer and a nonmethane cutter 

(NMC) to measure methane (CH4), 

determine the nonmethane cutter’s 

penetration fractions of CH4, PFCH4, and 

ethane, PFC2H6. As detailed in this 

section, these penetration fractions may 

be determined as a combination of NMC 

penetration fractions and FID analyzer 

response factors, depending on your 

particular NMC and FID analyzer 

configuration. Perform this verification 

after installing the nonmethane cutter. 

Repeat this verification within 185 days 

of testing to verify that the catalytic 

activity of the cutter has not 

deteriorated. Note that because 

nonmethane cutters can deteriorate 

rapidly and without warning if they are 

operated outside of certain ranges of gas 

concentrations and outside of certain 

temperature ranges, good engineering 

judgment may dictate that you 

determine a nonmethane cutter’s 

penetration fractions more frequently. 

(b) Measurement principles. A 

nonmethane cutter is a heated catalyst 

that removes nonmethane hydrocarbons 

from an exhaust sample stream before 

the FID analyzer measures the 

remaining hydrocarbon concentration. 

An ideal nonmethane cutter would have 

a CH4 penetration fraction, PFCH4, of 

1.000, and the penetration fraction for 

all other nonmethane hydrocarbons 

would be 0.000, as represented by 

PFC2H6. The emission calculations in 

§ 1065.660 use the measured values 

from this verification to account for less 

than ideal NMC performance. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical gas 

mixtures and ensure that both mixtures 

meet the specifications of § 1065.750. 

Select a CH4 concentration that you 

would use for spanning the FID during 

emission testing and select a C2H6

concentration that is typical of the peak 

NMHC concentration expected at the 

hydrocarbon standard or equal to the 

THC analyzer’s span value. For CH4

analyzers with multiple ranges, perform 

this procedure on the highest range used 

for emission testing. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical gas 

mixtures and ensure that both mixtures 

meet the specifications of § 1065.750. 

Select a CH4 concentration that you 

would use for spanning the FID during 

emission testing and select a C2H6

concentration that is typical of the peak 

NMHC concentration expected at the 

hydrocarbon standard and the C2H6

concentration typical of the peak total 

hydrocarbon (THC) concentration 

expected at the hydrocarbon standard or 

equal to the THC analyzer’s span value. 

For CH4 analyzers with multiple ranges, 

perform this procedure on the highest 

range used for emission testing. 

* * * * * 

(f) Procedure for a FID calibrated with 

CH4, bypassing the NMC. If you use a 

FID with an NMC that is calibrated with 

CH4, by bypassing the NMC, determine 

its combined ethane (C2H6) response 

factor and penetration fraction, 

RFPFC2H6[NMC–FID], as well as its CH4

penetration fraction, PFCH4[NMC–FID], as 

follows: 

(1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical gas 

mixtures and ensure that both mixtures 

meet the specifications of § 1065.750. 

Select a CH4 concentration that you 

would use for spanning the FID during 

emission testing and select a C2H6

concentration that is typical of the peak 

NMHC concentration expected at the 

hydrocarbon standard or equal to the 

THC analyzer’s span value. For CH4

analyzers with multiple ranges, perform 

this procedure on the highest range used 

for emission testing. 

* * * * * 

■ 246. A new § 1065.369 is added to 

subpart D to read as follows: 

§ 1065.369 H2O, CO, and CO2 interference 

verification for photoacoustic alcohol 

analyzers. 

(a) Scope and frequency. If you 

measure ethanol or methanol using a 

photoacoustic analyzer, verify the 

amount of H2O, CO, and CO2

interference after initial analyzer 

installation and after major 

maintenance. 

(b) Measurement principles. H2O, CO, 

and CO2 can positively interfere with a 

photoacoustic analyzer by causing a 

response similar to ethanol or methanol. 

If the photoacoustic analyzer uses 

compensation algorithms that utilize 

measurements of other gases to meet 

this interference verification, 

simultaneously conduct these other 

measurements to test the compensation 

algorithms during the analyzer 

interference verification. 

(c) System requirements. 

Photoacoustic analyzers must have 

combined interference that is within 

(0.0 ± 0.5) mmol/mol. We strongly 

recommend a lower interference that is 

within (0.0 ± 0.25) mmol/mol. 

(d) Procedure. Perform the 

interference verification by following 

the procedure in § 1065.375(d), 

comparing the results to paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

■ 247. Section 1065.370 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(9) and (e)(5) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.370 CLD CO2 and H2O quench 

verification. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(9) While flowing NO and CO2

through the gas divider, stabilize the 

output of the gas divider. Determine the 

CO2 concentration from the gas divider 

output, applying gas property correction 

as necessary to ensure accurate gas 

division, or measure it using an NDIR. 

Record this concentration, xCO2act, and 

use it in the quench verification 

calculations in § 1065.675. 

Alternatively, you may use a simple gas 

blending device and use an NDIR to 

determine this CO2 concentration. If you 

use an NDIR, it must meet the 

requirements of this part for laboratory 

testing and you must span it with the 

CO2 span gas from paragraph (d)(4) of 

this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(5) Humidify the NO span gas by 

bubbling it through distilled H2O in a 

sealed vessel. If the humidified NO span 

gas sample does not pass through a 

sample dryer for this verification test, 

control the vessel temperature to 

generate an H2O level approximately 

equal to the maximum mole fraction of 

H2O expected during emission testing. If 

the humidified NO span gas sample 

does not pass through a sample dryer, 

the quench verification calculations in 

§ 1065.675 scale the measured H2O 

quench to the highest mole fraction of 

H2O expected during emission testing. If 

the humidified NO span gas sample 

passes through a dryer for this 

verification test, control the vessel 

temperature to generate an H2O level at 

least as high as the level determined in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2). For this case, the 

quench verification calculations in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30117 

§ 1065.675 do not scale the measured 

H2O quench. 

* * * * * 

■ 248. Section 1065.375 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.375 Interference verification for 

N2O analyzers. 

* * * * * 

(d) Procedure. Perform the 

interference verification as follows: 

(1) Start, operate, zero, and span the 

N2O analyzer as you would before an 

emission test. If the sample is passed 

through a dryer during emission testing, 

you may run this verification test with 

the dryer if it meets the requirements of 

§ 1065.342. Operate the dryer at the 

same conditions as you will for an 

emission test. You may also run this 

verification test without the sample 

dryer. 

(2) Create a humidified test gas by 

bubbling a multi component span gas 

that incorporates the target interference 

species and meets the specifications in 

§ 1065.750 through distilled H2O in a 

sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed 

through a dryer during emission testing, 

control the vessel temperature to 

generate an H2O level at least as high as 

the maximum expected during emission 

testing. If the sample is passed through 

a dryer during emission testing, control 

the vessel temperature to generate an 

H2O level at least as high as the level 

determined in § 1065.145(e)(2) for that 

dryer. Use interference span gas 

concentrations that are at least as high 

as the maximum expected during 

testing. 

(3) Introduce the humidified 

interference test gas into the sample 

system. You may introduce it 

downstream of any sample dryer, if one 

is used during testing. 

(4) If the sample is not passed through 

a dryer during this verification test, 

measure the H2O mole fraction, xH2O, of 

the humidified interference test gas as 

close as possible to the inlet of the 

analyzer. For example, measure 

dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, 

ptotal, to calculate xH2O. Verify that the 

H2O content meets the requirement in 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the 

sample is passed through a dryer during 

this verification test, you must verify 

that the H2O content of the humidified 

test gas downstream of the vessel meets 

the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section based on either direct 

measurement of the H2O content (e.g., 

dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate 

based on the vessel pressure and 

temperature. Use good engineering 

judgment to estimate the H2O content. 

For example, you may use previous 

direct measurements of H2O content to 

verify the vessel’s level of saturation. 

(5) If a sample dryer is not used in this 

verification test, use good engineering 

judgment to prevent condensation in the 

transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the 

point where xH2O is measured to the 

analyzer. We recommend that you 

design your system so that the wall 

temperatures in the transfer lines, 

fittings, and valves from the point where 

xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 

least 5 °C above the local sample gas 

dewpoint. 

(6) Allow time for the analyzer 

response to stabilize. Stabilization time 

may include time to purge the transfer 

line and to account for analyzer 

response. 

(7) While the analyzer measures the 

sample’s concentration, record its 

output for 30 seconds. Calculate the 

arithmetic mean of this data. When 

performed with all the gases 

simultaneously, this is the combined 

interference. 

(8) The analyzer meets the 

interference verification if the result of 

paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets 

the tolerance in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(9) You may also run interference 

procedures separately for individual 

interference gases. If the interference gas 

levels used are higher than the 

maximum levels expected during 

testing, you may scale down each 

observed interference value (the 

arithmetic mean of 30 second data 

described in paragraph (d)(7) of this 

section) by multiplying the observed 

interference by the ratio of the 

maximum expected concentration value 

to the actual value used during this 

procedure. You may run separate 

interference concentrations of H2O 

(down to 0.025 mol/mol H2O content) 

that are lower than the maximum levels 

expected during testing, but you must 

scale up the observed H2O interference 

by multiplying the observed 

interference by the ratio of the 

maximum expected H2O concentration 

value to the actual value used during 

this procedure. The sum of the scaled 

interference values must meet the 

tolerance for combined interference as 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

■ 249. Section 1065.376 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.376 Chiller NO2 penetration. 

* * * * * 

(b) Measurement principles. A chiller 

removes H2O, which can otherwise 

interfere with a NOX measurement. 

However, liquid H2O remaining in an 

improperly designed chiller can remove 

NO2 from the sample. If a chiller is used 

without an NO2-to-NO converter 

upstream, it could remove NO2 from the 

sample prior NOX measurement. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Equipment setup and data 

collection. (i) Zero and span the total 

NOX gas analyzer(s) as you would before 

emission testing. 

(ii) Select an NO2 calibration gas, 

balance gas of dry air, that has an NO2

concentration within ±5% of the 

maximum NO2 concentration expected 

during testing. 

(iii) Overflow this calibration gas at 

the gas sampling system’s probe or 

overflow fitting. Allow for stabilization 

of the total NOX response, accounting 

only for transport delays and instrument 

response. 

(iv) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds 

of recorded total NOX data and record 

this value as xNOxref.

(v) Stop flowing the NO2 calibration 

gas. 

(vi) Next saturate the sampling system 

by overflowing a dewpoint generator’s 

output, set at a dewpoint of 50 °C, to the 

gas sampling system’s probe or overflow 

fitting. Sample the dewpoint generator’s 

output through the sampling system and 

chiller for at least 10 minutes until the 

chiller is expected to be removing a 

constant rate of H2O. 

(vii) Immediately switch back to 

overflowing the NO2 calibration gas 

used to establish xNOxref. Allow for 

stabilization of the total NOX response, 

accounting only for transport delays and 

instrument response. Calculate the 

mean of 30 seconds of recorded total 

NOX data and record this value as 

xNOxmeas.

(viii) Correct xNOxmeas to xNOxdry based 

upon the residual H2O vapor that passed 

through the chiller at the chiller’s outlet 

temperature and pressure. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

■ 250. Section 1065.405 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.405 Test engine preparation and 

maintenance. 

* * * * * 

(a) If you are testing an emission-data 

engine for certification, make sure it is 

built to represent production engines, 

consistent with paragraph (f) of this 

section. This includes governors that 

you normally install on production 

engines. Production engines should also 

be tested with their installed governors. 

If you do not install governors on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30118 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

production engines, simulate a governor 

that is representative of a governor that 

others will install on your production 

engines. In certain circumstances, you 

may incorporate test cell components to 

simulate an in-use configuration, 

consistent with good engineering 

judgment. For example, §§ 1065.122 and 

1065.125 allow the use of test cell 

components to represent engine cooling 

and intake air systems. 

* * * * * 

(f) This paragraph (f) defines the 

components that are considered to be 

part of the engine for laboratory testing. 

See § 1065.110 for provisions related to 

system boundaries with respect to work 

inputs and outputs. 

(1) This paragraph (f)(1) describes 

certain criteria for considering a 

component to be part of the test engine. 

The criteria are intended to apply 

broadly, such that a component would 

generally be considered part of the 

engine in cases of uncertainty. An 

engine-related component meeting all 

the following criteria is considered to be 

part of the test engine for purposes of 

testing and for stabilizing emission 

levels, preconditioning, and measuring 

emission levels: 

(i) The component directly affects the 

functioning of the engine, is related to 

the control of emissions, or transmits 

engine power. This would include 

engine cooling systems, engine controls, 

and transmissions. 

(ii) The component is covered by the 

applicable certificate of conformity. For 

example, this criterion would typically 

exclude radiators not described in an 

application for certification. 

(iii) The component is not part of the 

laboratory setup, or it is used for other 

engines. 

(2) Although components meeting the 

criteria specified in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) 

or (ii) of this section, but not the 

criterion specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) 

of this section, are not considered to be 

part of the test engine, you must 

precondition these components along 

with the test engine. 

Subpart F—[Amended] 

■ 251. Section 1065.501 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By redesignating paragraphs (b) 

through (d) as paragraphs (c) through 

(e), respectively. 

■ b. By adding a new paragraph (b). 

■ c. By revising the redesignated 

paragraph (c)(2) introductory text. 

§ 1065.501 Overview. 

* * * * * 

(b) Unless we specify otherwise, you 

may control the regeneration timing of 

infrequently regenerated aftertreatment 

devices such as diesel particulate filters 

using good engineering judgment. You 

may control the regeneration timing 

using a sequence of engine operating 

conditions or you may initiate 

regeneration with an external 

regeneration switch or other command. 

This provision would also allow you to 

ensure that a regeneration event does 

not occur during an emission test. 

(c) * * * 

(2) Steady-state cycles. Steady-state 

duty cycles are typically specified in the 

standard-setting part as a list of discrete 

operating points (modes or notches), 

where each operating point has one 

value of a normalized speed command 

and one value of a normalized torque (or 

power) command. Ramped-modal 

cycles for steady-state testing also list 

test times for each mode and transition 

times between modes where speed and 

torque are linearly ramped between 

modes, even for cycles with % power. 

Start a steady-state cycle as a hot 

running test, where you start to measure 

emissions after an engine is started, 

warmed up and running. Run a steadystate duty cycle as a discrete-mode cycle 

or a ramped-modal cycle, as follows: 

* * * * * 

■ 252. A new § 1065.516 is added to 

subpart F to read as follows: 

§ 1065.516 Sample system 

decontamination and preconditioning. 

This section describes how to manage 

the impact of sampling system 

contamination on emission 

measurements. Use good engineering 

judgement to determine if you should 

decontaminate and precondition your 

sampling system. Contamination occurs 

when a regulated pollutant accumulates 

in the sample system in a high enough 

concentration to cause release during 

emission tests. Hydrocarbons and PM 

are generally the only regulated 

pollutants that contaminate sample 

systems. A sampling system is 

considered decontaminated if the 

contaminants are in equilibrium with 

measured exhaust emissions. Note that 

although this section focuses on 

avoiding excessive contamination of 

sample systems, you must also use good 

engineering judgment to avoid loss of 

sample to a sample system that is too 

clean. The goal of decontamination is 

not to perfectly clean the sample 

system, but rather to achieve 

equilibrium between the sample system 

and the exhaust so emission 

components are neither lost to nor 

entrained from the sample system. 

(a) You may perform contamination 

checks as follows to determine if 

decontamination is needed: 

(1) For dilute exhaust sampling 

systems, measure hydrocarbon and PM 

emissions by sampling with the CVS 

dilution air turned on, without an 

engine connected to it. 

(2) For raw analyzers and systems that 

collect PM samples from raw exhaust, 

measure hydrocarbon and PM emissions 

by sampling purified air or nitrogen. 

(3) When calculating zero emission 

levels, apply all applicable corrections, 

including initial THC contamination 

and diluted (CVS) exhaust background 

corrections. 

(4) Sampling systems are considered 

contaminated if either of the following 

conditions applies: 

(i) The hydrocarbon emission level 

exceeds 2% of the flow-weighted mean 

wet, net concentration expected at the 

HC standard. 

(ii) The PM emission level exceeds 

5% of the level expected at the standard 

and exceeds 20 mg on a 47 mm PTFE 

membrane filter. 

(b) To precondition/decontaminate 

sampling systems, use the following 

recommended procedure or use good 

engineering judgment to select a 

different procedure: 

(1) Start the engine and use good 

engineering judgment to operate it at a 

condition that generates high exhaust 

temperatures at the sample probe inlet. 

(2) Operate any dilution systems at 

their expected flow rates. Prevent 

aqueous condensation in the dilution 

systems. 

(3) Operate any PM sampling systems 

at their expected flow rates. 

(4) Sample PM for at least 10 min 

using any sample media. You may 

change sample media at any time during 

this process and you may discard them 

without weighing them. 

(5) You may purge any gaseous 

sampling systems that do not require 

decontamination during this procedure. 

(6) You may conduct calibrations or 

verifications on any idle equipment or 

analyzers during this procedure. 

(c) If your sampling system is still 

contaminated following the procedures 

specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, you may use more aggressive 

procedures to decontaminate the 

sampling system, as long as the 

decontamination does not cause the 

sampling system to be cleaner than an 

equilibrium condition such that 

artificially low emission measurements 

may result. 

■ 253. A new § 1065.518 is added to 

subpart F to read as follows: 

§ 1065.518 Engine preconditioning. 

(a) This section applies for engines 

where measured emissions are affected 

by prior operation, such as with a diesel 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30119 

engine that relies on urea-based 

selective catalytic reduction. Note that 

§ 1065.520(e) allows you to run practice 

duty cycles before the emission test; this 

section recommends how to do this for 

the purpose of preconditioning the 

engine. We may test your engine after 

completing only the minimum amount 

of preconditioning recommended in this 

section. For subsequent testing, such as 

steady-state testing following transient 

testing, we may consider the previous 

test cycle as preconditioning. Follow the 

standard-setting part if it specifies a 

different engine preconditioning 

procedure. 

(b) The intent of engine 

preconditioning is to manage the 

representativeness of emissions over the 

duty cycle, as described in 

§ 1065.10(c)(1), by conditioning the 

engine to a state where its emissions are 

representative of in-use operation. 

(c) This paragraph (c) specifies the 

engine preconditioning procedures for 

different types of duty cycles. You may 

measure emissions during 

preconditioning cycles, as long as you 

perform a predefined number of 

preconditioning cycles. You must 

identify before each duty cycle whether 

it is a preconditioning cycle or an 

emission test. You may not abort an 

emission test based on emissions 

measured during preconditioning. 

(1) Cold-start transient cycle. 

Precondition the engine by running at 

least one cold-start or hot-start transient 

cycle. Immediately after completing the 

last preconditioning cycle, shut down 

the engine and begin the cold soak as 

described in § 1065.530(a)(1). 

(2) Hot-start transient cycle. 

Precondition the engine by running at 

least one hot-start transient cycle. Shut 

down the engine after completing the 

last preconditioning cycle and start the 

hot-start transient test as soon as 

practical. 

(3) Hot-running transient cycle. 

Precondition the engine by running at 

least one hot-running transient cycle. 

Start the official hot-running transient 

cycle as soon as practical after 

completing the last preconditioning 

cycle. 

(4) Discrete-mode cycle for steadystate testing. Precondition the engine at 

the same operating condition as the next 

test mode, unless the standard-setting 

part specifies sampling time limits. 

(5) Ramped-modal cycle for steadystate testing. If you run the rampedmodal cycle after a transient test, 

additional preconditioning is allowed, 

but not required. If you perform 

additional preconditioning, we 

recommend running the first non-idle 

mode of the ramped-modal cycle or a 

mode approximating 50% power. 

(d) You may conduct calibrations or 

verifications on any idle equipment or 

analyzers during engine 

preconditioning. 

■ 254. Section 1065.520 is amended by 

removing paragraph (g) and revising 

paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.520 Pre-test verification procedures 

and pre-test data collection. 

(a) For tests in which you measure PM 

emissions, follow the procedures for PM 

sample preconditioning and tare 

weighing according to § 1065.590. 

* * * * * 

(e) You may perform a final 

calibration of the speed, torque, and 

proportional-flow control systems, 

which may include performing practice 

duty cycles (or portions of duty cycles). 

This may be done in conjunction with 

the preconditioning in § 1065.518. 

(f) Verify the amount of nonmethane 

hydrocarbon contamination in the 

exhaust and background HC sampling 

systems within 8 hours before the start 

of the first test interval of each dutycycle sequence for laboratory tests. You 

may verify the contamination of a 

background HC sampling system by 

reading the last bag fill and purge using 

zero gas. For any NMHC measurement 

system that involves separately 

measuring CH4 and subtracting it from 

a THC measurement or for any CH4

measurement system that uses an NMC, 

verify the amount of THC contamination 

using only the THC analyzer response. 

There is no need to operate any separate 

CH4 analyzer for this verification; 

however, you may measure and correct 

for THC contamination in the CH4

sample train for the cases where NMHC 

is determined by subtracting CH4 from 

THC or, where CH4 is determined, using 

an NMC as configured in § 1065.365(d), 

(e), and (f); and using the calculations in 

§ 1065.660(b)(2). Perform this 

verification as follows: 

(1) Select the HC analyzer range for 

measuring the flow-weighted mean 

concentration expected at the HC 

standard. 

(2) Zero the HC analyzer at the 

analyzer zero or sample port. Note that 

FID zero and span balance gases may be 

any combination of purified air or 

purified nitrogen that meets the 

specifications of § 1065.750. We 

recommend FID analyzer zero and span 

gases that contain approximately the 

flow-weighted mean concentration of O2

expected during testing. 

(3) Span the HC analyzer using span 

gas introduced at the analyzer span or 

sample port. Span on a carbon number 

basis of one (C1). For example, if you 

use a C3H8 span gas of concentration 

200 mmol/mol, span the FID to respond 

with a value of 600 mmol/mol. 

(4) Overflow zero gas at the HC probe 

inlet or into a tee near the probe outlet. 

(5) Measure the THC concentration in 

the sampling and background systems 

as follows: 

(i) For continuous sampling, record 

the mean THC concentration as 

overflow zero gas flows. 

(ii) For batch sampling, fill the sample 

medium (e.g., bag) and record its mean 

THC concentration. 

(iii) For the background system, 

record the mean THC concentration of 

the last fill and purge. 

(6) Record this value as the initial 

THC concentration, xTHC[THC–FID]init, and 

use it to correct measured values as 

described in § 1065.660. 

(7) You may correct the measured 

initial THC concentration for drift as 

follows: 

(i) For batch and continuous HC 

analyzers, after determining the initial 

THC concentration, flow zero gas to the 

analyzer zero or sample port. When the 

analyzer reading is stable, record the 

mean analyzer value. 

(ii) Flow span gas to the analyzer span 

or sample port. When the analyzer 

reading is stable, record the mean 

analyzer value. 

(iii) Use mean analyzer values from 

paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(7)(i), and 

(f)(7)(ii) of this section to correct the 

initial THC concentration recorded in 

paragraph (f)(6) of this section for drift, 

as described in § 1065.550. 

(8) If any of the xTHC[THC–FID]init values 

exceed the greatest of the following 

values, determine the source of the 

contamination and take corrective 

action, such as purging the system 

during an additional preconditioning 

cycle or replacing contaminated 

portions: 

(i) 2% of the flow-weighted mean wet, 

net concentration expected at the HC 

(THC or NMHC) standard. 

(ii) 2% of the flow-weighted mean 

wet, net concentration of HC (THC or 

NMHC) measured during testing. 

(iii) 2 mmol/mol. 

(9) If corrective action does not 

resolve the deficiency, you may request 

to use the contaminated system as an 

alternate procedure under § 1065.10. 

■ 255. Section 1065.526 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (d)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.526 Repeating of void modes or 

test intervals. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Precondition the engine by 

operating it at the mode at which the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30120 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

test was interrupted and continue with 

the duty cycle as specified in the 

standard-setting part. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Use good engineering judgment to 

restart (as applicable) and precondition 

the engine to the same condition as 

would apply for normal testing. This 

may require you to complete the voided 

test interval. For example, you may 

generally repeat a hot-start test of a 

heavy-duty highway engine after 

completing the voided hot-start test and 

allowing the engine to soak for 20 

minutes. 

* * * * * 

■ 256. Section 1065.530 is amended by 

removing paragraph (b)(13) and revising 

paragraphs (a), (b)(12), and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.530 Emission test sequence. 

(a) Time the start of testing as follows: 

(1) Perform one of the following if you 

precondition the engine as described in 

§ 1065.518: 

(i) For cold-start duty cycles, shut 

down the engine. Unless the standardsetting part specifies that you may only 

perform a natural engine cooldown, you 

may perform a forced engine cooldown. 

Use good engineering judgment to set 

up systems to send cooling air across 

the engine, to send cool oil through the 

engine lubrication system, to remove 

heat from coolant through the engine 

cooling system, and to remove heat from 

any exhaust aftertreatment systems. In 

the case of a forced aftertreatment 

cooldown, good engineering judgment 

would indicate that you not start 

flowing cooling air until the 

aftertreatment system has cooled below 

its catalytic activation temperature. For 

platinum-group metal catalysts, this 

temperature is about 200 °C. Once the 

aftertreatment system has naturally 

cooled below its catalytic activation 

temperature, good engineering judgment 

would indicate that you use clean air 

with a temperature of at least 15 °C, and 

direct the air through the aftertreatment 

system in the normal direction of 

exhaust flow. Do not use any cooling 

procedure that results in 

unrepresentative emissions (see 

§ 1065.10(c)(1)). You may start a coldstart duty cycle when the temperatures 

of an engine’s lubricant, coolant, and 

aftertreatment systems are all between 

(20 and 30) °C. 

(ii) For hot-start emission 

measurements, immediately after 

completing the last preconditioning 

cycle, shut down the engine and as soon 

as practical start the official hot-start 

transient cycle. We will start the official 

hot-start transient cycle within 1 minute 

of the conclusion of the preconditioning 

cycle where applicable. Start the hotstart duty cycle as specified in the 

standard-setting part if it is different 

from this procedure. 

(iii) For testing that involves hotstabilized emission measurements, such 

as any steady-state testing, as soon as 

practical after completing the discretemode preconditioning time or the last 

preconditioning cycle, without shutting 

down the engine, start the official hotstabilized cycle. We will start the 

official hot-stabilized cycle within 1 

minute of the conclusion of the 

preconditioning cycle where applicable. 

If the last preconditioning cycle ends 

with a different operating condition 

than the first mode of the hot-stabilized 

cycle, add a linear transition period of 

20 s between cycles where you linearly 

ramp the (denormalized) reference 

speed and torque values over the 

transition period. 

(2) If you do not precondition the 

engine as described in § 1065.518, 

perform one of the following: 

(i) For cold-start duty cycles, prepare 

the engine according to paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section. 

(ii) For hot-start emission 

measurements, first operate the engine 

at any speed above peak-torque speed 

and at (65 to 85) % of maximum 

mapped power until either the engine 

coolant, block, or head absolute 

temperature is within ±2% of its mean 

value for at least 2 min or until the 

engine thermostat controls engine 

temperature. Shut down the engine. 

Start the duty cycle within 20 min of 

engine shutdown. 

(iii) For testing that involves hotstabilized emission measurements, bring 

the engine either to warm idle or the 

first operating point of the duty cycle. 

Start the test within 10 min of achieving 

temperature stability. Determine 

temperature stability either as the point 

at which the engine coolant, block, or 

head absolute temperature is within 

±2% of its mean value for at least 2 min, 

or as the point at which the engine 

thermostat controls engine temperature. 

(b) * * * 

(12) Drain any accumulated 

condensate from the intake air system 

before starting a duty cycle, as described 

in § 1065.125(e)(1). If engine and 

aftertreatment preconditioning cycles 

are run before the duty cycle, treat the 

preconditioning cycles and any 

associated soak period as part of the 

duty cycle for the purpose of opening 

drains and draining condensate. Note 

that you must close any intake air 

condensate drains that are not 

representative of those normally open 

during in-use operation. 

(c) Start testing as follows: 

(1) If engine starting is not part of the 

duty cycle, perform the following for the 

various duty cycles: 

(i) Transient and steady-state rampedmodal cycles. Simultaneously start 

recording continuous data, any 

electronic integrating devices, batch 

sampling, and execution of the duty 

cycle. 

(ii) Steady-state discrete-mode cycles. 

Control the engine operation to match 

the first mode in the test cycle. This will 

require controlling engine speed and 

load, engine load, or other operator 

demand settings, as specified in the 

standard-setting part. Follow the 

instructions in the standard-setting part 

to determine how long to stabilize 

engine operation at each mode, how 

long to sample emissions at each mode, 

and how to transition between modes. 

For each mode, simultaneously start 

recording continuous data, any 

electronic integrating devices, and batch 

sampling. 

(2) If engine starting is part of the duty 

cycle, simultaneously start recording 

continuous data, any electronic 

integrating devices, and batch sampling 

before attempting to start the engine. 

Initiate the duty cycle when the engine 

starts. 

(3) For batch sampling systems you 

may use good engineering judgment to 

advance or delay the start and stop of 

sampling with respect to the beginning 

and end of the test interval to improve 

the accuracy of the batch sample. 

* * * * * 

■ 257. Section 1065.545 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.545 Verification of proportional flow 

control for batch sampling. 

For any proportional batch sample 

such as a bag or PM filter, demonstrate 

that proportional sampling was 

maintained using one of the following, 

noting that you may omit up to 5% of 

the total number of data points as 

outliers: 

(a) For any pair of flow rates, use 

recorded sample and total flow rates, 

where total flow rate means the raw 

exhaust flow rate for raw exhaust 

sampling and the dilute exhaust flow 

rate for CVS sampling, or their 1 Hz 

means with the statistical calculations 

in § 1065.602. Determine the standard 

error of the estimate, SEE, of the sample 

flow rate versus the total flow rate. For 

each test interval, demonstrate that SEE 

was less than or equal to 3.5% of the 

mean sample flow rate. 

(b) For any pair of flow rates, use 

recorded sample and total flow rates, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30121 

where total flow rate means the raw 

exhaust flow rate for raw exhaust 

sampling and the dilute exhaust flow 

rate for CVS sampling, or their 1 Hz 

means to demonstrate that each flow 

rate was constant within ±2.5% of its 

respective mean or target flow rate. You 

may use the following options instead of 

recording the respective flow rate of 

each type of meter: 

(1) Critical-flow venturi option. For 

critical-flow venturis, you may use 

recorded venturi-inlet conditions or 

their 1 Hz means. Demonstrate that the 

flow density at the venturi inlet was 

constant within ±2.5% of the mean or 

target density over each test interval. 

For a CVS critical-flow venturi, you may 

demonstrate this by showing that the 

absolute temperature at the venturi inlet 

was constant within ±4% of the mean or 

target absolute temperature over each 

test interval. 

(2) Positive-displacement pump 

option. You may use recorded pumpinlet conditions or their 1 Hz means. 

Demonstrate that the flow density at the 

pump inlet was constant within ±2.5% 

of the mean or target density over each 

test interval. For a CVS pump, you may 

demonstrate this by showing that the 

absolute temperature at the pump inlet 

was constant within ±2% of the mean or 

target absolute temperature over each 

test interval. 

(c) Using good engineering judgment, 

demonstrate with an engineering 

analysis that the proportional-flow 

control system inherently ensures 

proportional sampling under all 

circumstances expected during testing. 

For example, you might use CFVs for 

both sample flow and total dilute 

exhaust (CVS) flow and demonstrate 

that they always have the same inlet 

pressures and temperatures and that 

they always operate under critical-flow 

conditions. 

■ 258. Section 1065.546 is amended by 

revising the section heading and the 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 1065.546 Verification of minimum 

dilution ratio for PM batch sampling. 

Use continuous flows and/or tracer 

gas concentrations for transient and 

ramped-modal cycles to verify the 

minimum dilution ratios for PM batch 

sampling as specified in § 1065.140(e)(2) 

over the test interval. You may use 

mode-average values instead of 

continuous measurements for discrete 

mode steady-state duty cycles. 

Determine the minimum primary and 

minimum overall dilution ratios using 

one of the following methods (you may 

use a different method for each stage of 

dilution): 

* * * * * 

■ 259. Section 1065.550 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.550 Gas analyzer range verification 

and drift verification. 

(a) Range verification. If an analyzer 

operated above 100% of its range at any 

time during the test, perform the 

following steps: 

(1) For batch sampling, re-analyze the 

sample using the lowest analyzer range 

that results in a maximum instrument 

response below 100%. Report the result 

from the lowest range from which the 

analyzer operates below 100% of its 

range. 

(2) For continuous sampling, repeat 

the entire test using the next higher 

analyzer range. If the analyzer again 

operates above 100% of its range, repeat 

the test using the next higher range. 

Continue to repeat the test until the 

analyzer always operates at less than 

100% of its range. 

(b) Drift verification. Gas analyzer 

drift verification is required for all 

gaseous exhaust constituents for which 

an emission standard applies. It is also 

required for CO2 even if there is no CO2

emission standard. It is not required for 

other gaseous exhaust constituents for 

which only a reporting requirement 

applies (such as CH4 and N2O). 

(1) Verify drift using one of the 

following methods: 

(i) For regulated exhaust constituents 

determined from the mass of a single 

component, perform drift verification 

based on the regulated constituent. For 

example, when NOX mass is determined 

with a dry sample measured with a CLD 

and the removed water is corrected 

based on measured CO2, CO, THC, and 

NOX concentrations, you must verify the 

calculated NOX value. 

(ii) For regulated exhaust constituents 

determined from the masses of multiple 

subcomponents, perform the drift 

verification based on either the 

regulated constituent or all the mass 

subcomponents. For example, when 

NOX is measured with separate NO and 

NO2 analyzers, you must verify either 

the NOX value or both the NO and NO2

values. 

(iii) For regulated exhaust 

constituents determined from the 

concentrations of multiple gaseous 

emission subcomponents prior to 

performing mass calculations, perform 

drift verification on the regulated 

constituent. You may not verify the 

concentration subcomponents (e.g., THC 

and CH4 for NMHC) separately. For 

example, for NMHC measurements, 

perform drift verification on NMHC; do 

not verify THC and CH4 separately. 

(2) Drift verification requires two sets 

of emission calculations. For each set of 

calculations, include all the constituents 

in the drift verification. Calculate one 

set using the data before drift correction 

and calculate the other set after 

correcting all the data for drift according 

to § 1065.672. Note that for purposes of 

drift verification, you must leave 

unaltered any negative emission results 

over a given test interval (i.e., do not set 

them to zero). These unaltered results 

are used when verifying either test 

interval results or composite brakespecific emissions over the entire duty 

cycle for drift. For each constituent to be 

verified, both sets of calculations must 

include the following: 

(i) Calculated mass (or mass rate) 

emission values over each test interval. 

(ii) If you are verifying each test 

interval based on brake-specific values, 

calculate brake-specific emission values 

over each test interval. 

(iii) If you are verifying over the entire 

duty cycle, calculate composite brakespecific emission values. 

(3) The duty cycle is verified for drift 

if you satisfy the following criteria: 

(i) For each regulated gaseous exhaust 

constituent, you must satisfy one of the 

following: 

(A) For each test interval of the duty 

cycle, the difference between the 

uncorrected and the corrected brakespecific emission values of the regulated 

constituent must be within ±4% of the 

uncorrected value or the applicable 

emissions standard, whichever is 

greater. Alternatively, the difference 

between the uncorrected and the 

corrected emission mass (or mass rate) 

values of the regulated constituent must 

be within ±4% of the uncorrected value 

or the composite work (or power) 

multiplied by the applicable emissions 

standard, whichever is greater. For 

purposes of verifying each test interval, 

you may use either the reference or 

actual composite work (or power). 

(B) For each test interval of the duty 

cycle and for each mass subcomponent 

of the regulated constituent, the 

difference between the uncorrected and 

the corrected brake-specific emission 

values must be within ±4% of the 

uncorrected value. Alternatively, the 

difference between the uncorrected and 

the corrected emissions mass (or mass 

rate) values must be within ±4% of the 

uncorrected value. 

(C) For the entire duty cycle, the 

difference between the uncorrected and 

the corrected composite brake-specific 

emission values of the regulated 

constituent must be within ±4% of the 

uncorrected value or applicable 

emission standard, whichever is greater. 

(D) For the entire duty cycle and for 

each subcomponent of the regulated 

constituent, the difference between the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30122 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

uncorrected and the corrected 

composite brake-specific emission 

values must be within ±4% of the 

uncorrected value. 

(ii) Where no emission standard 

applies for CO2, you must satisfy one of 

the following: 

(A) For each test interval of the duty 

cycle, the difference between the 

uncorrected and the corrected brakespecific CO2 values must be within ±4% 

of the uncorrected value; or the 

difference between the uncorrected and 

the corrected CO2 mass (or mass rate) 

values must be within ±4% of the 

uncorrected value. 

(B) For the entire duty cycle, the 

difference between the uncorrected and 

the corrected composite brake-specific 

CO2 values must be within ±4% of the 

uncorrected value. 

(4) If the test is not verified for drift 

as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, you may consider the test 

results for the duty cycle to be valid 

only if, using good engineering 

judgment, the observed drift does not 

affect your ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. For example, if the 

drift-corrected value is less than the 

standard by at least two times the 

absolute difference between the 

uncorrected and corrected values, you 

may consider the data to be verified for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

applicable standard. 

Subpart G—[Amended] 

■ 260. Section 1065.601 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.601 Overview. 

* * * * * 

(b) You may use data from multiple 

systems to calculate test results for a 

single emission test, consistent with 

good engineering judgment. You may 

also make multiple measurements from 

a single batch sample, such as multiple 

weighings of a PM filter or multiple 

readings from a bag sample. Although 

you may use an average of multiple 

measurements from a single test, you 

may not use test results from multiple 

emission tests to report emissions. We 

allow weighted means where 

appropriate. You may discard statistical 

outliers, but you must report all results. 

* * * * * 

■ 261. Section 1065.630 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.630 1980 international gravity 

formula. 

The acceleration of Earth’s gravity, ag,

varies depending on your location. 

Calculate ag at your latitude, as follows: 

Where: 

q = Degrees north or south latitude. 

Example: 

q = 45 ° 

ag = 9.7803267715 · (1 + 5.2790414 

· 10¥3·sin2 (45) + 2.32718 

· 10¥5·sin4 (45) 

+ 1.262 · 10¥7·sin6 (45) + 7 · 10¥10·sin8

(45) 

ag = 9.8061992026 m/s2

■ 262. Section 1065.640 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.640 Flow meter calibration 

calculations. 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

(a) Reference meter conversions. The 

calibration equations in this section use 

molar flow rate, n ̇ ref, as a reference 

quantity. If your reference meter outputs 

a flow rate in a different quantity, such 

as standard volume rate, V ̇ stdref, actual 

volume rate, V ̇ actref, or mass rate, m ̇ ref, 

convert your reference meter output to 

a molar flow rate using the following 

equations, noting that while values for 

volume rate, mass rate, pressure, 

temperature, and molar mass may 

change during an emission test, you 

should ensure that they are as constant 

as practical for each individual set point 

during a flow meter calibration: 

Where: 

n ̇ ref = reference molar flow rate. 

V ̇ stdref = reference volume flow rate, corrected 

to a standard pressure and a standard 

temperature. 

V ̇ actref = reference volume flow rate at the 

actual pressure and temperature of the 

flow rate. 

m ̇ ref = reference mass flow. 

pstd = standard pressure. 

pact = actual pressure of the flow rate. 

Tstd = standard temperature. 

Tact = actual temperature of the flow rate. 

R = molar gas constant. 

Mmix = molar mass of the flow rate. 

Example 1: 

V ̇ stdref = 1000.00 ft3/min = 0.471948 

m3/s 

pstd = 29.9213 in Hg @ 32 °F = 101325 

Pa 

Tstd = 68.0 °F = 293.15 K 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) 

n ̇ ref = 19.619 mol/s 

Example 2: 

m ̇ ref = 17.2683 kg/min = 287.805 g/s 

Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol 

n ̇ ref = 10.0000 mol/s 

(b) PDP calibration calculations. For 

each restrictor position, calculate the 

following values from the mean values 

determined in § 1065.340, as follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.196</GPH> EP21MY13.008</GPH> EP21MY13.009</GPH> EP21MY13.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30123 

(1) PDP volume pumped per 

revolution, Vrev (m3/r): 

Example: 

n

Ôref = 25.096 mol/s 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) 

T ̄ in = 299.5 K 

P ̄ in = 98290 Pa 

f

 ̄

nPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s 

Vrev = 0.03166 m3/r 

(2) PDP slip correction factor, Ks (s/r): 

Example: 

f

 ̄

nPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s 

P ̄ out = 100.103 kPa 

P ̄ in> = 98.290 kPa 

Ks = 0.006700 s/r 

(3) Perform a least-squares regression 

of PDP volume pumped per revolution, 

Vrev, versus PDP slip correction factor, 

Ks, by calculating slope, a1, and 

intercept, a0, as described in § 1065.602. 

(4) Repeat the procedure in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section for every speed that you run 

your PDP. 

(5) The following example illustrates 

these calculations: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.640—EXAMPLE OF

PDP CALIBRATION DATA

f

 ̄

nPDP

(r/min) 

a1

(m3/min) 

a0

(m3/r) 

755.0 50.43 0.056 

987.6 49.86 ¥0.013 

1254.5 48.54 0.028 

1401.3 47.30 ¥0.061 

(6) For each speed at which you 

operate the PDP, use the corresponding 

slope, a1, and intercept, a0, to calculate 

flow rate during emission testing as 

described in § 1065.642. 

* * * * * 

(e) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow 

meters consist of a single venturi and 

some consist of multiple venturis, 

where different combinations of 

venturis are used to meter different flow 

rates. For CFV flow meters that consist 

of multiple venturis, either calibrate 

each venturi independently to 

determine a separate discharge 

coefficient, Cd, for each venturi, or 

calibrate each combination of venturis 

as one venturi. In the case where you 

calibrate a combination of venturis, use 

the sum of the active venturi throat 

areas as At, the square root of the sum 

of the squares of the active venturi 

throat diameters as dt, and the ratio of 

the venturi throat to inlet diameters as 

the ratio of the square root of the sum 

of the active venturi throat diameters 

(dt) to the diameter of the common 

entrance to all of the venturis (D). To 

determine the Cd for a single venturi or 

a single combination of venturis, 

perform the following steps: 

(1) Use the data collected at each 

calibration set point to calculate an 

individual Cd for each point using Eq. 

1065.640–4. 

(2) Calculate the mean and standard 

deviation of all the Cd values according 

to Eqs. 1065.602–1 and 1065.602–2. 

(3) If the standard deviation of all the 

Cd values is less than or equal to 0.3% 

of the mean Cd, use the mean Cd in Eq. 

1065.642–4, and use the CFV only up to 

the highest r measured during 

calibration using the following equation: 

Where: 

DpCFV = Differential static pressure; venturi 

inlet minus venturi outlet. 

(4) If the standard deviation of all the 

Cd values exceeds 0.3% of the mean Cd,

omit the Cd value corresponding to the 

data point collected at the highest r 

measured during calibration. 

(5) If the number of remaining data 

points is less than seven, take corrective 

action by checking your calibration data 

or repeating the calibration process. If 

you repeat the calibration process, we 

recommend checking for leaks, applying 

tighter tolerances to measurements and 

allowing more time for flows to 

stabilize. 

(6) If the number of remaining Cd

values is seven or greater, recalculate 

the mean and standard deviation of the 

remaining Cd values. 

(7) If the standard deviation of the 

remaining Cd values is less than or equal 

to 0.3% of the mean of the remaining Cd,

use that mean Cd in Eq. 1065.642–4, and 

use the CFV values only up to the 

highest r associated with the remaining 

Cd.

(8) If the standard deviation of the 

remaining Cd still exceeds 0.3% of the 

mean of the remaining Cd values, repeat 

the steps in paragraph (e)(4) through (8) 

of this section. 

■ 263. Section 1065.642 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.642 SSV, CFV, and PDP molar flow 

rate calculations. 

* * * * * 

(a) PDP molar flow rate. Based upon 

the speed at which you operate the PDP 

for a test interval, select the 

corresponding slope, a1, and intercept, 

a0, as calculated in § 1065.640, to 

calculate molar flow rate, n ̇ as follows: 

Where: 

Example: 

a1 = 50.43 (m3/min) = 0.8405 (m3/s) 

fnPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s 

pout = 99950 Pa 

pin = 98575 Pa 

a0 = 0.056 (m3/r) 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) 

T in> = 323.5 K 

Cp = 1000 (J/m3)/kPa 

Ct = 60 s/min 


EP21MY13.011</GPH> EP21MY13.012</GPH> EP21MY13.013</GPH> EP21MY13.014</GPH> EP21MY13.015</GPH> EP21MY13.016</GPH> EP21MY13.017</GPH> EP21MY13.018</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
30124 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Vrev = 0.06383 m3/r 

n ̇ = 29.428 mol/s 

* * * * * 

(c) CFV molar flow rate. Some CFV 

flow meters consist of a single venturi 

and some consist of multiple venturis, 

where different combinations of 

venturis are used to meter different flow 

rates. If you use multiple venturis and 

you calibrated each venturi 

independently to determine a separate 

discharge coefficient, Cd (or calibration 

coefficient, Kv), for each venturi, 

calculate the individual molar flow rates 

through each venturi and sum all their 

flow rates to determine n ̇ . If you use 

multiple venturis and you calibrated 

each combination of venturis, calculate 

n ̇ using the sum of the active venturi 

throat areas as At, the square root of the 

sum of the squares of the active venturi 

throat diameters as dt, and the ratio of 

the venturi throat to inlet diameters as 

the ratio of the square root of the sum 

of the active venturi throat diameters 

(dt) to the diameter of the common 

entrance to all of the venturis (D). 

(1) To calculate the molar flow rate 

through one venturi or one combination 

of venturis, use its respective mean Cd

and other constants you determined 

according to § 1065.640 and calculate its 

molar flow rate n ̇ during an emission 

test, as follows: 

Example: 

Cd = 0.985 

Cf = 0.7219 

At = 0.00456 m2

pin = 98836 Pa 

Z = 1 

Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 

kg/mol 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) 

Tin = 378.15 K 

n ̇ = 33.690 mol/s 

(2) To calculate the molar flow rate 

through one venturi or a combination of 

venturis, you may use its respective 

mean Kv and other constants you 

determined according to § 1065.640 and 

calculate its molar flow rate n ̇ during an 

emission test. Note that if you choose to 

follow the permissible ranges of dilution 

air dewpoint versus calibration air 

dewpoint in Table 3 of § 1065.640, you 

may set Mmix-cal and Mmix equal to 1. 

Calculate n ̇ as follows: 

Where: 

Vstdref = volumetric flow of the standard at 

reference conditions of 293.15 K and 

101.325 kPa. 

Tin-cal = Venturi inlet temperature during 

calibration. 

Pin-cal = Venturi inlet pressure during 

calibration. 

Mmix-cal = Molar mass of gas mixture used 

during calibration. 

Mmix = Molar mass of gas mixture during the 

emission test calculated using Equation 

1065.640–9. 

Example: 

Vstdref = 0.4895 m3

Tin-cal = 302.52 K 

Pin-cal = 99654 Pa 

pin = 98836 Pa 

pstd = 101325 Pa 

Mmix-cal = 28.9656 g/mol = 0.0289656 

kg/mol 

Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 

kg/mol 

Tin = 353.15 K 

Tstd = 293.15 K 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) 

n ̇ = 16.457 mol/s 

■ 264. Section 1065.645 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.645 Amount of water in an ideal 

gas. 

This section describes how to 

determine the amount of water in an 

ideal gas, which you need for various 

performance verifications and emission 

calculations. Use the equation for the 

vapor pressure of water in paragraph (a) 

of this section or another appropriate 

equation and, depending on whether 

you measure dewpoint or relative 

humidity, perform one of the 

calculations in paragraph (b) or (c) of 

this section. Paragraph (d) of this 

section provides an equation for 

determining dewpoint from relative 

humidity and dry bulb temperature 

measurements. The equations for the 

vapor pressure of water as presented in 

this section are derived from equations 

in ‘‘Saturation Pressure of Water on the 

New Kelvin Temperature Scale’’ (Goff, 

J.A., Transactions American Society of 

Heating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Vol. 63, No. 1607, pages 347– 

354). Note that the equations were 

originally published to derive vapor 

pressure in units of atmospheres and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.019</GPH> EP21MY13.020</GPH> EP21MY13.021</GPH> EP21MY13.022</GPH> EP21MY13.023</GPH> EP21MY13.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30125 

have been modified to derive results in 

units of kPa by converting the last term 

in each equation. 

(a) Vapor pressure of water. Calculate 

the vapor pressure of water for a given 

saturation temperature condition, Tsat, as 

follows, or use good engineering 

judgment to use a different relationship 

of the vapor pressure of water to a given 

saturation temperature condition: 

(1) For humidity measurements made 

at ambient temperatures from (0 to 100) 

°C, or for humidity measurements made 

over super-cooled water at ambient 

temperatures from (¥50 to 0) °C, use the 

following equation: 

Where: 

pH20 = vapor pressure of water at saturation 

temperature condition, kPa. 

Tsat = saturation temperature of water at 

measured conditions, K. 

Example: 

Tsat = 9.5 °C = 282.65 K 

log10(pH20) = 0.074297 

pH20 = 100.074297 = 1.186581 kPa 

(2) For humidity measurements over 

ice at ambient temperatures from (–100 

to 0) °C, use the following equation: 

Example: Tice = ¥15.4 °C = 257.75 K 

log10(pH20) = ¥0.798207 

pH20 = 10¥0.79821 = 0.159145 kPa 

* * * * * 

(d) Dewpoint determination from 

relative humidity and dry bulb 

temperature. This paragraph (d) 

describes how to calculate dewpoint 

temperature from relative humidity, RH 

%. This is based on ‘‘ITS–90 

Formulations for Vapor Pressure, 

Frostpoint Temperature, Dewpoint 

Temperature, and Enhancement Factors 

in the Range –100 to +100 °C’’ (Hardy, 

B., The Proceedings of the Third 

International Symposium on Humidity 

& Moisture, Teddington, London, 

England, April 1998). Calculate pH20sat

as described in paragraph (a) of this 

section based on setting Tsat equal to 

Tamb. Calculate pH20scaled by multiplying 

pH20sat by RH %. Calculate the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.025</GPH> EP21MY13.026</GPH> EP21MY13.027</GPH> EP21MY13.028</GPH>
30126 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

dewpoint, Tdew, from pH20 using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

In(pH20) = the natural log of pH2Oscaled, which 

is the water vapor pressure scaled to the 

relative humidity at the location of the 

relative humidity measurement, Tsat = 

Tamb.

Example: 

RH % = 39.61% 

Tsat = Tamb = 20.00 °C = 293.15K 

Using Eq. 1065.645–1, 

pH20sat = 2.3371 kPa 

pH2Oscaled = (39.61%bbbbb1) = 

0.925717 kPa = 925.717 Pa 

Tdew = 279.00 K = 5.85 °C 

■ 265. Section 1065.650 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.650 Emission calculations. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Concentration corrections. Perform 

the following sequence of preliminary 

calculations on recorded concentrations: 

(i) Correct all gaseous emission 

analyzer concentration readings, 

including continuous readings, sample 

bag readings, and dilution air 

background readings, for drift as 

described in § 1065.672. Note that you 

must omit this step where brake-specific 

emissions are calculated without the 

drift correction for performing the drift 

validation according to § 1065.550(b). 

When applying the initial THC and CH4

contamination readings according to 

§ 1065.520(f), use the same values for 

both sets of calculations. You may also 

use as-measured values in the initial set 

of calculations and corrected values in 

the drift-corrected set of calculations as 

described in § 1065.520(g)(7). 

(ii) Correct all THC and CH4

concentrations for initial contamination 

as described in § 1065.660(a), including 

continuous readings, sample bags 

readings, and dilution air background 

readings. 

(iii) Correct all concentrations 

measured on a ‘‘dry’’ basis to a ‘‘wet’’ 

basis, including dilution air background 

concentrations, as described in 

§ 1065.659. 

(iv) Calculate all NMHC and CH4

concentrations, including dilution air 

background concentrations, as described 

in § 1065.660. 

(v) For emission testing with an 

oxygenated fuel, calculate any HC 

concentrations, including dilution air 

background concentrations, as described 

in § 1065.665. See subpart I of this part 

for testing with oxygenated fuels. 

(vi) Correct all the NOX

concentrations, including dilution air 

background concentrations, for intakeair humidity as described in § 1065.670. 

* * * * * 

■ 266. Section 1065.655 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) introductory 

text, (c)(3), (d), (e), and (f)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.655 Chemical balances of fuel, 

intake air, and exhaust. 

* * * * * 

(c) Chemical balance procedure. The 

calculations for a chemical balance 

involve a system of equations that 

require iteration. We recommend using 

a computer to solve this system of 

equations. You must guess the initial 

values of up to three quantities: The 

amount of water in the measured flow, 

cH2Oexh, fraction of dilution air in diluted 

exhaust, cdil/exh, and the amount of 

products on a C1 basis per dry mole of 

dry measured flow, cCcombdry. You may 

use time-weighted mean values of 

combustion air humidity and dilution 

air humidity in the chemical balance; as 

long as your combustion air and 

dilution air humidities remain within 

tolerances of ±0.0025 mol/mol of their 

respective mean values over the test 

interval. For each emission 

concentration, c, and amount of water, 

cH2Oexh, you must determine their 

completely dry concentrations, cdry and 

cH2Oexhdry. You must also use your fuel’s 

atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, 

oxygen-to-carbon ratio, b, sulfur-tocarbon ratio, g, and nitrogen-to-carbon 

ratio, d. You may calculate a, b, g, and 

d based on measured fuel composition 

as described in paragraphs (d)(1) or 

(d)(2) of this section, or you may use 

default values for a given fuel as 

described in § 1065.655(d)(3). Use the 

following steps to complete a chemical 

balance: 

* * * * * 

(3) Use the following symbols and 

subscripts in the equations for this 

paragraph (c): 

cdil/exh = amount of dilution gas or excess 

air per mole of exhaust. 

cH2Oexh = amount of H2O in exhaust per 

mole of exhaust. 

cCcombdry = amount of carbon from fuel 

in the exhaust per mole of dry 

exhaust. 

cH2dry = amount of H2 in exhaust per 

amount of dry exhaust. 

KH2Ogas = water-gas reaction equilibrium 

coefficient. You may use 3.5 or 

calculate your own value using 

good engineering judgment. 

cH2Oexhdry = amount of H2O in exhaust 

per dry mole of dry exhaust. 

cprod/intdry = amount of dry stoichiometric 

products per dry mole of intake air. 

cdil/exhdry = amount of dilution gas and/ 

or excess air per mole of dry 

exhaust. 

cint/exhdry = amount of intake air required 

to produce actual combustion 

products per mole of dry (raw or 

diluted) exhaust. 

craw/exhdry = amount of undiluted 

exhaust, without excess air, per 

mole of dry (raw or diluted) 

exhaust. 

cO2int = amount of intake air O2 per mole 

of intake air. 

cCO2intdry = amount of intake air CO2 per 

mole of dry intake air. You may use 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.029</GPH> EP21MY13.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30127 

xCO2intdry = 375 mmol/mol, but we 

recommend measuring the actual 

concentration in the intake air. 

cH2Ointdry = amount of intake air H2O per 

mole of dry intake air. 

cCO2int = amount of intake air CO2 per 

mole of intake air. 

cCO2dil = amount of dilution gas CO2 per 

mole of dilution gas. 

cCO2dildry = amount of dilution gas CO2

per mole of dry dilution gas. If you 

use air as diluent, you may use 

xCO2dildry = 375 mmol/mol, but we 

recommend measuring the actual 

concentration in the intake air. 

cH2Odildry = amount of dilution gas H2O 

per mole of dry dilution gas. 

cH2Odil = amount of dilution gas H2O per 

mole of dilution gas. 

c[emission]meas = amount of measured 

emission in the sample at the 

respective gas analyzer. 

c[emission]dry = amount of emission per 

dry mole of dry sample. 

cH2O[emission]meas = amount of H2O in 

sample at emission-detection 

location. Measure or estimate these 

values according to 

§ 1065.145(e)(2). 

cH2Oint = amount of H2O in the intake 

air, based on a humidity 

measurement of intake air. 

a = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of 

the mixture of fuel(s) being 

combusted, weighted by molar 

consumption. 

b = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

g = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

d = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of 

the mixture of fuel(s) being 

combusted, weighted by molar 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(d) Carbon mass fraction and fuel 

composition. Determine carbon mass 

fraction of fuel, wc, and fuel composition 

represented by a, b, g, and d using one 

of the following methods: 

(1) You may calculate wc as described 

in this paragraph (d)(1) based on 

measured fuel properties. To do so, you 

must determine values for a and b in all 

cases, but you may set g and d to zero 

if the default value listed in Table 1 of 

this section is zero. Calculate wc using 

the following equation: 

Where: 

wc = carbon mass fraction of fuel. 

MC = molar mass of carbon. 

a = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

MH = molar mass of hydrogen. 

b = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

MO = molar mass of oxygen. 

g = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

MS = molar mass of sulfur. 

d = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the 

mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, 

weighted by molar consumption. 

MN = molar mass of nitrogen. 

Example: 

a = 1.8 

b = 0.05 

g = 0.0003 

d = 0.0001 

MC = 12.0107 

MH = 1.00794 

MO = 15.9994 

MS = 32.065 

MN = 14.0067 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.031</GPH> EP21MY13.032</GPH>
30128 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

wc = 0.8206 

(2) Determine a fuel’s elemental mass 

fractions and values for a, b, g, and d as 

follows: 

(i) For gaseous fuels, use the default 

values for a, b, g, and d in Table 1 of 

this section or use good engineering 

judgment to determine those values 

based on measurement. 

(ii) Determine mass fractions for 

liquid fuels as follows: 

(A) You may determine the fuel 

carbon and hydrogen mass fractions 

according to ASTM D5291 (incorporated 

by reference in § 1065.1010). When 

using ASTM D5291 to determine carbon 

and hydrogen mass fractions from 

gasoline (with or without blended 

ethanol), use good engineering judgment 

to adapt the method as appropriate. 

(B) Determine oxygen mass fraction 

for gasoline (with or without blended 

ethanol) according to ASTM D5599 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1065.1010). For all other liquid fuels, 

determine the oxygen mass fraction 

using good engineering judgment. 

(C) Determine the nitrogen mass 

fraction according to ASTM D4629 or 

ASTM D5762 (incorporated by reference 

in § 1065.1010) for all liquid fuels. 

Select the correct method based on the 

expected nitrogen content. 

(D) Determine the sulfur mass fraction 

according to subpart H of this part. 

(iii) For liquid fuels, use the default 

values for a, b, g, and d in Table 1 of 

this section, or you may determine the 

value for any of these parameters based 

on measurement. Calculate measured 

values using the following equations: 

Where: 

wC = carbon mass fraction of fuel. 

wH = hydrogen mass fraction of fuel. 

wO = oxygen mass fraction of fuel. 

wS = sulfur mass fraction of fuel. 

wN = nitrogen mass fraction of fuel. 

Example: 

wC = 0.8206 

wH = 0.1239 

wO = 0.0547 

wS = 0.00066 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.655—DEFAULT VALUES OF a, b, g, d, AND wc, FOR VARIOUS FUELS

Fuel Atomic hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen-to-carbon ratios Carbon mass 

fraction, 

CHαOβSγNδ wcg/g 

Gasoline ........................................... CH1.85O0S0N0 ........................................................................................................................ 0.866 

E10 Gasoline ................................... CH1.92O0.03S0N0 ..................................................................................................................... 0.833 

E15 Gasoline ................................... CH1.95O0.05S0N0 ..................................................................................................................... 0.817 

E85 Gasoline ................................... CH2.73O0.38S0N0 ..................................................................................................................... 0.576 

#1 Diesel .......................................... CH1.93O0S0N0 ........................................................................................................................ 0.861 

#2 Diesel .......................................... CH1.80O0S0N0 ........................................................................................................................ 0.869 

Liquefied petroleum gas .................. CH2.64O0S0N0 ........................................................................................................................ 0.819 

Natural gas ...................................... CH3.78 O0.016S0N0 .................................................................................................................. 0.747 

E100 Ethanol ................................... CH3O0.5S0N0 .......................................................................................................................... 0.521

M100 Methanol ................................ CH4O1S0N0 ............................................................................................................................ 0.375 

Residual fuel blends ........................ Must be determined by measured fuel properties as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

(e) Calculated raw exhaust molar flow 

rate from measured intake air molar 

flow rate or fuel mass flow rate. You 

may calculate the raw exhaust molar 

flow rate from which you sampled 

emissions, n ̇ exh, based on the measured 

intake air molar flow rate, n ̇ int, or the 

measured fuel mass flow rate, m ̇ fuel, and 

the values calculated using the chemical 

balance in paragraph (c) of this section. 

The chemical balance must be based on 

raw exhaust gas concentrations. Solve 

for the chemical balance in paragraph 

(c) of this section at the same frequency 

that you update and record n ̇ int or m ̇ fuel. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30129 

For laboratory tests, calculating raw 

exhaust molar flow rate using measured 

fuel mass flow rate is valid only for 

steady-state testing. See 

§ 1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for application to 

field testing. 

(1) Crankcase flow rate. If engines are 

not subject to crankcase controls under 

the standard-setting part, you may 

calculate raw exhaust flow based on n ̇ int

or m ̇ fuel using one of the following: 

(i) You may measure flow rate 

through the crankcase vent and subtract 

it from the calculated exhaust flow. 

(ii) You may estimate flow rate 

through the crankcase vent by 

engineering analysis as long as the 

uncertainty in your calculation does not 

adversely affect your ability to show 

that your engines comply with 

applicable emission standards. 

(iii) You may assume your crankcase 

vent flow rate is zero. 

(2) Intake air molar flow rate 

calculation. Calculate n ̇ exh based on n ̇ int

using the following equation: 

Where: 

n ̇ exh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from 

which you measured emissions. 

n ̇ int = intake air molar flow rate including 

humidity in intake air. 

Example: 

cn ̇int = 3.780 mol/s 

cint/exhdry = 0.69021 mol/mol 

craw/exhdry = 1.10764 mol/mol 

xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 

mol/mol 

n ̇ exh = 6.066 mol/s 

(3) Fuel mass flow rate calculation. 

This calculation may be used only for 

steady-state laboratory testing. See 

§ 1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for application to 

field testing. Calculate n ̇ exh based on 

m ̇ fuel using the following equation: 

Where: 

n ̇ exh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from 

which you measured emissions. 

m ̇ fuel = fuel flow rate including humidity in 

intake air. 

Example: 

m ̇ fuel = 7.559 g/s 

wc = 0.869 g/g 

MC = 12.0107 g/mol 

cCcombdry = 99.87 mmol/mol = 0.09987 

mol/mol 

cH2Oexhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 

mol/mol 

n ̇ exh = 6.066 mol/s 

(f) * * * 

(2) Dilute exhaust and intake air 

molar flow rate calculation. Calculate 

n ̇ exh as follows: 

Example: 

n ̇ int = 7.930 mol/s 

craw/exhdry = 0.1544 mol/mol 

cint/exhdry = 0.1451 mol/mol 

cH2Oexh32.46 mmol/mol = 0.03246 mol/ 

mol 

n ̇ dexh = 49.02 mol/s 

n ̇ exh = (0.1544 ¥ 0.1451)·(1 ¥ 

0.03246)·49.02 + 7.930 = 8.371 

mol/s 

■ 267. Section 1065.659 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.659 Removed water correction. 

(a) If you remove water upstream of a 

concentration measurement, c, correct 

for the removed water. Perform this 

correction based on the amount of water 

at the concentration measurement, 

cH2O[emission]meas, and at the flow meter, 

cH2Oexh, whose flow is used to determine 

the mass emission rate or total mass 

over a test interval. For continuous 

analyzers downstream of a sample dryer 

for transient and ramped-modal cycles, 

you must apply this correction on a 

continuous basis over the test interval, 

even if you use one of the options in 

§ 1065.145(e)(2) that results in a 

constant value for xH2O[emission]meas

because xH2Oexh varies over the test 

interval. For batch analyzers, determine 

the flow-weighted average based on the 

continuous xH2Oexh values determined as 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. For batch analyzers, you may 

determine the flow-weighted average 

xH2Oexh based on a single value of 

xH2Oexh determined as described in 

paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, 

using flow-weighted average or batch 

concentration inputs. 

* * * * * 

■ 268. Section 1065.665 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.665 THCE and NMHCE 

determination. 

(a) If you measured an oxygenated 

hydrocarbon’s mass concentration, first 

calculate its molar concentration in the 

exhaust sample stream from which the 

sample was taken (raw or diluted 

exhaust), and convert this into a C1- 

equivalent molar concentration. Add 

these C1-equivalent molar 

concentrations to the molar 

concentration of non-oxygenated total 

hydrocarbon (NOTHC). The result is the 

molar concentration of total 

hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE). 

Calculate THCE concentration using the 

following equations, noting that Eq. 

1065.665–3 is required only if you need 

to convert your oxygenated hydrocarbon 

(OHC) concentration from mass to 

moles: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.034</GPH> EP21MY13.035</GPH> EP21MY13.036</GPH> EP21MY13.037</GPH> EP21MY13.038</GPH>
30130 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

cTHCE = The sum of the C1-equivalent 

concentrations of non-oxygenated 

hydrocarbons, alcohols, and aldehydes. 

cNOTHC = The sum of the C1-equivalent 

concentrations of NOTHC. 

cOHCi = The C1-equivalent concentration of 

oxygenated species i in diluted exhaust, 

not corrected for initial contamination. 

cOHCi-init = The C1-equivalent concentration of 

the initial system contamination 

(optional) of oxygenated species i, dryto-wet corrected. 

cTHC[THC–FID]cor = The C1-equivalent response 

to NOTHC and all OHC in diluted 

exhaust, HC contamination and dry-towet corrected, as measured by the THC– 

FID. 

RFOHCi[THC–FID] = The response factor of the 

FID to species i relative to propane on a 

C1-equivalent basis. 

C num; = the mean number of carbon atoms 

in the particular compound. 

Mdexh = The molar mass of diluted exhaust as 

determine in § 1065.340. 

mdexhOHCi = The mass of oxygenated species 

i in dilute exhaust. 

MOHCi = The C1-equivalent molecular weight 

of oxygenated species i. 

mdexh = The mass of diluted exhaust 

ndexhOHCi = The number of moles of 

oxygenated species i in total diluted 

exhaust flow. 

ndexh = The total diluted exhaust flow. 

(b) If we require you to determine 

nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent 

(NMHCE), use the following equation: 

Where: 

cNMHCE = The sum of the C1-equivalent 

concentrations of nonoxygenated 

nonmethane hydrocarbon (NONMHC), 

alcohols, and aldehydes. 

RFCH4[THC–FID] = response factor of THC–FID 

to CH4.

cCH4 = concentration of CH4, HC 

contamination (optional) and dry-to-wet 

corrected, as measured by the gas 

chromatograph FID. 

(c) The following example shows how 

to determine NMHCE emissions based 

on ethanol (C2H5OH), methanol 

(CH3OH), acetaldehyde (C2H4O), and 

formaldehyde (HCHO) as C1-equivalent 

molar concentrations: 

cTHC[THC–FID]cor = 145.6 mmol/mol 

cCH4 = 18.9 mmol/mol 

cC2H5OH = 100.8 mmol/mol 

cCH3OH = 1.1 mmol/mol 

cC2H4O = 19.1 mmol/mol 

cHCHO = 1.3 mmol/mol 

RFCH4[THC–FID] = 1.07 

RFC2H5OH[THC–FID] = 0.76 

RFCH3OH[THC–FID] = 0.74 

RFH2H4O[THC–FID] = 0.50 

RFHCHO[THC–FID] = 0.0 

cNMHCE = cTHC[THC–FID]cor—(cC2H5OH · 

RFC2H5OH[THC–FID] + cCH3OH · 

RFCH3OH[THC–FID] + cC2H4O · 

RFC2H4O[THC–FID] + cHCHO · 

RFHCHO[THC–FID]) + cC2H5OH + cCH3OH

+ cC2H4O + cHCHO—(RFCH4[THC–FID] · 

cCH4) 

cNMHCE = 145.6¥(100.8 · 0.76 + 1.1 · 

0.74 + 19.1 · 0.50 + 1.3 · 0) + 100.8 

+ 1.1 + 19.1 + 1.3¥(1.07 · 18.9) 

cNMHCE = 160.71 mmol/mol 

■ 269. Section 1065.695 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(4)(i) and adding 

paragraph (c)(6)(x) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.695 Data requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Linearity verification. 

* * * * * 

(6) * * * 

(x) Number and type of 

preconditioning cycles. 

* * * * * 

Subpart H—[Amended] 

■ 270. Section 1065.701 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (f) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.701 General requirements for test 

fuels. 

(a) General. For all emission 

measurements, use test fuels that meet 

the specifications in this subpart, unless 

the standard-setting part directs 

otherwise. Section 1065.10(c)(1) does 

not apply with respect to test fuels. Note 

that the standard-setting parts generally 

require that you design your emission 

controls to function properly when 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.039</GPH> EP21MY13.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30131 

using commercially available fuels, even 

if they differ from the test fuel. Where 

we specify multiple grades of a certain 

fuel type (such as diesel fuel with 

different sulfur concentrations), see the 

standard-setting part to determine 

which grade to use. 

* * * * * 

(d) Fuel specifications. Specifications 

in this section apply as follows: 

(1) Measure and calculate values as 

described in the appropriate reference 

procedure. Record and report final 

values expressed to at least the same 

number of decimal places as the 

applicable limit value. The right-most 

digit for each limit value is significant 

unless specified otherwise. For 

example, for a specified distillation 

temperature of 60 °C, determine the test 

fuel’s value to the nearest whole 

number. 

(2) The fuel parameters specified in 

this subpart depend on measurement 

procedures that are incorporated by 

reference. For any of these procedures, 

you may instead rely upon the 

procedures identified in 40 CFR part 80 

for measuring the same parameter. For 

example, we may identify different 

reference procedures for measuring 

gasoline parameters in 40 CFR 80.46. 

* * * * * 

(f) Service accumulation and field 

testing fuels. If we do not specify a 

service-accumulation or field-testing 

fuel in the standard-setting part, use an 

appropriate commercially available fuel 

such as those meeting minimum 

specifications from the following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.701—EXAMPLES OF SERVICE-ACCUMULATION AND FIELD-TESTING FUELS

Fuel category Subcategory Reference procedure 1

Diesel ............................................................................. Light distillate and light blends with residual .............................. ASTM D975 

Middle distillate ............................................................................ ASTM D6985 

Biodiesel (B100) .......................................................................... ASTM D6751 

Intermediate and residual fuel ....................................... All ................................................................................................ See § 1065.705 

Gasoline ......................................................................... Motor vehicle gasoline ................................................................ ASTM D4814 

Motor gasoline with ethanol concentrations up to 10 volume % ASTM D4814 

Alcohol ........................................................................... Ethanol (E51–83) ........................................................................ ASTM D5798 

Methanol (M70–M85) .................................................................. ASTM D5797 

Aviation fuel ................................................................... Aviation gasoline ......................................................................... ASTM D910 

Gas turbine .................................................................................. ASTM D1655 

Jet B wide cut .............................................................................. ASTM D6615 

Gas turbine fuel ............................................................. General ........................................................................................ ASTM D2880 

1ASTM specifications are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. 

■ 271. Section 1065.703 is amended by 

revising Table 1 to read as follows: 

§ 1065.703 Distillate diesel fuel. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.703—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR DISTILLATE DIESEL FUEL

Property Unit Ultra low 

sulfur 

Low 

sulfur 

High 

sulfur 

Reference 

procedure 1

Cetane Number ............................................................... ............ 40–50 .............. 40–50 .............. 40–50 .............. ASTM D613. 

Distillation range: ............................................................. °C.

Initial boiling point ............................................................ ............ 171–204 .......... 171–204 .......... 171–204 .......... ASTM D86. 

10 pct. point ..................................................................... ............ 204–238 .......... 204–238 .......... 204–238.

50 pct. point ..................................................................... ............ 243–282 .......... 243–282 .......... 243–282.

90 pct. point ..................................................................... ............ 293–332 .......... 293–332 .......... 293–332.

Endpoint ........................................................................... ............ 321–366 .......... 321–366 .......... 321–366.

Gravity .............................................................................. °API .... 32–37 .............. 32–37 .............. 32–37 .............. ASTM D4052. 

Total sulfur, ultra low sulfur ............................................. mg/kg 7–15 ................ ......................... ......................... See 40 CFR 80.580. 

Total sulfur, low and high sulfur ...................................... mg/kg ......................... 300–500 .......... 800–2500 ........ ASTM D2622 or alternates as allowed 

under 40 CFR 

80.580. 

Aromatics, min. (Remainder shall be paraffins, 

naphthenes, and olefins).

g/kg .... 100 .................. 100 .................. 100 .................. ASTM D5186. 

Flashpoint, min. ............................................................... °C ....... 54 .................... 54 .................... 54 .................... ASTM D93. 

Kinematic Viscosity .......................................................... cSt ...... 2.0–3.2 ............ 2.0–3.2 ............ 2.0–3.2 ............ ASTM D445. 

1ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 

■ 272. Section 1065.710 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.710 Gasoline. 

(a) This section specifies test fuel 

properties for gasoline with ethanol 

(low-level blend only) and for gasoline 

without ethanol. Note that the ‘‘fuel 

type’’ for the fuels specified in 

paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section is 

considered to be gasoline. In contrast, 

fuels with higher ethanol 

concentrations, such as fuel containing 

82 percent ethanol, are considered to be 

ethanol fuels rather than gasoline. We 

specify some test fuel parameters that 

apply uniquely for low-temperature 

testing and for testing at altitudes above 

1,219 m. For all other testing, use the 

test fuel parameters specified for general 

testing. Unless the standard-setting part 

specifies otherwise, use the fuel 

specified in paragraph (c) of this section 

for general testing. 

(b) The following specifications apply 

for a blended gasoline test fuel that has 

nominally 15% ethanol (commonly 

called E15 test fuel): 

(1) Prepare the blended test fuel from 

typical refinery gasoline blending 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30132 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

components. You may not use pure 

compounds, except as follows: 

(i) You may use neat ethanol as a 

blendstock. 

(ii) You may adjust the test fuel’s 

vapor pressure by adding butane. 

(iii) You may adjust the test fuel’s 

benzene content by adding benzene. 

(iv) You may adjust the test fuel’s 

sulfur content by adding sulfur 

compounds that are representative of 

those found with in-use fuels. 

(2) Table 1 of this section identifies 

limit values consistent with the units in 

the reference procedure for each fuel 

property. These values are generally 

specified in international units. Values 

presented in parentheses are for 

information only. Table 1 follows: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.710—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR A LOW-LEVEL ETHANOL-GASOLINE BLEND

Property Unit 

Specification 

Reference 

General procedure 1

testing 

Low-temperature 

testing 

High altitude 

testing 

Antiknock Index (R+M)/2 ............................... ............................................. 87.0—88.4 2 87.0 Minimum.ASTM D2699 and 

D2700. 

Sensitivity (R–M) ........................................... ............................................. 7.5 Minimum ASTM D2699 and 

D2700. 

Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent (DVPE) 3 ..... 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 10% evaporated ........................... °C (°F) ................................. 49–60 .........

(120–140) ...

43–54 .........

(110–130) ...

49–60 .........

(120–140) ...

ASTM D86. 

50% evaporated ............................................ °C (°F) ................................. 77–88 (170–190) 

90% evaporated ............................................ °C (°F) ................................. 154–166 (310–330) 

Evaporated final boiling point ........................ °C (°F) ................................. 193–216 (380–420) 

Residue ......................................................... milliliter ................................ 2.0 Maximum ASTM D5769. 

Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons ........................ volume % ............................ 19.5–24.5 

C6 Aromatics (benzene) ............................... volume % ............................ 0.6–0.8 

C7 Aromatics (toluene) ................................. volume % ............................ 4.4–5.5 

C8 Aromatics ................................................. volume % ............................ 5.5–6.9 

C9 Aromatics ................................................. volume % ............................ 5.0–6.2 

C10+ Aromatics ............................................. volume % ............................ 4.0–5.0 

Olefins 4 ......................................................... mass % ............................... 4.5–11.5 ASTM D6550. 

Ethanol blended 5 .......................................... volume % ............................ 14.6–15.0 See paragraph (b)(3) 

of this section. 

Ethanol confirmatory 6 7 ................................. volume % ............................ 14.3–15.3 ASTM D5599. 

Total Content of Oxygenates Other than 

Ethanol 7.

volume % ............................ 0.1 Maximum ASTM D5599. 

Sulfur ............................................................. mg/kg .................................. 8.0–11.0 ASTM D2622, D5453 

or D7039. 

Lead ............................................................... g/liter ................................... 0.0026 Maximum ASTM D3237. 

Phosphorus ................................................... g/liter ................................... 0.0013 Maximum ASTM D3231. 

Copper Corrosion .......................................... ............................................. No. 1 Maximum ASTM D130.

Solvent-Washed Gum Content ..................... mg/100 milliliter ................... 3.0 Maximum ASTM D381. 

Oxidation Stability .......................................... minute ................................. 1000 Minimum ASTM D525. 

1ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 

2Octane specifications apply only for testing related to exhaust emissions. For engines or vehicles that require the use of premium fuel, as described in paragraph (d) of this section, the adjusted specification for antiknock index is a minimum value of 91.0; no maximum value applies. All 

other specifications apply for this high-octane fuel. 3 Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, in kPa using the following equation: DVPE 

= 0.956·pT¥2.39. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method. 4The specified olefin concentration range equates to approximately 4–10 volume % when measured according to ASTM D1319. 

5The ethanol blended specification is based on the volume % ethanol content of the fuel as determined during blending by the fuel supplier 

and as stated by the supplier at the time of fuel delivery. 6The ethanol confirmatory specification is based on the volume % ethanol as measured according to ASTM D5599. 

7The reference procedure prescribes measurement of ethanol concentration in mass %. Convert results to volume % as specified in ASTM 

D4815. 

(3) Use good engineering judgment to 

determine the volume % of ethanol 

based on the volume of each blendstock. 

We recommend using a flow-based or 

gravimetric procedure that has an 

accuracy and repeatability of ±0.1%. 

(c) The specifications of this 

paragraph (c) apply for testing with neat 

gasoline. This is sometimes called 

indolene or E0 test fuel. Gasoline for 

testing must have octane values that 

represent commercially available fuels 

for the appropriate application. Test fuel 

specifications apply as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30133 

TABLE 2 OF § 1065.710—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR NEAT (E0) GASOLINE

Property Unit 

Specification Reference 

Procedure 1

General testing Low-temperature testing 

Distillation Range ................... °C .......................................... ............................................... ............................................... ASTM D86 

Evaporated initial boiling point ............................................... 24–35 2 ................................. 24–36..

10% evaporated ..................... ............................................... 49–57 .................................... 37–48..

50% evaporated ..................... ............................................... 93–110 .................................. 82–101..

90% evaporated ..................... ............................................... 149–163 ................................ 158–174..

Evaporated final boiling point ............................................... Maximum, 213 ...................... Maximum, 212..

Hydrocarbon composition ...... volume % .............................. ............................................... ............................................... ASTM D1319 

Olefins .................................... ............................................... Maximum, 0.10 ..................... Maximum, 0.175..

Aromatics ............................... ............................................... Maximum, 0.35 ..................... Maximum, 0.304..

Saturates ................................ ............................................... Remainder ............................. Remainder. 

Lead ....................................... g/liter ..................................... Maximum, 0.013 ................... Maximum, 0.013. ASTM D3237 

Phosphorous .......................... g/liter ..................................... Maximum, 0.0013 ................. Maximum, 0.005. ASTM D3231 

Total sulfur ............................. mg/kg .................................... Maximum, 80 ........................ Maximum, 80. ASTM D2622 

Dry vapor pressure equivalent 2.kPa ........................................ 60.0–63.4 3, 4 ......................... 77.2–81.4. ASTM D5191 

1ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 

2 Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, in kPa using the following equation: DVPE 

= 0.956·pT¥2.39. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method. 3For testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is (52.0 to 55.2) kPa and the specified initial boiling point range is (23.9 

to 40.6) °C. 4For testing unrelated to evaporative emissions, the specified range is (55.2 to 63.4) kPa. 

(d) Use the high-octane gasoline 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

only for engines or vehicles for which 

the manufacturer conditions the 

warranty on the use of premium 

gasoline. 

■ 273. Section 1065.715 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.715 Natural gas. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, natural gas for testing 

must meet the specifications in the 

following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.715—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR NATURAL GAS

Property Value 1

Methane, CH4 ................................................................................................................................................................. Minimum, 0.87 mol/mol. 

Ethane, C2H6 .................................................................................................................................................................. Maximum, 0.055 mol/mol. 

Propane, C3H8 ................................................................................................................................................................ Maximum, 0.012 mol/mol. 

Butane, C4H10 ................................................................................................................................................................. Maximum, 0.0035 mol/mol. 

Pentane, C5H12 ............................................................................................................................................................... Maximum, 0.0013 mol/mol. 

C6 and higher .................................................................................................................................................................. Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol. 

Oxygen ............................................................................................................................................................................ Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol. 

Inert gases (sum of CO2 and N2) ................................................................................................................................... Maximum, 0.051 mol/mol. 

1 Demonstrate compliance with fuel specifications based on the reference procedures in ASTM D1945 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 1065.1010), or on other measurement procedures using good engineering judgment. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.

* * * * * 

■ 274. Section 1065.720 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1065.720 Liquefied petroleum gas. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, liquefied petroleum 

gas for testing must meet the 

specifications in the following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.720—TEST FUEL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Property Value Reference procedure 1

Propane, C3H8 ................................................................................................ Minimum, 0.85 m 3/m 3 ...................... ASTM D2163 

Vapor pressure at 38 °C ................................................................................ Maximum, 1400 kPa .......................... ASTM D1267 or 2598 2

Volatility residue (evaporated temperature, 35 °C) ........................................ Maximum, ¥38 °C ............................ ASTM D1837 

Butanes ........................................................................................................... Maximum, 0.05 m 3/m 3 ..................... ASTM D2163 

Butenes ........................................................................................................... Maximum, 0.02 m 3/m 3 ..................... ASTM D2163 

Pentenes and heavier .................................................................................... Maximum, 0.005 m 3/m 3 ................... ASTM D2163 

Propene .......................................................................................................... Maximum, 0.1 m 3/m 3 ....................... ASTM D2163 

Residual matter (residue on evap. of 100) ml oil stain observ.) .................... Maximum, 0.05 ml pass 3 .................. ASTM D2158 

Corrosion, copper strip ................................................................................... Maximum, No. 1 ................................ ASTM D1838 

Sulfur .............................................................................................................. Maximum, 80 mg/kg .......................... ASTM D2784 

Moisture content ............................................................................................. pass ................................................... ASTM D2713 

1ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in § 1065.1010. See § 1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 

2 If these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D1267. 

3The test fuel must not yield a persistent oil ring when you add 0.3 ml of solvent residue mixture to a filter paper in 0.1 ml increments and examine it in daylight after two minutes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30134 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

■ 275. A new § 1065.725 is added to 

subpart H to read as follows: 

§ 1065.725 High-level ethanol-gasoline 

blends. 

For testing ethanol-fueled vehicles, 

create a high-level ethanol-gasoline 

blend test fuel as follows: 

(a) Add ethanol to an E15 fuel 

meeting the specifications described in 

§ 1065.710 until the ethanol content of 

the blended fuel is between 80 and 83 

volume %. 

(b) You may alternatively add ethanol 

to a gasoline base fuel with no ethanol 

if you can demonstrate that such a base 

fuel blended with the proper amount of 

ethanol would meet all the 

specifications for E15 test fuel described 

in § 1065.710, other than the ethanol 

content. 

(c) The ethanol used for blending 

must be either denatured ethanol 

meeting the specifications in 40 CFR 

80.1510, or fuel-grade ethanol with no 

denaturant. Be sure to account for the 

volume of any denaturant when 

calculating volumetric percentages. 

(d) The blended test fuel must have a 

dry vapor pressure equivalent between 

6.0 and 6.5 when measured using the 

procedure specified in § 1065.710. You 

may add commercial grade butane as 

needed to meet this specification. 

■ 276. Section 1065.750 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5) 

to read as follows: 

§ 1065.750 Analytical gases. 

Analytical gases must meet the 

accuracy and purity specifications of 

this section, unless you can show that 

other specifications would not affect 

your ability to show that you comply 

with all applicable emission standards. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Use purified gases to zero 

measurement instruments and to blend 

with calibration gases. Use gases with 

contamination no higher than the 

highest of the following values in the 

gas cylinder or at the outlet of a zerogas generator: 

(i) 2% contamination, measured 

relative to the flow-weighted mean 

concentration expected at the standard. 

For example, if you would expect a 

flow-weighted CO concentration of 

100.0 mmol/mol, then you would be 

allowed to use a zero gas with CO 

contamination less than or equal to 

2.000 mmol/mol. 

(ii) Contamination as specified in the 

following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.750—GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PURIFIED GASES 1

Constituent Purified air Purified N2

THC (C1 equivalent) ................................................................. ≤ 0.05 μmol/mol ....................................................................... ≤ 0.05 μmol/mol 

CO ............................................................................................ ≤ 1 μmol/mol ............................................................................ ≤ 1 μmol/mol 

CO2 ........................................................................................... ≤ 10 μmol/mol .......................................................................... ≤ 10 μmol/mol 

O2 .............................................................................................. 0.205 to 0.215 mol/mol ........................................................... ≤ 2 μmol/mol 

NOX .......................................................................................... ≤ 0.02 μmol/mol ....................................................................... ≤ 0.02 μmol/mol 

N2O2 ......................................................................................... ≤ 0.02 μmol/mol ....................................................................... ≤ 0.02 μmol/mol 

1We do not require these levels of purity to be NIST-traceable. 

2The N2O limit applies only if the standard-setting part requires you to report N2O or certify to an N2O standard. 

(2) Use the following gases with a FID 

analyzer: 

(i) FID fuel. Use FID fuel with a stated 

H2 concentration of (0.39 to 0.41) mol/ 

mol, balance He or N2, and a stated total 

hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05 

mmol/mol or less. For GC–FIDs that 

measure methane (CH4) using a FID fuel 

that is balance N2, perform the CH4

measurement as described in SAE J1151 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1065.1010). 

(ii) FID burner air. Use FID burner air 

that meets the specifications of purified 

air in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

For field testing, you may use ambient 

air. 

(iii) FID zero gas. Zero flameionization detectors with purified gas 

that meets the specifications in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except 

that the purified gas O2 concentration 

may be any value. Note that FID zero 

balance gases may be any combination 

of purified air and purified nitrogen. We 

recommend FID analyzer zero gases that 

contain approximately the expected 

flow-weighted mean concentration of O2

in the exhaust sample during testing. 

(iv) FID propane span gas. Span and 

calibrate THC FID with span 

concentrations of propane, C3H8. 

Calibrate on a carbon number basis of 

one (C1). For example, if you use a C3H8

span gas of concentration 200 mmol/mol, 

span a FID to respond with a value of 

600 mmol/mol. Note that FID span 

balance gases may be any combination 

of purified air and purified nitrogen. We 

recommend FID analyzer span gases 

that contain approximately the flowweighted mean concentration of O2

expected during testing. If the expected 

O2 concentration in the exhaust sample 

is zero, we recommend using a balance 

gas of purified nitrogen. 

(v) FID CH4 span gas. If you always 

span and calibrate a CH4 FID with a 

nonmethane cutter, then span and 

calibrate the FID with span 

concentrations of CH4. Calibrate on a 

carbon number basis of one (C1). For 

example, if you use a CH4 span gas of 

concentration 200 mmol/mol, span a FID 

to respond with a value of 200 mmol/ 

mol. Note that FID span balance gases 

may be any combination of purified air 

and purified nitrogen. We recommend 

FID analyzer span gases that contain 

approximately the expected flowweighted mean concentration of O2 in 

the exhaust sample during testing. If the 

expected O2 concentration in the 

exhaust sample is zero, we recommend 

using a balance gas of purified nitrogen. 

(3) Use the following gas mixtures, 

with gases traceable within ±1% of the 

NIST-accepted value or other gas 

standards we approve: 

(i) CH4, balance purified air and/or N2

(as applicable). 

(ii) C2H6, balance purified air and/or 

N2 (as applicable). 

(iii) C3H8, balance purified air and/or 

N2 (as applicable). 

(iv) CO, balance purified N2. 

(v) CO2, balance purified N2. 

(vi) NO, balance purified N2. 

(vii)) NO2, balance purified air. 

(viii) O2, balance purified N2. 

(ix) C3H8, CO, CO2, NO, balance 

purified N2. 

(x) C3H8, CH4, CO, CO2, NO, balance 

purified N2. 

(xi) N2O, balance purified air and/or 

N2 (as applicable). 

* * * * * 

(5) You may generate your own 

calibration gases using a precision 

blending device, such as a gas divider, 

to dilute gases with purified N2 or 

purified air. If your gas divider meets 

the specifications in § 1065.248, and the 

gases being blended meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(3) of this section, the resulting blends 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30135 

are considered to meet the requirements 

of this paragraph (a). 

* * * * * 

Subpart I—[Amended] 

■ 277. Section 1065.805 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.805 Sampling system. 

* * * * * 

(d) You may bubble a sample of the 

exhaust through water to collect 

alcohols for later analysis. You may also 

use a photo-acoustic analyzer to 

quantify ethanol and methanol in an 

exhaust sample as described in 

§ 1065.269. 

* * * * * 

(f) You may sample alcohols or 

carbonyls using ‘‘California NonMethane Organic Gas Test Procedures’’ 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1065.1010). If you use this method, 

follow its calculations to determine the 

mass of the alcohol/carbonyl in the 

exhaust sample, but follow subpart G of 

this part for all other calculations (40 

CFR part 1066, subpart G, for vehicle 

testing). 

* * * * * 

■ 278. Section 1065.845 is amended by 

revising the introductory text, 

redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as 

paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively, and 

adding a new paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.845 Response factor determination. 

Since FID analyzers generally have an 

incomplete response to alcohols and 

carbonyls, determine each FID 

analyzer’s alcohol/carbonyl response 

factor (such as RFMeOH) after FID 

optimization to subtract those responses 

from the FID reading. Use the most 

recently determined alcohol/carbonyl 

response factors to compensate for 

alcohol/carbonyl response. You are not 

required to determine the response 

factor for a compound unless you will 

subtract its response to compensate for 

a response. 

(a) You may generate response factors 

as described in paragraph (b) of this 

section, or you may use the following 

default response factors, consistent with 

good engineering judgment: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.665—DEFAULT

VALUES FOR THC FID RESPONSE

FACTOR RELATIVE TO PROPANE ON

A C1-EQUIVALENT BASIS

Compound Response 

factor (RF) 

acetaldehyde ........................ 0.50 

ethanol .................................. 0.75 

formaldehyde ........................ 0.00 

methanol ............................... 0.63 

propanol ................................ 0.85 

* * * * * 

■ 279. Section 1065.850 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 1065.850 Calculations. 

Use the calculations specified in 

§ 1065.665 to determine THCE or 

NMHCE and the calculations specified 

in 40 CFR 1066.665 to determine 

NMOG. 

Subpart K—[Amended] 

■ 280. Section 1065.1001 is amended by 

removing the definition for ‘‘Engine’’ 

and revising the definitions for ‘‘C1

equivalent (or basis)’’, ‘‘Oxygenated 

fuels’’, and ‘‘Precision’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.1001 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

C1 equivalent (or basis) means a 

convention of expressing HC 

concentrations based on the total 

number of carbon atoms present, such 

that the C1 equivalent of a molar HC 

concentration equals the molar 

concentration multiplied by the mean 

number of carbon atoms in each HC 

molecule. For example, the C1

equivalent of 10 mmol/mol of propane 

(C3H8) is 30 mmol/mol. C1 equivalent 

molar values may be denoted as 

‘‘ppmC’’ in the standard-setting part. 

Molar mass may also be expressed on a 

C1 basis. Note that calculating HC 

masses from molar concentrations and 

molar masses is only valid where they 

are each expressed on the same carbon 

basis. 

* * * * * 

Oxygenated fuels means fuels 

composed of at least 25% oxygencontaining compounds, such as ethanol 

or methanol. Testing engines that use 

oxygenated fuels generally requires the 

use of the sampling methods in subpart 

I of this part. However, you should read 

the standard-setting part and subpart I 

of this part to determine appropriate 

sampling methods. 

* * * * * 

Precision means two times the 

standard deviation of a set of measured 

values of a single zero or reference 

quantity. See also the related definitions 

of noise and repeatability in this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 281. Section 1065.1005 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1065.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, 

acronyms, and units of measure. 

* * * * * 

(a) Symbols for quantities. This part 

uses the following symbols and units of 

measure for various quantities: 

Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Units in terms of SI base 

units 

a .............. atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio ................ mole per mole ..................... mol/mol ........................... 1 

A .............. area ............................................................ square meter ....................... m2 ................................... m2

A0 ............ intercept of least squares regression.

A1 ............ slope of least squares regression.

β .............. ratio of diameters ....................................... meter per meter .................. m/m ................................. 1 

β .............. atomic oxygen to carbon ratio ................... mole per mole ..................... mol/mol ........................... 1 

C# ............ number of carbon atoms in a molecule.

d .............. Diameter ..................................................... meter ................................... m ..................................... m 

DR ........... dilution ratio ................................................ mole per mol ....................... mol/mol ........................... 1 

e ............... error between a quantity and its reference.

e .............. brake-specific emission or fuel consumption.gram per kilowatt hour ........ g/(kW·hr) ......................... g·3.6¥1·106·m¥2·kg·s2

F .............. F-test statistic.

f ............... frequency .................................................... hertz .................................... Hz ................................... s¥1

fn .............. angular speed (shaft) ................................. revolutions per minute ......... r/min ................................ 2·π·60¥1·m·m¥1·s¥1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30136 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Units in terms of SI base 

units 

γ ............... ratio of specific heats ................................. (joule per kilogram kelvin) 

per (joule per kilogram 

kelvin).

(J/(kg·K))/(J/(kg·K)) ......... 1 

K .............. correction factor ......................................... 1.

Kv ............. calibration coefficient .................................. .............................................. m4·s·K0.5/kg .................... m4·s·K0.5·kg¥1

l ............... length .......................................................... meter ................................... m ..................................... m 

μ .............. viscosity, dynamic ...................................... pascal second ..................... Pa·s ................................. m¥1·kg·s¥1

M ............. molar mass1 ............................................... gram per mole ..................... g/mol ............................... 10¥3·kg·mol¥1

m ............. mass ........................................................... kilogram ............................... kg .................................... kg 

m ̇ ............. mass rate ................................................... kilogram per second ............ kg/s ................................. kg·s¥1

n .............. viscosity, kinematic .................................... meter squared per second .. m2/s ................................ m2·s¥1

N .............. total number in series.

n .............. amount of substance .................................. mole ..................................... mol .................................. mol 

n ̇ .............. amount of substance rate .......................... mole per second ................. mol/s ............................... mol·s¥1

P .............. power .......................................................... kilowatt ................................ kW ................................... 103·m2·kg·s¥3

PF ............ penetration fraction.

p .............. pressure ..................................................... pascal .................................. Pa ................................... m¥1·kg·s¥2

r .............. mass density .............................................. kilogram per cubic meter .... kg/m3 .............................. kg·m¥3

r ............... ratio of pressures ....................................... pascal per pascal ................ Pa/Pa .............................. 1 

R2 ............ coefficient of determination.

Ra ............ average surface roughness ....................... micrometer .......................... μm ................................... 10¥6 m 

Re# .......... Reynolds number.

RF ........... response factor.

RH ........... relative humidity.

s .............. non-biased standard deviation.

S .............. Sutherland constant ................................... kelvin ................................... K ..................................... K 

SEE ......... standard estimate of error.

T .............. absolute temperature ................................. kelvin ................................... K ..................................... K 

T .............. Celsius temperature ................................... degree Celsius .................... °C .................................... K-273.15 

T .............. torque (moment of force) ........................... newton meter ...................... N·m ................................. m2·kg·s¥2

t ............... time ............................................................. second ................................. s ...................................... s 

Δt ............. time interval, period, 1/frequency ............... second ................................. s ...................................... s 

V .............. volume ........................................................ cubic meter .......................... m3 ................................... m3

V ̇ .............. volume rate ................................................ cubic meter per second ...... m3/s ................................ m3·s¥1

W ............. work ............................................................ kilowatt hour ........................ kW·hr .............................. 3.6·10¥6·m2·kg·s¥2

wc ............ carbon mass fraction .................................. gram per gram .................... g/g ................................... 1 

x .............. amount of substance mole fraction 2 ......... mole per mole ..................... mol/mol ........................... 1 

x ̄ .............. flow-weighted mean concentration ............ mole per mole ..................... mol/mol ........................... 1

y .............. generic variable.

1See paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the values to use for molar masses. Note that in the cases of NOX and HC, the regulations specify effective molar masses based on assumed speciation rather than actual speciation. 2 Note that mole fractions for THC, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, and NOTHC are expressed on a C1 equivalent basis. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) This part uses the following molar 

masses or effective molar masses of 

chemical species: 

Symbol Quantity g/mol 

(10¥3·kg·mol¥1) 

Mair ......... molar mass of dry air 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 28.96559 

MAr ......... molar mass of argon ..................................................................................................................................................... 39.948 

MC .......... molar mass of carbon ................................................................................................................................................... 12.0107 

MCH3OH .. molar mass of methanol ............................................................................................................................................... 32.04186 

MC2H5OH molar mass of ethanol .................................................................................................................................................. 46.06844 

MC2H4O ... molar mass of acetaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................ 44.05256 

MC3H8 ..... molar mass of propane ................................................................................................................................................. 44.09562 

MC3H7OH molar mass of propanol ................................................................................................................................................ 60.09502 

MCO ........ molar mass of carbon monoxide .................................................................................................................................. 28.0101 

MCH4 ....... molar mass of methane ................................................................................................................................................ 16.0425 

MCO2 ....... molar mass of carbon dioxide ...................................................................................................................................... 44.0095 

MH .......... molar mass of atomic hydrogen ................................................................................................................................... 1.00794 

MH2 ........ molar mass of molecular hydrogen .............................................................................................................................. 2.01588 

MH2O ...... molar mass of water ..................................................................................................................................................... 18.01528 

MHCHO .... molar mass of formaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................ 30.02598 

MHe ......... molar mass of helium ................................................................................................................................................... 4.002602 

MN .......... molar mass of atomic nitrogen ..................................................................................................................................... 14.0067 

MN2 ........ molar mass of molecular nitrogen ................................................................................................................................ 28.0134 

MNH3 ...... molar mass of ammonia ............................................................................................................................................... 17.03052 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30137 

Symbol Quantity g/mol 

(10¥3·kg·mol¥1) 

MNMHC ... effective C1 molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon 2 ............................................................................................... 13.875389 

MNMHCE .. effective C1 molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent 2 ............................................................................. 13.875389 

MNOx ...... effective molar mass of oxides of nitrogen 3 ................................................................................................................ 46.0055 

MN2O ...... molar mass of nitrous oxide ......................................................................................................................................... 44.0128 

MO .......... molar mass of atomic oxygen ...................................................................................................................................... 15.9994 

MO2 ........ molar mass of molecular oxygen ................................................................................................................................. 31.9988 

MS .......... molar mass of sulfur ..................................................................................................................................................... 32.065 

MTHC ...... effective C1 molar mass of total hydrocarbon 2 ............................................................................................................ 13.875389 

MTHCE ..... effective C1 molar mass of total hydrocarbon equivalent 2 .......................................................................................... 13.875389 

1See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air. 

2The effective molar masses of THC, THCE, NMHC, and NMHCE are defined on a C1 basis and are based on an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon 

ratio, a, of 1.85 (with b, g, and d equal to zero). 3The effective molar mass of NOX is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO2. 

* * * * * 

■ 282. Section 1065.1010 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1065.1010 Reference materials. 

* * * * * 

(a) ASTM materials. Copies of these 

materials may be obtained from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. 

Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959, or by calling (877) 909– 

ASTM, or at http://www.astm.org. 

(1) ASTM D86–11b, Standard Test 

Method for Distillation of Petroleum 

Products at Atmospheric Pressure, IBR 

approved for §§ 1065.703, 1065.710. 

(2) ASTM D93–12, Standard Test 

Methods for Flash Point by PenskyMartens Closed Cup Tester, IBR 

approved for § 1065.703. 

(3) ASTM D445–12, Standard Test 

Method for Kinematic Viscosity of 

Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and 

Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity), IBR 

approved for § 1065.703. 

(4) ASTM D613–10a, Standard Test 

Method for Cetane Number of Diesel 

Fuel Oil, IBR approved for § 1065.703. 

(5) ASTM D910–11, Standard 

Specification for Aviation Gasolines, 

IBR approved for § 1065.701. 

(6) ASTM D975–12a, Standard 

Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, IBR 

approved for § 1065.701. 

(7) ASTM D1267–02 (Reapproved 

2007), Standard Test Method for Gage 

Vapor Pressure of Liquefied Petroleum 

(LP) Gases (LP-Gas Method), IBR 

approved for § 1065.720. 

(8) ASTM D1319–10, Standard Test 

Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 

Liquid Petroleum Products by 

Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, IBR 

approved for § 1065.710. 

(9) ASTM D1655–12, Standard 

Specification for Aviation Turbine 

Fuels, IBR approved for § 1065.701. 

(10) ASTM D1837–11, Standard Test 

Method for Volatility of Liquefied 

Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.720. 

(11) ASTM D1838–12, Standard Test 

Method for Copper Strip Corrosion by 

Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR 

approved for § 1065.720. 

(12) ASTM D1945–03 (Reapproved 

2010), Standard Test Method for 

Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas 

Chromatography, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.715. 

(13) ASTM D2158–11, Standard Test 

Method for Residues in Liquefied 

Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.720. 

(14) ASTM D2163–07, Standard Test 

Method for Analysis of Liquefied 

Petroleum (LP) Gases and Propene 

Concentrates by Gas Chromatography, 

IBR approved for § 1065.720. 

(15) ASTM D2598–02 (Reapproved 

2007), Standard Practice for Calculation 

of Certain Physical Properties of 

Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases from 

Compositional Analysis, IBR approved 

for § 1065.720. 

(16) ASTM D2622–10, Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 

Products by Wavelength Dispersive Xray Fluorescence Spectrometry, IBR 

approved for §§ 1065.703, 1065.710. 

(17) ASTM D2713–12, Standard Test 

Method for Dryness of Propane (Valve 

Freeze Method), IBR approved for 

§ 1065.720. 

(18) ASTM D2784–11, Standard Test 

Method for Sulfur in Liquefied 

Petroleum Gases (Oxy-Hydrogen Burner 

or Lamp), IBR approved for § 1065.720. 

(19) ASTM D2880–03 (Reapproved 

2010), Standard Specification for Gas 

Turbine Fuel Oils, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.701. 

(20) ASTM D2986–95a (Reapproved 

1999), Standard Practice for Evaluation 

of Air Assay Media by the 

Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate) 

Smoke Test, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.170. 

(21) ASTM D3231–11, Standard Test 

Method for Phosphorus in Gasoline, IBR 

approved for § 1065.710. 

(22) ASTM D3237–12, Standard Test 

Method for Lead in Gasoline By Atomic 

Absorption Spectroscopy, IBR approved 

for § 1065.710. 

(23) ASTM D4052–11, Standard Test 

Method for Density and Relative Density 

of Liquids by Digital Density Meter, IBR 

approved for § 1065.703. 

(24) ASTM D4629–12, Standard Test 

Method for Trace Nitrogen in Liquid 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Syringe/ 

Inlet Oxidative Combustion and 

Chemiluminescence Detection, IBR 

approved for § 1065.655. 

(25) ASTM D4814–11b, Standard 

Specification for Automotive SparkIgnition Engine Fuel, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.701. 

(26) ASTM D4815–09, Standard Test 

Method for Determination of MTBE, 

ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl 

Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in 

Gasoline by Gas Chromatography, IBR 

approved for § 1065.710. 

(27) ASTM D5186–03 (Reapproved 

2009), Standard Test Method for 

Determination of the Aromatic Content 

and Polynuclear Aromatic Content of 

Diesel Fuels and Aviation Turbine Fuels 

By Supercritical Fluid Chromatography, 

IBR approved for § 1065.703. 

(28) ASTM D5191–12, Standard Test 

Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum 

Products (Mini Method), IBR approved 

for § 1065.710. 

(29) ASTM D5291–10, Standard Test 

Method for Instrumental Determination 

of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in 

Petroleum Products and Lubricants, IBR 

approved for § 1065.655. 

(30) ASTM D5599–00 (Reapproved 

2010), Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Oxygenates in 

Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and 

Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization 

Detection, IBR approved for § 1065.655. 

(31) ASTM D5762–12, Standard Test 

Method for Nitrogen in Petroleum and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30138 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Petroleum Products by Boat-Inlet 

Chemiluminescence, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.655. 

(32) ASTM D5797–07, Standard 

Specification for Fuel Methanol (M70– 

M85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition 

Engines, IBR approved for § 1065.701. 

(33) ASTM D5798–11, Standard 

Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed75– 

Ed85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition 

Engines, IBR approved for § 1065.701. 

(34) ASTM D6615–11a, Standard 

Specification for Jet B Wide-Cut 

Aviation Turbine Fuel, IBR approved for 

§ 1065.701. 

(35) ASTM D6751–12, Standard 

Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend 

Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, 

IBR approved for § 1065.701. 

(36) ASTM D6985–04a, Standard 

Specification for Middle Distillate Fuel 

Oil—Military Marine Applications, IBR 

approved for § 1065.701. 

(37) ASTM F1471–09, Standard Test 

Method for Air Cleaning Performance of 

a High- Efficiency Particulate Air Filter 

System, IBR approved for § 1065.1001. 

* * * * * 

(f) SAE material. Copies of these 

materials may be obtained from the 

Society of Automotive Engineers 

International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., 

Warrendale, PA 15096–0001, or by 

calling (724) 776–4841, or at http:// 

www.sae.org. 

(1) SAE 770141, 1977, Optimization 

of Flame Ionization Detector for 

Determination of Hydrocarbon in 

Diluted Automotive Exhausts, Glenn D. 

Reschke, IBR approved for § 1065.360. 

(2) SAE J1151, Methane Measurement 

Using Gas Chromatography, Revised 

September 2011, IBR approved for 

§§ 1065.267 and 1065.750. 

■ 283. A new subpart L is added to read 

as follows: 

Subpart L—Methods for Unregulated and 

Special Pollutants 

Sec. 

1065.1101 Applicability. 

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 

1065.1103 General provisions for SVOC 

measurement. 

1065.1105 Sampling system design. 

1065.1107 Sample media and sample 

system preparation; sampler assembly. 

1065.1109 Post-test sampler disassembly 

and sample extraction. 

1065.1111 Sample analysis. 

Subpart L—Methods for Unregulated 

and Special Pollutants 

§ 1065.1101 Applicability. 

This subpart specifies procedures that 

may be used to measure emission 

constituents that are not measured (or 

not separately measured) by the test 

procedures in the other subparts of this 

part. These procedures are included to 

facilitate consistent measurement of 

unregulated pollutants primarily for 

purposes other than compliance with 

emission standards. Unless otherwise 

specified in the standard-setting part, 

use of these procedures is optional and 

does not replace any requirements in 

the rest of this part. 

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 

§ 1065.1103 General provisions for SVOC 

measurement. 

The provisions of §§ 1065.1103 

through 1065.1111 specify procedures 

for the measurement of semi-volatile 

organic compounds (SVOC) along with 

PM. The provisions of these sections 

specify how to collect a sample of the 

SVOCs during exhaust testing 

procedures, as well as how to use wet 

chemistry techniques to extract SVOCs 

from the sample media for analysis. 

Note that the precise method you use 

will depend on the category of SVOCs 

being measured. For example, the 

method used to measure polynuclear 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) will 

differ slightly from the method used to 

measure dioxins. 

(a) Laboratory cleanliness is 

especially important throughout the 

course of SVOC testing. Thoroughly 

clean all sample train components and 

glassware before testing to avoid sample 

contamination. 

(b) Throughout the course of your 

testing we recommend that media 

blanks be analyzed for each batch of 

media (sorbent, filters, etc.) that is 

prepared for testing. Blank sorbent 

modules with inlet and outlet covered 

(i.e., field blanks) should periodically 

accompany the test sample train 

throughout the course of a test, 

including the sample train and sorbent 

module disassembly, sample packaging, 

and storage. Use good engineering 

judgment to determine the frequency of 

field blanks. During testing, the field 

blank sample train should reside in 

close proximity to the sampler. 

(c) We recommend the use of isotope 

dilution techniques, including the use 

of isotopically labeled surrogate, 

internal, alternate, and injection 

standards. 

(d) If your target analytes degrade 

when exposed to ultraviolet radiation 

(such as nPAH), perform these 

procedures in the dark or with 

ultraviolet filters installed over the 

lights. 

(e) Follow standard analytic 

chemistry methods for aspects of the 

analysis not specified. 

(f) The following definitions and 

abbreviations apply for SVOC 

measurements: 

(1) Soxhlet extraction means the 

extraction method invented by Franz 

von Soxhlet, in which the sample is 

placed in a thimble and rinsed 

repeatedly with a recycle of the 

extraction solvent. 

(2) XAD–2 means a hydrophobic cross 

linked polystyrene copolymer resin 

adsorbent known commercially as 

Amberlite® XAD®-2, or an equivalent 

adsorbent. 

(3) Semi-volatile organic compound 

(SVOC) means an organic compound 

that is sufficiently volatile to exist in 

vapor form in engine exhaust, but that 

readily condenses to liquid or solid 

form under atmospheric conditions. 

Most SVOCs have at least 14 carbon 

atoms per molecule and have a boiling 

point between 240 °C and 400 °C. 

SVOCs include dioxin, quinone, and 

nitro-PAH compounds. They may be a 

natural byproduct of combustion or 

created post combustion. Note that 

SVOCs may be detected as 

hydrocarbons and/or PM using the 

measurement procedures specified in 

this part; in other words, some fraction 

of measured mass of hydrocarbons and/ 

or PM may be SVOCs. 

(4) Kuderna-Danish concentrator 

means laboratory glassware known by 

this name that consists of an air-cooled 

condenser on top of an extraction bulb. 

(5) Dean-Stark trap means laboratory 

glassware known by this name that uses 

a reflux condenser to collect water from 

samples extracted under reflux. 

(6) PUF means polyurethane foam. 

(7) Isotopically labeled means relating 

to a compound in which either all of the 

hydrogen atoms are replaced with the 

atomic isotope hydrogen-2 (deuterium) 

or one of the carbon atoms at a defined 

position in the molecule is replaced 

with the atomic isotope carbon-13. 

§ 1065.1105 Sampling system design. 

(a) General. We recommend that you 

design your SVOC batch sampler to 

extract sample from undiluted 

emissions to minimize the amount of 

SVOCs lost to the system. To the extent 

practical, adjust sampling times based 

on the rate of emission of target analytes 

from the engine to obtain analyte 

concentrations above the limit of 

detection. In some instances you may 

need to run repeat test cycles without 

replacing the sample media or 

disassembly of the batch sampler. 

(b) Sample probe, transfer lines, and 

sample media holder design and 

construction. The sampling system 

should consist of a sample probe, 

transfer line, PM filter holder, cooling 

coil, sorbent module, and condensate 

trap. Construct sample probes, transfer 

lines, and sample media holders that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30139 

have inside surfaces of Nickel, Titanium 

or another nonreactive material capable 

of withstanding raw exhaust gas 

temperatures. All joints in the hot zone 

of the system should be sealed with 

gaskets made of nonreactive material 

similar to that of the sample train 

components. Teflon gaskets may be 

used in the cold zone. We recommend 

keeping the sampling system length as 

short as possible by locating all 

components as close to probes as 

practical to minimize the surface 

exposed to the exhaust. 

(c) Sample system configuration. This 

paragraph (c) specifies the components 

necessary to collect SVOC samples, 

along with our recommended design 

parameters. Where you do not follow 

our recommendations, use good 

engineering judgment to design your 

sampling system so that it does not 

result in loss of SVOC during sampling. 

The sampling system should contain the 

following components in series in the 

order listed: 

(1) Sample probe. Use a sample probe 

similar to the PM sample probe 

specified in subpart B of this part. We 

recommend that you heat the sample 

probe with a set point no higher the 200 

°C. Note that heat from the engine 

exhaust may cause the probe 

temperature to exceed 200 °C at some 

points during the test. 

(2) Filter holder. Use a PM filter 

holder similar to type of holder 

specified in subpart B of this part, 

although you will likely need to use a 

larger size to accommodate the high 

sample flow rates. We recommend the 

use of 110 mm filter for the testing of 

engines that utilize exhaust after 

treatment for removal of PM and 293 

mm filters for engines that do not. You 

may heat the filter holder, but we 

recommend that your set point does not 

exceed 200 °C. Note that this differs 

from normal PM sampling procedures 

which maintain the filter at a much 

lower temperature to capture a 

significant fraction of exhaust SVOCs on 

the filter. In this method SVOCs that 

pass through the filter will be collected 

on the downstream sorbent module. 

(3) Cooling coil. Use good engineering 

judgment to design a cooling coil (to be 

used with the water bath described in 

paragraph (e) of this section) that will 

drop the sample temperature to 

approximately 5 °C. Note that 

downstream of the cooling coil, the 

sample will be a mixture of a vapor 

phase hydrocarbons in CO2 and air and 

a primarily aqueous liquid phase. 

(4) Sorbent and sorbent module. Use 

a hydrophobic sorbent in a sealed 

sorbent module. Note that this sorbent 

module is intended to be the final stage 

for collecting the SVOC sample and 

should be sized accordingly. We 

recommend sizing the module to hold 

40 g of XAD–2 along with polyurethane 

(PUF) plugs at either end of the module. 

(5) Condensate trap/drain. Include a 

condensate trap to separate the aqueous 

liquid phase from the gas stream. We 

recommend using a peristaltic pump to 

remove water from the condensate trap 

over the course of the test to prevent 

build up of the condensate. Note that for 

some tests it may be appropriate to 

collect this water for analysis. 

(d) Sampler flow control. For testing 

using the recommended filter and 

sorbent module sizes, we recommended 

targeting an average sample flow rate of 

70 l/min to maximize SVOC collection. 

The sampler must be designed to 

maintain proportional sampling 

throughout the test. Verify proportional 

sampling after an emission test as 

described in § 1065.545. 

(e) Water bath. Design the sample 

system with a water bath in which the 

cooling coil, sorbent module, and 

condensate trap will be submerged. Use 

a heat exchanger or ice to maintain the 

bath temperature at (3 to 7) °C. 

§ 1065.1107 Sample media and sample 

system preparation; sampler assembly. 

This section describes the types of 

sample media to be used as well as the 

cleaning procedure required to prepare 

the media and wetted sample surfaces 

for sampling. 

(a) Sample media. The sampling 

system uses two types of sample media 

in series: The first to simultaneously 

capture the PM and some of the SVOCs, 

and a second to capture SVOCs that 

remain in the gas phase. Use the 

following sample media for capture of 

PM and gas phase SVOCs: 

(1) For capture of PM, use pure quartz 

filters that do not contain any binder. 

Size the filter diameter to account for 

the expected PM emission rate, sample 

flow rate, and number of repeat tests to 

minimize filter change intervals. Note 

that when repeating test cycles to 

increase sample mass, you may replace 

the filter without replacing the sorbent 

or otherwise disassembling the batch 

sampler. In those cases include all 

filters in the extraction. 

(2) For capture of gaseous SVOCs, 

utilize XAD–2 resin contained between 

two PUF plugs. 

(b) Sample media and sampler 

preparation. Prepare pre-cleaned PM 

filters and pre-cleaned PUF/XAD–2 as 

needed. If the media is not to be used 

immediately after cleaning, store it in 

containers protected from light and 

ambient air. 

(1) Pre-clean the filters via Soxhlet 

extraction with methylene chloride for 

24 hours and dry over dry nitrogen in 

a low temperature vacuum oven. 

(2) Pre-clean PUF and XAD–2 via a 

series of Soxhlet extractions: 8 h with 

water, 22 h with methanol, 22 h with 

methylene chloride, and 22 hours with 

toluene followed by drying with 

nitrogen. 

(3) Clean sampler components 

including the probe, filter holder, 

condenser, sorbent module, and 

condensate collection vessel by rinsing 

three times with methylene chloride 

followed by three rinses with toluene. 

Prepare pre-cleaned aluminum foil for 

capping the probe inlet of the sampler 

after the sample train has been 

assembled. 

(c) Sorbent spiking. Use good 

engineering judgment to verify the 

extent to which your extraction methods 

recover SVOCs absorbed to the sample 

media. We recommend spiking the 

XAD–2 resin with a surrogate standard 

prior to testing with a carbon-13 or 

hydrogen-2 isotopically labeled 

standard for each of the class of analytes 

targeted for analysis. Perform this 

spiking as follows: 

(1) Insert the lower PUF plug into the 

bottom of the sorbent module. 

(2) Add half of one portion of XAD– 

2 resin to the module and spike the 

XAD–2 in the module with the 

standard. 

(3) Wait 1 hour for the solvent from 

the standard(s) to evaporate and then 

add the remaining 20 g of the XAD–2 

resin to the module followed by the top 

PUF plug. 

(4) Cover the inlet and outlet of the 

sorbent module with pre-cleaned 

aluminum foil. 

(d) Sample train assembly. Upon 

completion of the sample media and 

sampler preparation, assemble the 

condensate trap, cooling coil, filter 

holder with filter, and sample probe to 

the sorbent module and lower assembly 

into the reservoir. Cover the probe inlet 

with pre-cleaned aluminum foil. 

§ 1065.1109 Post-test sampler 

disassembly and sample extraction. 

This section describes the process for 

sample train disassembly, sample train 

rinsing, sample extraction, and sample 

clean-up. 

(a) Sample train disassembly. 

Disassemble the sample train in a clean 

environment upon completion of 

testing. Prepare to extract the SVOCs as 

follows: 

(1) Remove the PM filter, PUF, and all 

of the XAD–2 from the sample train and 

place them into a Soxhlet extraction 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30140 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

thimble. If the sample media are to be 

stored, store them at ≤ 37 °C. 

(2) Rinse sample train wetted surfaces 

upstream of the condensate trap with 

acetone followed by toluene (or a 

comparable solvent system), ensuring 

that all of the solvent that remains in 

liquid phase is collected (note that a 

fraction of the acetone and toluene will 

likely be lost via evaporation during 

mixing.) Rinse with solvent volumes 

that are sufficient to cover the all of the 

surfaces exposed to sample during 

testing. We recommend three fresh 

solvent rinses with acetone and two 

with toluene. We recommend rinse 

volumes of 60 mL per rinse for all 

sample train components except the 

condenser coil, of which you should use 

200 mL per rinse. Keep the acetone 

rinsate separate from the toluene rinsate 

to the extent practicable. Rinsate 

fractions should be stored separately in 

glass bottles that have been pre-rinsed 

with acetone, hexane, and toluene (or 

bottles purchased pre-cleaned). 

(3) Use good engineering judgment to 

determine if you should analyze the 

aqueous condensate phase for SVOCs. If 

you determine that analysis is 

necessary, use toluene to perform a 

liquid-liquid extraction of the SVOCs 

from the collected aqueous condensate 

using a sepratory funnel or equivalent. 

Add the toluene from this aqueous 

extraction to the toluene rinsate fraction 

mentioned in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. 

(4) Reduce rinsate solvent volumes as 

needed using a Kuderna-Danish 

concentrator or rotary evaporator and 

retain these rinse solvents for reuse 

during sample media extraction for the 

same test. Care should be taken when 

concentrating via rotary evaporation to 

avoid loss of low molecular weight 

analytes. 

(b) Sample extraction. Extract the 

SVOCs from the sorbent using Soxhlet 

extraction as described in this paragraph 

(b). To accommodate the Soxhlet 

extractions of all SVOCs from a single 

sample, two 16 hour extractions are 

required. This will reduce the 

possibility of loss of low molecular 

weight SVOCs and promote water 

removal. We recommend performing the 

first extraction with acetone/hexane and 

the second using toluene (or an 

equivalent solvent system). 

(1) We recommend equipping the 

Soxhlet extractor with a Dean-Stark trap 

to facilitate the removal of residual 

water from the sample train rinse. The 

Soxhlet apparatus must be large enough 

to allow extraction of the PUF, XAD–2, 

and filter in a single batch. Include in 

the extractor setup a glass thimble with 

a coarse or extra coarse sintered glass 

bottom. Pre-clean the extractor using 

proper glass cleaning procedures. We 

recommend that the Soxhlet apparatus 

be cleaned with a 4 to 8 hr Soxhlet 

extraction with methylene chloride at a 

cycling rate of 3 cycles per hour. 

Discard the solvent used for precleaning (no analysis is necessary). 

(2) Load the extractor thimble before 

placing it in the extractor by first rolling 

the PM filter around the inner 

circumference of the thimble with the 

sampled side facing in. Push one PUF 

plug down into the bottom of the 

thimble then add approximately half of 

the XAD–2. The then spike the XAD–2 

in the thimble with the isotopically 

labeled extraction standards of known 

mass. Target the center of the XAD–2 

bed for extraction standard delivery. We 

recommend using multiple isotopically 

labeled extraction standards that cover 

the range of target analytes. Generally 

this means that you should use 

isotopically labeled standards at least 

for the lowest and highest molecular 

weight analytes for each category of 

compounds (such as PAHs and dioxins). 

These extraction standards monitor the 

efficiency of the extraction and are also 

used to determine analyte 

concentrations after analysis. Upon 

completion of spiking, add the 

remaining XAD–2 to the thimble 

followed by the remaining PUF plug. 

Then place the thimble into the 

extractor. 

(3) For the initial extraction, combine 

the concentrated acetone rinses (from 

the sample train in paragraph (a) of this 

section) with enough hexane to bring 

the solvent volume up to the target level 

of 700 mL. Assemble the extractor and 

turn on the heating controls and cooling 

water. Allow the sample to reflux for 16 

hours with the rheostat adjusted so that 

the extraction cycles at a rate of 3.0 ±0.5 

cycles per hour. Drain the water from 

the Dean-Stark trap as it accrues by 

opening the stopcock on the trap. 

Discard this water unless it is to be 

analyzed. In most cases, any water 

present will be removed within 

approximately 2 hours of the start of the 

extraction. 

(4) Upon completion of the initial 

extraction, remove the solvent and 

concentrate it to 4.0 ±0.5 mL using a 

Kuderna-Danish concentrator that 

includes a condenser such as a threeball Snyder column with venting 

dimples and graduated collection tube. 

The use of this concentrator will 

minimize evaporative loss of lower 

molecular weight analytes. 

(i) Rinse the round bottom flask of the 

extractor with 60 to 100 mL of hexane 

and add the rinsate to this concentrated 

extract. 

(ii) Concentrate the mixture to 4 ±0.5 

mL using a Kuderna-Danish 

concentrator or similar concentration 

apparatus. 

(iii) Repeat paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and 

(ii) of this section 3 times or as 

necessary, to remove all of the residual 

solvent from the extractor round bottom 

flask, concentrating the final rinse to 

4 ±0.5 mL. 

(5) For the second extraction, combine 

the toluene rinses (from the sample train 

in paragraph (a) of this section) with any 

additional toluene needed to bring the 

solvent volume up to the target level of 

700 mL. As noted in this paragraph (a) 

of this section, you may need to 

concentrate the rinse prior to addition to 

the extraction apparatus if the rinse 

solvent volume is too large. Allow the 

sample to reflux for 16 hours with the 

rheostat adjusted so that the extraction 

cycles at a rate of 3.0 ±0.5 cycles per 

hour. Although little or no water should 

be present during this stage, check the 

Dean-Stark trap during the first 2 hours 

of the extraction. 

(6) Upon completion of the second 

extraction, remove the solvent and 

concentrate it to 4 ±0.5 mL as described 

in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. Using 

hexane from paragraph (4) of this 

section as the rinse solvent, effectively 

performs a solvent exchange of toluene 

with hexane. 

(7) Combine the concentrated extract 

from paragraph (b)(4) of this section 

with the concentrated extract from 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section. Divide 

the extract into a number of fractions 

based on the number of analyses to be 

performed. Perform the separate sample 

clean up described in paragraph (c) of 

this section as needed for each fraction. 

(c) Sample clean up. This paragraph 

(c) describes how to perform sample 

cleaning to remove unwanted SVOCs 

(that is, those SVOCs which you are not 

analyzing for) and solids from the 

sample extract before analysis. This 

process, which is known as ‘‘sample 

clean up, reduces the potential for 

interference or co-elution of peaks 

during analytical analysis. Before 

proceeding with the sample clean up, 

spike the extract with an alternate 

standard that contains a known mass of 

isotopically labeled compounds that are 

identical (with the exception of the 

labeling) to the target analytes. The 

number of compounds that make up the 

standard will be determined by the 

category of the target analyte 

compounds (such as PAHs or dioxin). 

For example, PAHs require the use of 4 

compounds in the alternate standard to 

cover the 4 basic ring structures of PAHs 

(2-ring, 3-ring, 4-ring, and 5-ring 

structures). These alternate standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30141 

are used to monitor the efficiency of the 

clean up procedure. Before sample clean 

up, concentrate the fractionated sample 

to about 2 mL with a Kuderna-Danish 

concentrator or rotary evaporator, and 

then transfer the extract to an 8-mL test 

tube with hexane rinse. Concentrate to 

a volume of about 1 mL using a 

Kuderna-Danish concentrator. Since 

there are several column 

chromatographic cleanup options 

available, use good engineering 

judgment to select one appropriate for 

your target analytes. Note that these 

clean-up techniques generally remove 

compounds based on their polarity. The 

clean up procedures given in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section are 

examples of clean-up techniques for 

PAHs and nitropolynuclear aromatic 

hydrocarbons (nPAHs). 

(1) PAH clean up. The following 

method is appropriate for cleaning up 

extracts intended for analysis of PAHs: 

(i) Pack a glass gravity column (250 

mm x 10 mm recommended) by 

inserting a clean glass wool plug into 

the bottom of the column followed by 

the addition of 10 grams of activated 

silica gel in methylene chloride. Tap the 

column to settle the silica gel, and then 

add a 1 cm layer of anhydrous sodium 

sulfate. Since variations among batches 

of silica gel may affect the elution 

volume of the various PAH, the volume 

of solvent required to completely elute 

all of the PAH must be verified by the 

analyst. The weight of the silica gel can 

then be adjusted accordingly. 

(ii) Elute the column with 40 mL of 

hexane. The rate for all elutions should 

be about 2 mL/min and you may use dry 

air or N2 to maintain the headspace 

slightly above atmospheric pressure to 

increase the elution rate. Discard the 

eluate just prior to exposure of the 

sodium sulfate layer to the air or N2, 

transfer the 1 mL sample extract onto 

the column using two additional 2 mL 

rinses of hexane to complete the 

transfer. Just prior to exposure of the 

sodium sulfate layer to the air or N2, 

begin elution of the column with 25 mL 

of hexane followed by 25 mL of 40 

volume % methylene chloride in 

hexane. Collect the entire eluate and 

concentrate it to about 5 mL using the 

Kuderna-Danish concentrator or a rotary 

evaporator. Make sure that you do not 

evaporate all of the solvent from the 

extract during the concentration 

process. Transfer to a small sample vial 

using a hexane rinse and concentrate to 

100 mL using a stream of nitrogen, gentle 

enough to not violently disturb the 

solvent. Store the extracts in a 

refrigerator at 4 °C or lower away from 

light until analysis. 

(2) nPAH clean up. The following 

procedure, that was adapted from 

‘‘Determination and Comparison of 

Nitrated-Polycyclic Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons Measured in Air and 

Diesel Particulate Reference Materials’’ 

(Bamford, H.A., et al, Chemosphere, 

Vol. 50, Issue 5, pages 575–587), is an 

appropriate method to clean up extracts 

intended for analysis of nPAHs: 

(i) Condition an aminopropyl solid 

phase extraction (SPE) cartridge by 

eluting it with 20 mL of 20 volume % 

methylene chloride in hexane before 

use. Transfer the extract quantitatively 

to the SPE cartridge with at least two 

methylene chloride rinsings. Elute the 

extract through the SPE cartridge by 

using 40 ml of 20 volume % methylene 

chloride in hexane to minimize 

potential interference of polar 

constituents. Then reduce the extract to 

0.5 ml in hexane and subject the extract 

to normal-phase liquid chromatography 

using pre-prepared a 9.6 mm X 25 cm 

semi-preparative Chromegabond®

amino/cyano column, 5 mm particle size 

to isolate the nPAH fraction. The mobile 

phase is 20 volume % methylene 

chloride in hexane at a constant flow 

rate of 5 ml/min. Prior to each injection, 

the column should be back flashed with 

60 ml of methylene chloride and then 

conditioned with 200 ml of 20 volume 

% methylene chloride in hexane. 

Collect the effluent and concentrate to 

about 2 mL using the Kuderna-Danish 

concentrator or a rotary evaporator. 

Transfer to a minivial using a hexane 

rinse and concentrate to 100 mL using a 

gentle stream of nitrogen. Store the 

extracts at 4 °C or lower away from light 

until analysis. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

§ 1065.1111 Sample analysis. 

This subpart does not specify 

chromatographic or analytical methods 

to analyze extracts, because the 

selection of such methods is highly 

dependent on the nature of the target 

analytes. However, we recommend that 

prior to whichever sample analysis you 

choose, you spike the extract with an 

injection standard that contains a 

known mass of an isotopically labeled 

compound that is identical (with the 

exception of the labeling) to one of the 

target analytes. This injection standard 

is used to monitor the efficiency of the 

analytical process by verifying the 

volume of sample injected for analysis. 

■ 284. Part 1066 is revised to read as 

follows: 

PART 1066—VEHICLE–TESTING 

PROCEDURES 

Subpart A—Applicability and General 

Provisions 

1066.1 Applicability. 

1066.2 Submitting information to EPA 

under this part. 

1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its 

relationship to the standard-setting part. 

1066.10 Other procedures. 

1066.15 Overview of test procedures. 

1066.20 Units of measure and overview of 

calculations. 

1066.25 Recordkeeping. 

Subpart B—Equipment, Measurement 

Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical Gas 

Specifications 

1066.101 Overview. 

1066.105 Ambient controls and vehicle 

cooling fans. 

1066.110 Equipment specifications for 

emission sampling systems. 

1066.120 Measurement instruments. 

1065.122 Data updating, recording, and 

control for measurement instruments. 

1066.130 Measurement instrument 

calibrations and verifications. 

1066.137 Linearity verification. 

1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration. 

1066.145 Engine fluids, test fuels, analytical 

gases, and other calibration standards. 

1066.150 Analyzer interference and quench 

verification limit. 

Subpart C—Dynamometer Specifications 

1066.201 Dynamometer overview. 

1066.210 Dynamometers. 

1066.215 Summary of verification and 

calibration procedures for chassis 

dynamometers. 

1066.220 Linearity verification for chassis 

dynamometer systems. 

1066.225 Roll runout and diameter 

verification procedure. 

1066.230 Time verification procedure. 

1066.235 Speed verification procedure. 

1066.240 Torque transducer calibration. 

1066.245 Response time verification. 

1066.250 Base inertia verification. 

1066.255 Parasitic loss verification. 

1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation 

evaluation. 

1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration 

verification. 

1066.270 Unloaded coastdown verification. 

1066.280 Daily dynamometer readiness 

verification. 

1066.290 Driver’s aid. 

Subpart D—Coastdown 

1066.301 Overview of coastdown 

procedures. 

1066.305 Coastdown procedures for motor 

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR. 

1066.310 Coastdown procedures for 

vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

1066.320 Dynamometer road-load setting. 

Subpart E—Preparing Vehicles and 

Running an Exhaust Emission Test 

1066.401 Overview. 

1066.407 Vehicle preparation and 

preconditioning. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30142 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1066.410 Dynamometer test procedure. 

1066.420 Vehicle operation. 

1066.425 Test preparation. 

1066.430 Performing emission tests. 

Subpart F—Hybrids and Electric Vehicles 

1066.501 Overview. 

Subpart G—Calculations 

1066.601 Overview. 

1066.610 Mass-based and molar-based 

exhaust emission calculations. 

1066.620 Dilution air background 

correction. 

1066.630 NOX intake-air humidity 

correction. 

1066.640 Removed water correction. 

1066.650 Flow meter calibration 

calculations. 

1066.652 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate 

calculations. 

1066.665 NMOG determination. 

1066.695 Data requirements. 

Subpart H—Cold-Temperature Test 

Procedures 

1066.701 Applicability and general 

provisions. 

1066.710 Cold-testing procedures for 

measuring CO and NMHC emissions and 

determining fuel economy. 

Subpart I—Exhaust Emission Test 

Procedures for Motor Vehicles 

1066.801 Applicability and general 

provisions. 

1066.810 Road load power, test weight, and 

inertia weight class determination. 

1066.814 Vehicle preparation. 

1066.820 Exhaust emission test procedures 

for FTP emissions. 

1066.822 Composite calculations for FTP 

exhaust emissions. 

1066.830 Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures; overview. 

1066.831 Exhaust emission test procedures 

for agressive driving. 

1066.832 Exhaust emission test procedure 

for SC03 emissions. 

1066.835 AC17 Air conditioning efficiency 

test procedure. 

1066.839 Highway fuel economy test 

procedure. 

1066.840 Fuel storage system leak test 

procedure. 

Subpart J—[Reserved] 

Subpart K—Definitions and Other 

Reference Material 

1066.1001 Definitions. 

1066.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, 

acronyms, and units of measure. 

1066.1010 Reference materials. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—Applicability and General 

Provisions 

§ 1066.1 Applicability. 

(a) This part describes the procedures 

that apply to testing we require for the 

following vehicles: 

(1) Model year 2014 and later heavyduty highway vehicles we regulate 

under 40 CFR part 1037 that are not 

subject to chassis testing for exhaust 

emissions under 40 CFR part 86. 

(2) Model year 2022 and later 

highway vehicles (light-duty and heavyduty) that are subject to chassis testing 

for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR part 

86. See 40 CFR part 86 for provisions 

describing how to implement this part 

1066. 

(b) The procedures of this part may 

apply to other types of vehicles, as 

described in this part and in the 

standard-setting part. 

(c) The term ‘‘you’’ means anyone 

performing testing under this part other 

than EPA. 

(1) This part is addressed primarily to 

manufacturers of vehicles, but it applies 

equally to anyone who does testing 

under this part for such manufacturers. 

(2) This part applies to any 

manufacturer or supplier of test 

equipment, instruments, supplies, or 

any other goods or services related to 

the procedures, requirements, 

recommendations, or options in this 

part. 

(d) Paragraph (a) of this section 

identifies the parts of the CFR that 

define emission standards and other 

requirements for particular types of 

vehicles. In this part, we refer to each 

of these other parts generically as the 

‘‘standard-setting part.’’ For example, 40 

CFR part 1037 is the standard-setting 

part for heavy-duty highway vehicles 

and parts 86 and 600 are the standardsetting parts for light-duty vehicles. For 

vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 86, 

subpart S, references to the standardsetting part include subpart I of this 

part. 

(e) Unless we specify otherwise, the 

terms ‘‘procedures’’ and ‘‘test 

procedures’’ in this part include all 

aspects of vehicle testing, including the 

equipment specifications, calibrations, 

calculations, and other protocols and 

procedural specifications needed to 

measure emissions. 

(f) For additional information 

regarding these test procedures, visit our 

Web site at www.epa.gov, and in 

particular http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/ 

testing/regulations.htm. 

§ 1066.2 Submitting information to EPA 

under this part. 

(a) You are responsible for statements 

and information in your applications for 

certification, requests for approved 

procedures, selective enforcement 

audits, laboratory audits, productionline test reports, or any other statements 

you make to us related to this part 1066. 

If you provide statements or information 

to someone for submission to EPA, you 

are responsible for these statements and 

information as if you had submitted 

them to EPA yourself. 

(b) In the standard-setting part and in 

40 CFR 1068.101, we describe your 

obligation to report truthful and 

complete information and the 

consequences of failing to meet this 

obligation. See also 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 

42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2). This obligation 

applies whether you submit this 

information directly to EPA or through 

someone else. 

(c) We may void any certificates or 

approvals associated with a submission 

of information if we find that you 

intentionally submitted false, 

incomplete, or misleading information. 

For example, if we find that you 

intentionally submitted incomplete 

information to mislead EPA when 

requesting approval to use alternate test 

procedures, we may void the certificates 

for all engine families certified based on 

emission data collected using the 

alternate procedures. This would also 

apply if you ignore data from 

incomplete tests or from repeat tests 

with higher emission results. 

(d) We may require an authorized 

representative of your company to 

approve and sign the submission, and to 

certify that all the information 

submitted is accurate and complete. 

This includes everyone who submits 

information, including manufacturers 

and others. 

(e) See 40 CFR 1068.10 for provisions 

related to confidential information. Note 

however that under 40 CFR 2.301, 

emission data are generally not eligible 

for confidential treatment. 

(f) Nothing in this part should be 

interpreted to limit our ability under 

Clean Air Act section 208 (42 U.S.C. 

7542) to verify that vehicles conform to 

the regulations. 

§ 1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its 

relationship to the standard-setting part. 

(a) This part specifies procedures that 

can apply generally to testing various 

categories of vehicles. See the standardsetting part for directions in applying 

specific provisions in this part for a 

particular type of vehicle. Before using 

this part’s procedures, read the 

standard-setting part to answer at least 

the following questions: 

(1) What drive schedules must I use 

for testing? 

(2) Should I warm up the test vehicle 

before measuring emissions, or do I 

need to measure cold-start emissions 

during a warm-up segment of the duty 

cycle? 

(3) Which exhaust constituents do I 

need to measure? Measure all exhaust 

constituents that are subject to emission 

standards, any other exhaust 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30143 

constituents needed for calculating 

emission rates, and any additional 

exhaust constituents as specified in the 

standard-setting part. See 40 CFR 1065.5 

regarding requests to omit measurement 

of N2O and CH4 for vehicles, not subject 

to N2O or CH4 emission standards. 

(4) Do any unique specifications 

apply for test fuels? 

(5) What maintenance steps may I 

take before or between tests on an 

emission-data vehicle? 

(6) Do any unique requirements apply 

to stabilizing emission levels on a new 

vehicle? 

(7) Do any unique requirements apply 

to test limits, such as ambient 

temperatures or pressures? 

(8) [Reserved] 

(9) Are there any emission standards 

specified at particular operating 

conditions or ambient conditions? 

(10) Do any unique requirements 

apply for durability testing? 

(b) The testing specifications in the 

standard-setting part may differ from the 

specifications in this part. In cases 

where it is not possible to comply with 

both the standard-setting part and this 

part, you must comply with the 

specifications in the standard-setting 

part. The standard-setting part may also 

allow you to deviate from the 

procedures of this part for other reasons. 

(c) The following table shows how 

this part divides testing specifications 

into subparts: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.5—DESCRIPTION

OF PART 1066 SUBPARTS. 

This subpart Describes these specifications 

or procedures 

Subpart A .... Applicability and general provisions. 

Subpart B .... Equipment for testing. 

Subpart C .... Dynamometer specifications. 

Subpart D .... Coastdowns for testing. 

Subpart E .... How to prepare your vehicle 

and run an emission test. 

Subpart F .... How to test hybrid vehicles. 

Subpart G .... Test procedure calculations. 

Subpart H .... Cold temperature testing. 

Subpart I ..... Exhaust emission test procedures for motor vehicles. 

Subpart J ..... Reserved. 

Subpart K .... Definitions and reference material. 

§ 1066.10 Other procedures. 

(a) Your testing. The procedures in 

this part apply for all testing you do to 

show compliance with emission 

standards, with certain exceptions noted 

in this section. In some other sections in 

this part, we allow you to use other 

procedures (such as less precise or less 

accurate procedures) if they do not 

affect your ability to show that your 

vehicles comply with the applicable 

emission standards. This generally 

requires emission levels to be far 

enough below the applicable emission 

standards so that any errors caused by 

greater imprecision or inaccuracy do not 

affect your ability to state 

unconditionally that the engines meet 

all applicable emission standards. 

(b) Our testing. These procedures 

generally apply for testing that we do to 

determine if your vehicles comply with 

applicable emission standards. We may 

perform other testing as allowed by the 

Act. 

(c) Exceptions. We may allow or 

require you to use procedures other than 

those specified in this part as described 

in 40 CFR 1065.10(c). All the test 

procedures noted as exceptions to the 

specified procedures are considered 

generically as ‘‘other procedures.’’ Note 

that the terms ‘‘special procedures’’ and 

‘‘alternate procedures’’ have specific 

meanings; ‘‘special procedures’’ are 

those allowed by 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(2) 

and ‘‘alternate procedures’’ are those 

allowed by 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(7). If we 

require you to request approval to use 

other procedures under this paragraph 

(c), you may not use them until we 

approve your request. 

§ 1066.15 Overview of test procedures. 

This section outlines the procedures 

to test vehicles that are subject to 

emission standards. 

(a) In the standard-setting part, we set 

emission standards in g/mile (or g/km), 

for the following constituents: 

(1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX. 

(2) Hydrocarbons, HC, which may be 

expressed in the following ways: 

(i) Total hydrocarbons, THC. 

(ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons, 

NMHC, which results from subtracting 

methane (CH4) from THC. 

(iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, 

THCE, which results from adjusting 

THC mathematically to be equivalent on 

a carbon-mass basis. 

(iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbonequivalent, NMHCE, which results from 

adjusting NMHC mathematically to be 

equivalent on a carbon-mass basis. 

(v) Nonmethane organic gases, 

NMOG, which are calculated either 

from fully or partially speciated 

measurement of hydrocarbons including 

oxygenates, or by adjusting measured 

NMHC values based on fuel oxygenate 

properties. 

(3) Particulate mass, PM. 

(4) Carbon monoxide, CO. 

(5) Carbon dioxide, CO2. 

(6) Methane, CH4. 

(7) Nitrous oxide, N2O. 

(8) Formaldehyde, CH2O. 

(b) Note that some vehicles may not 

be subject to standards for all the 

emission constituents identified in 

paragraph (a) of this section. Note also 

that the standard-setting part may 

include standards for pollutants not 

listed in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(c) The provisions of this part apply 

for chassis dynamometer testing where 

vehicle speed is controlled to follow a 

prescribed duty cycle while simulating 

vehicle driving through the 

dynamometer’s road-load settings. We 

generally set emission standards over 

test intervals and/or drive schedules, as 

follows: 

(1) Vehicle operation. Testing 

involves measuring emissions and miles 

travelled while operating the vehicle on 

a chassis dynamometer. Refer to the 

definitions of ‘‘duty cycle’’ and ‘‘test 

interval’’ in § 1066.1001. Note that a 

single drive schedule may have multiple 

test intervals and require weighting of 

results from multiple test intervals to 

calculate a composite distance-based 

emission value to compare to the 

standard. 

(2) Constituent determination. 

Determine the total mass of each 

constituent over a test interval by 

selecting from the following methods: 

(i) Continuous sampling. In 

continuous sampling, measure the 

constituent’s concentration 

continuously from raw or dilute 

exhaust. Multiply this concentration by 

the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate 

at the emission sampling location to 

determine the constituent’s flow rate. 

Sum the constituent’s flow rate 

continuously over the test interval. This 

sum is the total mass of the emitted 

constituent. 

(ii) Batch sampling. In batch 

sampling, continuously extract and 

store a sample of raw or dilute exhaust 

for later measurement. Extract a sample 

proportional to the raw or dilute 

exhaust flow rate, as applicable. You 

may extract and store a proportional 

sample of exhaust in an appropriate 

container, such as a bag, and then 

measure HC, CO, and NOX

concentrations in the container after the 

test interval. You may deposit PM from 

proportionally extracted exhaust onto 

an appropriate substrate, such as a filter. 

In this case, divide the PM by the 

amount of filtered exhaust to calculate 

the PM concentration. Multiply batch 

sampled concentrations by the total 

(raw or dilute) flow from which it was 

extracted during the test interval. This 

product is the total mass of the emitted 

constituent. 

(iii) Combined sampling. You may use 

continuous and batch sampling 

simultaneously during a test interval, as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30144 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(A) You may use continuous sampling 

for some constituents and batch 

sampling for others. 

(B) You may use continuous and 

batch sampling for a single constituent, 

with one being a redundant 

measurement, subject to the provisions 

of 40 CFR 1065.201. 

(d) Refer to the standard-setting part 

for calculations to determine g/mile 

emission rates. 

(e) You must use good engineering 

judgment for all aspects of testing under 

this part. While this part highlights 

several specific cases where good 

engineering judgment is especially 

relevant, the requirement to use good 

engineering judgment is not limited to 

those provisions where we specifically 

re-state this requirement. 

§ 1066.20 Units of measure and overview 

of calculations. 

(a) System of units. The procedures in 

this part follow both conventional 

English Units and the International 

System of Units (SI), as detailed in NIST 

Special Publication 811, which we 

incorporate by reference in § 1066.1010. 

Except where specified, equations work 

with any system of units. Where the 

equations depend on the use of specific 

units, these units are identified. 

(b) Units conversion. Use good 

engineering judgment to convert units 

between measurement systems as 

needed. For example, if you measure 

vehicle speed as kilometers per hour 

and we specify a precision requirement 

in terms of miles per hour, convert your 

measured kilometer per hour value to 

miles per hour before comparing it to 

our specification. The following 

conventions are used throughout this 

document and should be used to 

convert units as applicable: 

(1) 1 hp = 33,000 ft·lbf/min = 550 

ft·lbf/s = 0.7457 kW. 

(2) 1 lbf = 32.174 ft·lbm/s2 = 4.4482 

N. 

(3) 1 inch = 25.4 mm. 

(4) 1 mile = 1609.344 m. 

(5) For ideal gases, 1 mmol/mol = 1 

ppm. 

(6) For ideal gases, 10 mmol/mol = 

1%. 

(c) Temperauture. We generally 

designate temperatures in units of 

degrees Celsius (°C) unless a calculation 

requires an absolute temperature. In that 

case, we designate temperatures in units 

of Kelvin (K). For conversion purposes 

throughout this part, 0 °C equals 273.15 

K. Unless specified otherwise, always 

use absolute temperature values for 

multiplying or dividing by temperature. 

(d) Absolute pressure. Measure 

absolute pressure directly or calculate it 

as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus 

a differential pressure that is referenced 

to atmospheric pressure. Always use 

absolute pressure values for multiplying 

or dividing by pressure. 

(e) Rounding. The rounding 

provisions of 40 CFR 1065.20 apply for 

calculations in this part. This generally 

specifies that you round final values but 

not intermediate values. Use good 

engineering judgment to record the 

appropriate number of significant digits 

for all measurements. 

(f) Interpretation of ranges. Interpret a 

range as a tolerance unless we explicitly 

identify it as an accuracy, repeatability, 

linearity, or noise specification. See 40 

CFR 1065.1001 for the definition of 

tolerance. In this part, we specify two 

types of ranges: 

(1) Whenever we specify a range by a 

single value and corresponding limit 

values above and below that value (such 

as X ±Y), target the associated control 

point to that single value (X). Examples 

of this type of range include ‘‘±10% of 

maximum pressure’’, or ‘‘(30 ±10) kPa’’. 

In these examples, you would target the 

maximum pressure or 30 kPa, 

respectively. 

(2) Whenever we specify a range by 

the interval between two values, you 

may target any associated control point 

to any value within that range. An 

example of this type of range is ‘‘(40 to 

50) kPa’’. 

(g) Scaling of specifications with 

respect to an applicable standard. 

Because this part 1066 applies to a wide 

range of vehicles and emission 

standards, some of the specifications in 

this part are scaled with respect to a 

vehicle’s applicable standard or weight. 

This ensures that the specification will 

be adequate to determine compliance, 

but not overly burdensome by requiring 

unnecessarily high-precision 

equipment. Many of these specifications 

are given with respect to a ‘‘flowweighted mean’’ that is expected at the 

standard or during testing. Flowweighted mean is the mean of a quantity 

after it is weighted proportional to a 

corresponding flow rate. For example, if 

a gas concentration is measured 

continuously from the raw exhaust of an 

engine, its flow-weighted mean 

concentration is the sum of the products 

of each recorded concentration times its 

respective exhaust flow rate, divided by 

the sum of the recorded flow rates. As 

another example, the bag concentration 

from a CVS system is the same as the 

flow-weighted mean concentration, 

because the CVS system itself flowweights the bag concentration. 

§ 1066.25 Recordkeeping. 

The procedures in this part include 

various requirements to record data or 

other information. Refer to the standardsetting part and § 1066.695 regarding 

recordkeeping requirements. You must 

promptly send us organized, written 

records in English if we ask for them. 

We may review them at any time. 

Subpart B—Equipment, Measurement 

Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical Gas 

Specifications 

§ 1066.101 Overview. 

(a) This subpart addresses equipment 

related to emission testing, as well as 

test fuels and analytical gases. This 

section addresses emission sampling 

and analytical equipment, test fuels, and 

analytical gases. 

(b) The provisions of 40 CFR part 

1065 specify engine-based procedures 

for measuring emissions. Except as 

specified otherwise in this part, the 

provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for 

testing required by this part as follows: 

(1) The provisions of 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart B, describe equipment 

specifications for exhaust dilution and 

sampling systems; these specifications 

apply for testing under this part as 

described in § 1066.110. 

(2) The provisions of 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart C, describe specifications 

for measurement instrument; these 

specifications apply for testing under 

this part as described in § 1066.120. 

(3) The provisions of 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart D, describe specifications 

for measurement instrument 

calibrations and verifications; these 

specifications apply for testing under 

this part as described in § 1066.130. 

(4) The provisions of 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart H, describe specifications 

for fuels, engine fluids, and analytical 

gases; these specifications apply for 

testing under this part as described in 

§ 1066.145. 

(5) The provisions of 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart I, describe specifications 

for testing with oxygenated fuels; these 

specifications apply for NMOG 

determinations as described in 

§ 1066.665. 

(c) The provisions of this subpart are 

intended to specify systems that can 

very accurately and precisely measure 

emissions from motor vehicles such as 

light-duty vehicles. To the extent that 

this level of accuracy and/or precision 

is not necessary for testing highway 

motorcycles or nonroad vehicles, we 

may waive or modify the specifications 

and requirements of this part for testing 

these other vehicles, consistent with 

good engineering judgment. For 

example, it may be appropriate to allow 

the use of a hydrokinetic dynamometer 

that is not able to meet all the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30145 

performance specifications described in 

this subpart. 

§ 1066.105 Ambient controls and vehicle 

cooling fans. 

(a) Ambient conditions. Dynamometer 

testing under this part generally requires 

that you maintain the test cell within a 

specified range of ambient temperature 

and humidity. Use good engineering 

judgment to maintain relatively uniform 

temperatures throughout the test cell 

before testing. You are generally not 

required to maintain uniform 

temperatures throughout the test cell 

while the vehicle is running due to the 

heat generated by the vehicle. Measured 

humidity values must accurately 

represent the humidity of intake air; 

other than the intake air, humidity does 

not affect emissions so humidity need 

not be uniform throughout the test cell. 

(b) General requirements for cooling 

fans. Use good engineering judgment to 

select and configure fans to cool the test 

vehicle in a way that meets the 

specifications of paragraph (c) of this 

section and simulates in-use operation. 

If you demonstrate that the specified fan 

configuration is impractical for special 

vehicle designs, such as vehicles with 

rear-mounted engines, or it does not 

provide adequate cooling to properly 

represent in-use operation, you may ask 

us to approve increasing the fan’s 

capacity or using additional fans. 

(c) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles 

at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

Cooling fan specifications for vehicles at 

or below 14,000 pounds GVWR depend 

on the test cycle. Paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section summarizes the cooling fan 

specifications for the different test 

cycles; the detailed specifications are 

described in paragraphs (c)(2) through 

(5) of this section. See § 1066.410 for 

instruction regarding how to use the 

fans during testing. 

(1) Cooling fan specifications for 

different test cycles are summarized as 

follows: 

(i) For FTP and LA–92 test cycles, the 

allowable cooling fan configurations are 

described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of 

this section. 

(ii) For the US06 test cycle, the 

allowable cooling fan configurations are 

described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (5) of 

this section. The cooling fan 

configuration in paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section is also allowable with advance 

approval. 

(iii) For SC03 and AC17 test cycles, 

the allowable cooling fan configuration 

is described in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. 

(iv) For the HFET test cycle, the 

allowable cooling fan configurations are 

described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of 

this section. 

(2) You may use a road-speed 

modulated fan system meeting the 

specifications of this paragraph (c)(2) for 

anything other than SC03 and AC17 

testing. Use a road-speed modulated fan 

that achieves a linear speed of cooling 

air at the blower outlet that is within 

±3.0 mph (±1.3 m/s) of the 

corresponding roll speed when vehicle 

speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 

to 13.4 m/s), and within ±6.5 mph (±2.9 

m/s) of the corresponding roll speed at 

higher vehicle speeds; however you may 

limit the fan’s maximum linear speed to 

70 mph. We recommend that the 

cooling fan have a minimum opening of 

0.2 m2 and a minimum width of 0.8 m. 

(i) Verify the air flow velocity for fan 

speed corresponding to vehicle speeds 

of 20 and 40 mph using an instrument 

that has an accuracy of ±2% of the 

measured air flow speed. 

(ii) For fans with rectangular outlets, 

divide the fan outlet into the as shown 

in Figure 1 of this section. As denoted 

by the ‘‘+’’ in the figure, measure flow 

from the center of each section; however 

do not measure the flow from the center 

section. 

(iii) For fans with circular outlets, 

divide the fan outlet into 8 equal 

sections as shown in Figure 2 of this 

section. As denoted by the ‘‘+’’ in the 

figure, measure flow on the radial 

centerline of each section (at 22.5°) at a 

radius of two-thirds of the total radius. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.041</GPH>
30146 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) Verify that the fan air flow 

velocity vector perpendicular to the 

axial flow velocity vector is less than 

15% of the mean velocity measured at 

fan speeds corresponding to vehicle 

speeds of 20 and 40 mph. 

(v) Verify that the uniformity of the 

fan axial flow tolerance is within ±4.0 

mph at fan speeds corresponding to 20 

mph and within ±8.0 mph at fan speeds 

corresponding to 40 mph. For example, 

at 20 mph, flow at all axial locations 

denoted by the ‘‘+’’ across the discharge 

nozzle must be between 16 and 24 mph. 

Measure the fan axial air flow velocity 

60 cm from the nozzle outlet at each 

point of the discharge area grid. 

(3) For SC03 and AC17 testing, use a 

road-speed modulated fan with a 

minimum air flow nozzle discharge area 

that is equal to or exceeds the vehicle’s 

frontal inlet area. We recommend using 

a fan with a discharge area of 1.7 m2. 

(i) Air flow volumes must be 

proportional to vehicle speed. When 

meeting the minimum discharge area 

requirements, the flow volume would 

vary from 0 m3/s at 0 mph to 

approximately 450 m3/s at 60 mph. If 

this fan is also the only source of test 

cell air circulation or if fan operational 

mechanics make the 0 mph air flow 

requirement impractical, air flow of 2 

mph or less at 0 mph vehicle speed is 

allowed. 

(ii) Verify that the fan air flow 

velocity vector perpendicular to the 

axial flow velocity vector is less than 

10% of the mean velocity measured at 

fan speeds corresponding to vehicle 

speeds between 20 and 40 mph. 

(iii) Verify that the uniformity of fan 

axial flow tolerance is 20% of the fan 

speed corresponding to vehicle speeds 

of 20 and 40 mph. For example, at 20 

mph, flow at all axial locations across 

the discharge nozzle must be between 

16 and 24 mph. Measure the fan axial 

air flow velocity 60 cm from the nozzle 

outlet at each point of the discharge area 

grid. 

(iv) The instrument used to verify the 

air velocity must have an accuracy of 

±2% of the measured air flow speed. 

(v) In addition to the road-speed 

modulated fan, we may approve the use 

of one or more fixed-speed fans to 

provide proper cooling to represent inuse operation, but only up to a total of 

2.50 m3/s for all additional fans. 

(4) You may use a fixed-speed fan 

with a maximum capacity up to 2.50 

m3/s for FTP, LA–92, and HFET testing. 

(5) You may use a fixed-speed fan 

with a maximum capacity up to 7.10 

m3/s for US06 testing. 

(d) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles 

above 14,000 pounds GVWR. For all 

testing, use a road-speed modulated fan 

system that achieves a linear speed of 

cooling air at the blower outlet that is 

within ±3.0 mph (±1.3 m/s) of the 

corresponding roll speed when vehicle 

speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 

to 13.4 m/s), and within ±10 mph (±4.5 

m/s) of the corresponding roll speed at 

higher vehicle speeds. For vehicles 

above 19,500 pounds GVWR, we 

recommend that the cooling fan have a 

minimum opening of 2.75 m2, a 

minimum flow rate of 60 m3/s at 50 

mph, and a minimum speed profile 

across the duct, in the free stream flow, 

that is ±15% of the target flow rate. 

§ 1066.110 Equipment specifications for 

emission sampling systems. 

(a) This section specifies equipment 

related to emission testing, other than 

measurement instruments. This 

equipment includes two broad 

categories—dynamometers (described 

further in subpart C of this part) and 

emission-sampling hardware. Other 

related sections in this subpart identify 

measurement instruments (§ 1066.120), 

describe how to evaluate the 

performance of these instruments 

(§§ 1066.130 and 1066.137), describe 

how to calibrate a CVS (§ 1066.140), 

specify engine fluids and analytical 

gases (§ 1066.145), and specify 

requirements for analyzer interference 

and quench verification (§ 1066.150). 

(b) The following equipment 

specifications apply for testing under 

this part: 

(1) Tailpipe connections. Connect a 

vehicle’s exhaust system to any dilution 

stage as follows: 

(i) Minimize laboratory exhaust 

tubing lengths. You may use a total 

length of laboratory tubing up to 4 m, 

without needing to heat or insulate the 

tubing. However, you may use a total 

length of laboratory tubing up to 10 m 

if you insulate and/or heat the tubing to 

minimize the temperature difference 

between the exhaust gas and the tubing 

wall over the course of the emission 

test. The laboratory exhaust tubing starts 

at the end of the vehicle’s tailpipe. The 

laboratory exhaust tubing ends at the 

first sample point or the point of first 

dilution. You may use flexible 

laboratory exhaust tubing at any 

location in the laboratory exhaust 

system, although we recommend that 

you limit the amount of flexible tubing 

to the extent practicable. For multipletailpipe configurations where the 

tailpipes combine into a single flow 

path for emission sampling, the start of 

the laboratory exhaust tubing may be 

taken at the last joint where the exhaust 

flow first becomes a single, combined 

flow. 

(ii) You may insulate or heat any 

laboratory exhaust tubing. 

(iii) Use laboratory exhaust tubing 

materials that are smooth-walled and 

not chemically reactive with exhaust 

constituents. (For purposes of this 

paragraph (b)(1), nominally smooth 

spiral-style and accordion-style flexible 

tubing are considered to be smoothwalled.) For measurements involving 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30147 

PM, tubing materials must also be 

electrically conductive. Stainless steel is 

an acceptable material for any 

measurements. You may use short 

sections of nonconductive flexible 

tubing to connect a PM sampling system 

to the vehicle’s tailpipe; use good 

engineering judgment to limit the 

amount of nonconductive surface area 

exposed to the vehicle’s exhaust. 

(iv) We recommend that you use 

laboratory exhaust tubing that has either 

a wall thickness of less than 2 mm or 

is air gap-insulated to minimize 

temperature differences between the 

wall and the exhaust. 

(v) You must seal your system to the 

extent necessary to ensure that any 

remaining leaks do not affect your 

ability to demonstrate compliance with 

the applicable standards. We 

recommend that you seal all known 

leaks. 

(vi) Electrically ground the entire 

exhaust system, with the exception of 

nonconductive flexible tubing, as 

allowed under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of 

this section. 

(vii) For vehicles with multiple 

tailpipes, route the exhaust into a single 

flow. To ensure mixing of the multiple 

exhaust streams before emission 

sampling, you may configure the 

exhaust system with turbulence 

generators, such as orifice plates or fins, 

to achieve good mixing. We recommend 

a minimum Reynolds number, Re#, of 

4000 for the combined exhaust stream, 

where Re# is based on the inside 

diameter of the combined flow at the 

first sampling point. Re# is defined in 

40 CFR 1065.640. 

(2) Provisions from 40 CFR part 1065. 

Use equipment specifications in 40 CFR 

1065.140 through 40 CFR 1065.190, 

except as follows: 

(i) For PM background measurement, 

the following provisions apply instead 

of the analogous provisions in 40 CFR 

1065.140(b): 

(A) You need not measure PM 

background for every test. You may 

apply PM background correction using 

a moving-average background value as 

long as your background PM sample 

media (e.g., filters) were all made by the 

same manufacturer from the same 

material. Use good engineering 

judgment to determine how many 

background samples make up the 

moving average and how frequently to 

update those values. For example, you 

might take one background sample per 

week and average that sample into 

previous background values, 

maintaining five observations for each 

calculated average value. Background 

sampling time should be representative 

of the test interval duration to which the 

background correction is applied. 

(B) You may sample background PM 

from the dilution tunnel at any time 

before or after an emission test using the 

same sample train used during the 

emission test. For this background 

sampling, the dilution tunnel blower 

must be turned on, the vehicle must be 

disconnected from the exhaust transfer 

tube, and the exhaust transfer tube must 

be capped. 

(C) The duration of your background 

sample does not need to be the same as 

the test cycle in which you are applying 

the background correction, provided it 

is not inconsistent with the use of good 

engineering judgment. 

(D) Your background correction may 

not exceed 5 mg or 5% of the net PM 

mass expected at the standard, 

whichever allowance is greater. 

(ii) The provisions of 40 CFR 

1065.140(d)(2)(iv) do not apply. 

(iii) For PM samples, configure 

dilution systems using the following 

limits: 

(A) Control the dilution air 

temperature as described in 40 CFR 

1065.140(e)(1), except that the 

temperature may set to (15 to 52) °C. 

Use good engineering judgment to 

control PM sample temperature as 

required under 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(4). 

(B) Apply the provisions of this 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) instead of 40 

CFR 1065.140(e)(2). Add dilution air to 

the raw exhaust such that the overall 

dilution factor of diluted exhaust to raw 

exhaust, as determined in Eq. 1066.620– 

2 or 1066.620–3, is within the range of 

(7:1 to 20:1). Compliance with this 

dilution factor range may be determined 

for an individual test interval or as a 

time-weighted average over the entire 

duty cycle as determined in Eq. 

1066.620–4. The maximum dilution 

factor limit of 20:1 does not apply for 

plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) 

and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), 

since the dilution factor is infinite when 

the engine is off; however we strongly 

recommend that you stay under the 

maximum dilution factor limit when the 

engine is running. For partial-flow 

sampling systems, determine dilution 

factor using Eq. 1066.620–3. When 

determining dilution factor for PM 

samples utilizing secondary dilution air, 

multiply the dilution factor by the 

dilution ratio of secondary dilution air 

to primary diluted exhaust. 

(iv) In addition to the allowances in 

40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6) you may also 

heat the dilution air as described in 

paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section to 

prevent or limit aqueous condensation. 

(v) If you choose to dilute the exhaust 

by using a remote mix tee, which dilutes 

the exhaust at the tailpipe, you may use 

the following provisions consistent with 

good engineering judgment, provided 

they do not affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standard: 

(A) You may use accordion-style or 

smooth-walled flexible tubing in the 

dilution tunnel upstream of flow or 

gaseous emission measurement 

locations. 

(B) You may use smooth-walled 

electrically conductive flexible tubing in 

the dilution tunnel upstream of where 

PM emission measurements are made. 

(C) Materials for inside surfaces are 

limited to 300 series stainless steel and 

polymer-based materials. 

(D) Use good engineering judgment to 

ensure that the materials you choose do 

not cause or contribute to significant 

loss of PM from your sample. 

(vi) Paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section 

applies instead of 40 CFR 1065.145(b). 

(c) The following table summarizes 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.110—SUMMARY OF EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS FROM 40 CFR PART 1065, SUBPART B, THAT

APPLY FOR CHASSIS TESTING

40 CFR part 1065 references Applicability for chassis testing under this part 

40 CFR 1065.140 ................................................ Use all except: 

40 CFR 1065.140(b) applies as described in this section. 

Use 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6), with the additional allowance described in this section. 

Do not use 40 CFR 1065.140(d)(2)(iv). 

Use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(1) as described in this section. 

Do not use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2). 

40 CFR 1065.145 ................................................ Use all except 40 CFR 1065.145(b). 

40 CFR 1065.150 through 1065.190 .................. Use all. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30148 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1066.120 Measurement instruments. 

The measurement instrument 

requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, 

subpart C, apply with the following 

exceptions: 

(a) The provisions of § 1066.122 apply 

instead of 40 CFR 1065.202. 

(b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.210 

and 1065.295 do not apply. 

§ 1066.122 Data updating, recording, and 

control for measurement instruments. 

This section specifies criteria that 

your test system must meet for updating 

and recording data. It also specifies 

criteria for controlling the systems 

related to driver demand, the 

dynamometer, sampling equipment, and 

measurement instruments. 

(a)(1) This paragraph (a)(1) applies 

where we specify a minimum command 

and control frequency that is greater 

than the minimum recording frequency, 

such as for sample flow rates from a 

CVS that does not have a heat 

exchanger. For these measurements, the 

rate at which you read and interpret the 

signal must be at least as frequent as the 

minimum command and control 

frequency. Values may be recorded at 

the same frequency. They may also be 

recorded as means of the values, 

provided the frequency of the mean 

values meets the minimum recording 

frequency. All values read must be 

either recorded or used to calculate the 

mean values. For example, if your 

system reads and controls the sample 

flow rate at 10 Hz, you may record these 

values at 10 Hz, record them at 5 Hz by 

averaging pairs of consecutive points 

together, or record them at 1 Hz by 

averaging five consecutive points 

together. 

(2) For all other measured values 

covered by this section, you may record 

the values instantaneously or as mean 

values, consistent with good 

engineering judgment. 

(3) You may not use rolling averages 

of measured values where a given 

measured value is included in more 

than one recorded mean value. 

(b) Use data acquisition and control 

systems that can command, control, and 

record at the following minimum 

frequencies: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.122—DATA RECORDING AND CONTROL MINIMUM FREQUENCIES

Applicable section Measured values 

Minimum 

command 

and control 

frequency 

Minimum recording frequency a

§ 1066.310 .............................

§ 1066.320 

Vehicle speed ....................................................................... ..................... 10 Hz. 

§ 1066.430 ............................. Continuous concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers ......... ..................... 1 Hz. 

§ 1066.430 .............................

§ 1066.501 

Power analyzer b ................................................................... ..................... 1 Hz. 

§ 1066.430 ............................. Bag concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers ..................... ..................... 1 mean value per test interval. 

40 CFR 1065.545 ..................

§ 1066.430 

Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS with a heat exchanger upstream of the flow measurement...................... 1 Hz. 

40 CFR 1065.545 ..................

§ 1066.430 

Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS without a heat exchanger upstream of the flow measurement.N/A .............. 1 Hz means. 

40 CFR 1065.545 ..................

§ 1066.430 

Dilution air flow if actively controlled (for example, a partialflow PM sampling system).5 Hz ............. 1 Hz means. 

40 CFR 1065.545 ..................

§ 1066.430 

Sample flow from a CVS that has a heat exchanger .......... 1 Hz ............. 1 Hz. 

40 CFR 1065.545 ..................

§ 1066.430 

Sample flow from a CVS that does not have a heat exchanger.5 Hz ............. 1 Hz means. 

§ 1066.425 ............................. Ambient temperature ............................................................ ..................... 1 Hz. 

§ 1066.425 ............................. Ambient humidity .................................................................. ..................... 1 Hz. 

§ 1066.425 ............................. Heated sample system temperatures, including PM filter 

face.

..................... 1 Hz. 

a 1 Hz means are data reported from the instrument at a higher frequency, but recorded as a series of mean values at a rate of 1 Hz. bFor power analyzers’ sampling frequency, follow SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in § 1066.1010). 

§ 1066.130 Measurement instrument 

calibrations and verifications. 

The measurement instrument 

calibration and verification 

requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, 

subpart D, apply with the following 

exceptions: 

(a) The calibration and verification 

provisions of 40 CFR 1065.303 do not 

apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, 

or intake air flow. Section 1066.133 

specifies additional calibration and 

verification provisions that apply 

specifically for chassis testing. 

(b) The linearity verification 

provisions of 40 CFR 1065.307 do not 

apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, 

or intake air flow. Section 1066.137 

specifies additional linearity 

verification provisions that apply 

specifically for chassis testing. 

(c) The provisions of § 1066.220 apply 

instead 40 CFR 1065.310. 

(d) The provisions of 40 CFR 

1065.320, 1065.325, and 1065.395 do 

not apply. 

(e) If you are measuring flow 

volumetrically (rather than by molar), 

the provisions of § 1066.140 apply 

instead of 40 CFR 1065.340. 

(f) The provisions of § 1066.150 apply 

instead 40 CFR 1065.350(c), 

1065.355(c), 1065.370(c), and 

1065.375(c). 

(g) Table 1 of this section summarizes 

the required and recommended 

calibrations and verifications that are 

unique to testing under this part and 

indicates when these have to be 

performed. Perform other required or 

recommended calibration and 

verifications as described in 40 CFR 

1065.303, with the exceptions noted in 

this section. Table 1 follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30149 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.130–SUMMARY OF REQUIRED CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATIONS

Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequency a

40 CFR 1065.303: Flow rates ........ This calibration does not apply for testing under this part; see § 1066.133 for alternative provisions. 

40 CFR 1065.307: Linearity 

verification.

The linearity calibrations from 40 CFR part 1065 do not apply under this part for engine speed, torque, fuel 

rate, or intake air flow; the linearity verification described in § 1066.137 applies for the following measurements: 

Dynamometer Speed: See § 1066.220. 

Dynamometer Torque: See § 1066.220. 

40 CFR 1065.310: Torque .............. This calibration does not apply for testing under this part; see § 1066.220. 

40 CFR 1065.320: Fuel flow ........... This calibration does not apply for testing under this part. 

40 CFR 1065.325: Intake flow ........ This calibration does not apply for testing under this part. 

40 CFR 1065.340: CVS calibration This calibration does not apply for CVS flow meters calibrated volumetrically as described in § 1066.140. 

40 CFR 1065.345: Vacuum leak .... Required upon initial installation of the sampling system; recommended within 35 days before the start of 

an emissions test and after maintenance such as pre-filter changes. 

40 CFR 1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), 

1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c).

These provisions do not apply for testing under this part; see § 1066.150. 

40 CFR 1065.395: Inertial PM balance and weighing.These verifications do not apply for testing under this part. 

aPerform calibrations and verifications more frequently if needed to conform to the measurement system manufacturer’s instructions and good 

engineering judgment. 

§ 1066.137 Linearity verification. 

This section describes requirements 

for linearity verification that are unique 

to testing under this part. (Note: see the 

definition of ‘‘linearity’’ in 40 CFR 

1065.1001, where we explain that 

linearity means the degree to which 

measured values agree with respective 

reference values and that the term 

‘‘linearity’’ is not used to refer to the 

shape of a measurement instrument’s 

unprocessed response curve.) Perform 

other required or recommended 

calibration and verifications as 

described in 40 CFR 1065.307, with the 

exceptions noted in this section. 

(a) For testing under this subpart, 

linearity verification under 40 CFR part 

1065 is not required for speed, torque, 

fuel flow rate, or intake air flow. 

(b) For gas analyzer linearity, use one 

of the following options: 

(1) Use instrument manufacturer 

recommendations and good engineering 

judgment to select at least ten reference 

values, yrefi, that cover the range of 

values that you expect during testing (to 

prevent extrapolation beyond the 

verified range during emission testing). 

We recommend selecting zero as one of 

your reference values. For each range 

calibrated, if the deviation from a leastsquares best-fit straight line is 2% or 

less of the value at each data point, 

concentration values may be calculated 

by use of a single calibration factor for 

that range. If the deviation exceeds 2% 

at any point, use the best-fit nonlinear 

equation that represents the data to 

within 2% of each test point to 

determine concentration. If you use a 

gas divider to blend calibration gases, 

verify that the calibration curve 

produced names a calibration gas within 

2% of its certified concentration. 

Perform this verification between 15 

and 50% of the full scale analyzer range. 

(2) Use the linearity requirements of 

40 CFR 1065.307, except for CO2

measurements used for determining fuel 

economy and GHG emissions for motor 

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR. If you choose this linearity 

option, you must drift check and drift 

correct your emission data according to 

40 CFR 1065.672. 

(c) Perform linearity verifications for 

the following temperature 

measurements instead of those specified 

at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(7): 

(1) Test cell ambient air. 

(2) Dilution air for PM sampling, 

including CVS, double-dilution, and 

partial-flow systems. 

(3) PM sample. 

(4) Chiller sample, for gaseous 

sampling systems that use thermal 

chillers to dry samples and that use 

chiller temperature to calculate 

dewpoint at the chiller outlet. For 

testing, if you choose to use the high 

alarm temperature setpoint for the 

chiller temperature as a constant value 

in determining the amount of water 

removed from the emission sample, you 

may verify the accuracy of the high 

alarm temperature setpoint using good 

engineering judgment without following 

the linearity verification for chiller 

temperature. We recommend that you 

input a simulated reference temperature 

signal below the alarm setpoint, 

increase this signal until the high alarm 

trips, and verify that the alarm setpoint 

value is no less than 2 °C below the 

reference value at the trip point. 

(5) CVS inlet temperature. 

(d) Perform linearity verifications for 

the following pressure measurements 

instead of those specified at 40 CFR 

1065.307(e)(8): 

(1) Exhaust back pressure. 

(2) Barometric pressure. 

(3) CVS inlet gage pressure or absolute 

pressure transducer. 

(4) Sample dryer, for gaseous 

sampling systems that use either 

osmotic-membrane or thermal chillers 

to dry samples. For your testing, if you 

choose to use a low alarm pressure 

setpoint for the sample dryer pressure as 

a constant value in determining the 

amount of water removed from the 

emission sample, you may verify the 

accuracy of the low alarm pressure 

setpoint using good engineering 

judgment without following the 

linearity verification for sample dryer 

pressure. We recommend that you input 

a reference pressure signal above the 

alarm setpoint, decrease this signal until 

the low alarm trips, and verify that the 

alarm setpoint value is no more than 4 

kPa above the reference value at the trip 

point. 

(e) When following procedures or 

practices that we incorporate by 

reference in § 1066.1010, you must meet 

the linearity requirements given by the 

procedure or practice for any analytical 

instruments not covered under 40 CFR 

1065.307, such as GC–FID or HPLC. 

§ 1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow 

calibration. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

how to calibrate flow meters for diluted 

exhaust constant-volume sampling 

(CVS) systems. You may follow the 

molar flow calibration procedures in 40 

CFR 1065.340 instead of the procedures 

in this section. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

calibration while the flow meter is 

installed in its permanent position, 

except as allowed in paragraph (c) of 

this section. Perform this calibration 

after you change any part of the flow 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30150 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

configuration upstream or downstream 

of the flow meter that may affect the 

flow-meter calibration. Perform this 

calibration upon initial CVS installation 

and whenever corrective action does not 

resolve a failure to meet the diluted 

exhaust flow verification (i.e., propane 

check) in 40 CFR 1065.341. 

(c) Ex-situ CFV and SSV calibration. 

You may remove a CFV or SSV from its 

permanent position for calibration as 

long as the flow meter meets the 

requirements in 40 CFR 1065.340(c). 

(d) Reference flow meter. Calibrate 

each CVS flow meter using a reference 

flow meter such as a subsonic venturi 

flow meter, a long-radius ASME/NIST 

flow nozzle, a smooth approach orifice, 

a laminar flow element, a set of critical 

flow venturis, or an ultrasonic flow 

meter. Use a reference flow meter that 

reports quantities that are NISTtraceable within ±1% uncertainty. Use 

this reference flow meter’s response to 

flow as the reference value for CVS 

flow-meter calibration. 

(e) Configuration. Calibrate the system 

with any upstream screens or other 

restrictions that will be used during 

testing and that could affect the flow 

ahead of the reference flow meter. You 

may not use any upstream screen or 

other restriction that could affect the 

flow ahead of the reference flow meter, 

unless the flow meter has been 

calibrated with such a restriction. 

(f) PDP calibration. Calibrate each 

positive-displacement pump (PDP) to 

determine a flow-versus-PDP speed 

equation that accounts for flow leakage 

across sealing surfaces in the PDP as a 

function of PDP inlet pressure. 

Determine unique equation coefficients 

for each speed at which you operate the 

PDP. Calibrate a PDP flow meter as 

follows: 

(1) Connect the system as shown in 

Figure 1 of this section. 

(2) Leaks between the calibration flow 

meter and the PDP must be less than 

0.3% of the total flow at the lowest 

calibrated flow point; for example, at 

the highest restriction and lowest PDPspeed point. 

(3) While the PDP operates, maintain 

a constant temperature at the PDP inlet 

within ±2% of the mean absolute inlet 

temperature, Tin. 

(4) Set the PDP speed to the first 

speed point at which you intend to 

calibrate. 

(5) Set the variable restrictor to its 

wide-open position. 

(6) Operate the PDP for at least 3 min 

to stabilize the system. Continue 

operating the PDP and record the mean 

values of at least 30 seconds of sampled 

data of each of the following quantities: 

(i) The mean flow rate of the reference 

flow meter, Q

Ôref. This may include 

several measurements of different 

quantities, such as reference meter 

pressures and temperatures, for 

calculating Q

Ôref. 

(ii) The mean temperature at the PDP 

inlet, Tin. 

(iii) The mean static absolute pressure 

at the PDP inlet, pin. 

(iv) The mean static absolute pressure 

at the PDP outlet, pout. 

(v) The mean PDP speed, f

 ̄

nPDP. 

(7) Incrementally close the restrictor 

valve to decrease the absolute pressure 

at the inlet to the PDP, pin. 

(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(e)(6) and (7) of this section to record 

data at a minimum of six restrictor 

positions ranging from the wide-open 

restrictor position to the minimum 

expected pressure at the PDP inlet. 

(9) Calibrate the PDP by using the 

collected data and the equations in 

§ 1066.650(a). 

(10) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(e)(6) through (9) of this section for each 

speed at which you operate the PDP. 

(11) Use the equations in 

§ 1066.652(a) to determine the PDP flow 

equation for emission testing. 

(12) Verify the calibration by 

performing a CVS verification (i.e., 

propane check) as described in 40 CFR 

1065.341. 

(13) Ensure that the lowest inlet 

pressure tested during calibration is at 

least as low as the lowest PDP inlet 

pressure that will occur during emission 

testing. You may not use the PDP below 

the lowest inlet pressure tested during 

calibration. 

(g) SSV calibration. Calibrate each 

subsonic venturi (SSV) to determine its 

discharge coefficient, Cd, for the 

expected range of inlet pressures as 

follows: 

(1) Configure your calibration system 

as shown in Figure 1 of this section. 

(2) Verify that any leaks between the 

calibration flow meter and the SSV are 

less than 0.3% of the total flow at the 

highest restriction. 

(3) Start the blower downstream of the 

SSV. 

(4) While the SSV operates, maintain 

a constant temperature at the SSV inlet 

within ±2% of the mean absolute inlet 

temperature, Tin. 

(5) Set the variable restrictor or 

variable-speed blower to a flow rate 

greater than the greatest flow rate 

expected during testing. You may not 

extrapolate flow rates beyond calibrated 

values, so we recommend that you make 

sure the Reynolds number, Re#, at the 

SSV throat at the greatest calibrated 

flow rate is greater than the maximum 

Re# expected during testing. 

(6) Operate the SSV for at least 3 min 

to stabilize the system. Continue 

operating the SSV and record the mean 

of at least 30 seconds of sampled data 

of each of the following quantities: 

(i) The mean flow rate of the reference 

flow meter, Q

Ôref. This may include 

several measurements of different 

quantities for calculating Q

Ôref, such as 

reference meter pressures and 

temperatures. 

(ii) The mean temperature at the 

venturi inlet, Tin. 

(iii) The mean static absolute pressure 

at the venturi inlet, Pin. 

(iv) Mean static differential pressure 

between the static pressure at the 

venturi inlet and the static pressure at 

the venturi throat, DPssv. 

(7) Incrementally close the restrictor 

valve or decrease the blower speed to 

decrease the flow rate. 

(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(g)(6) and (7) of this section to record 

data at a minimum of ten flow rates. 

(9) Determine an equation to quantify 

Cd as a function of Re# by using the 

collected data and the equations in 

§ 1066.650(b). Section 1066.650 also 

includes statistical criteria for validating 

the Cd versus Re# equation. 

(10) Verify the calibration by 

performing a CVS verification (i.e., 

propane check) as described in 40 CFR 

1065.341 using the Cd versus Re#

equation. 

(11) Use the SSV only between the 

minimum and maximum calibrated flow 

rates. If you want to use the SSV at a 

higher or lower flow rate, you must 

recalibrate the SSV. 

(12) Use the equations in 

§ 1066.652(b) to determine SSV flow 

during a test. 

(h) CFV calibration. The calibration 

procedure described in this paragraph 

(h) establishes the value of the 

calibration coefficient at measured 

values of pressure, temperature and air 

flow. 

Calibrate a critical-flow venturi (CFV) 

to verify its calibration coefficient, Kv, at 

the lowest expected static differential 

pressure between the CFV inlet and 

outlet. Calibrate a CFV flow meter as 

follows: 

(1) Configure your calibration system 

as shown in Figure 1 of this section. 

(2) Verify that any leaks between the 

calibration flow meter and the CFV are 

less than 0.3% of the total flow at the 

highest restriction. 

(3) Start the blower downstream of the 

CFV. 

(4) While the CFV operates, maintain 

a constant temperature at the CFV inlet 

within ±2% of the mean absolute inlet 

temperature, Tin. 

(5) Set the variable restrictor to its 

wide-open position. Instead of a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30151 

variable restrictor, you may alternately 

vary the pressure downstream of the 

CFV by varying blower speed or by 

introducing a controlled leak. Note that 

some blowers have limitations on 

nonloaded conditions. 

(6) Operate the CFV for at least 3 min 

to stabilize the system. Continue 

operating the CFV and record the mean 

values of at least 30 seconds of sampled 

data of each of the following quantities: 

(i) The mean flow rate of the reference 

flow meter, Q

Ôref. This may include 

several measurements of different 

quantities, such as reference meter 

pressures and temperatures, for 

calculating Q

Ôref. 

(ii) The mean temperature at the 

venturi inlet, Tin. 

(iii) The mean static absolute pressure 

at the venturi inlet, pin. 

(iv) The mean static differential 

pressure between the CFV inlet and the 

CFV outlet, Dp CFV. 

(7) Incrementally close the restrictor 

valve or decrease the downstream 

pressure to decrease the differential 

pressure across the CFV, Dp CFV. 

(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(f)(6) and (7) of this section to record 

mean data at a minimum of ten 

restrictor positions, such that you test 

the fullest practical range of Dp CFV

expected during testing. We do not 

require that you remove calibration 

components or CVS components to 

calibrate at the lowest possible 

restriction. 

(9) Determine Kv and the lowest 

allowable pressure ratio, r, according to 

§ 1066.650. 

(10) Use Kv to determine CFV flow 

during an emission test. Do not use the 

CFV below the lowest allowed r, as 

determined in § 1066.650. 

(11) Verify the calibration by 

performing a CVS verification (i.e., 

propane check) as described in 40 CFR 

1065.341. 

(12) If your CVS is configured to 

operate multiple CFVs in parallel, 

calibrate your CVS using one of the 

following methods: 

(i) Calibrate every combination of 

CFVs according to this section and 

§ 1066.650(c). Refer to § 1065.652(c) for 

instructions on calculating flow rates for 

this option. 

(ii) Calibrate each CFV according to 

this section and § 1066.650. Refer to 

§ 1066.652 for instructions on 

calculating flow rates for this option. 

(i) Ultrasonic flow meter calibration. 

[Reserved] 

BILLING CODE P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30152 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1066.145 Test fuel, engine fluids, 

analytical gases, and other calibration 

standards. 

(a) Test fuel. Use test fuel as specified 

in the standard-setting part, or as 

specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart 

H, if it is not specified in the standardsetting part. 

(b) Lubricating oil. Use lubricating oil 

as specified in 40 CFR 1065.740. For 

two-stroke engines that involve a 

specified mixture of fuel and lubricating 

oil, mix the lubricating oil with the fuel 

according to the manufacturer’s 

specifications. 

(c) Coolant. For liquid-cooled engines, 

use coolant as specified in 40 CFR 

1065.745. 

(d) Analytical gases. Use analytical 

gases that meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 1065.750. 

(e) Mass standards. Use mass 

standards that meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 1065.790. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.043</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30153 

§ 1066.150 Analyzer interference and 

quench verification limit. 

Analyzers must meet the interference 

and quench verification limits in the 

following table on the lowest instrument 

range that will be used during emission 

testing, instead of those specified in 40 

CFR part 1065, subpart D: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.150–ANALYZER INTERFERENCE AND QUENCH

VERIFICATION LIMITS

Verification Limit 

40 CFR 

1065.350.

±2% of full scale. 

40 CFR 

1065.355.

±2% of full scale. 

40 CFR 

1065.370.

±2% of full scale. 

40 CFR 

1065.375.

±2% of the flow-weighted 

mean concentration of 

N2O expected at the 

standard. 

Subpart C—Dynamometer 

Specifications 

§ 1066.201 Dynamometer overview. 

This subpart addresses chassis 

dynamometers and related equipment. 

§ 1066.210 Dynamometers. 

(a) General requirements. A chassis 

dynamometer typically uses electrically 

generated load forces combined with its 

rotational inertia to recreate the 

mechanical inertia and frictional forces 

that a vehicle exerts on road surfaces 

(known as ‘‘road load’’). Load forces are 

calculated using vehicle-specific 

coefficients and response 

characteristics. The load forces are 

applied to the vehicle tires by rolls 

connected to motor/absorbers. The 

dynamometer uses a load cell to 

measure the forces the dynamometer 

rolls apply to the vehicle’s tires. 

(b) Accuracy and precision. The 

dynamometer’s output values for road 

load must be NIST-traceable. We may 

determine traceability to a specific 

international standards organization to 

be sufficient to demonstrate NISTtraceability. The force-measurement 

system must be capable of indicating 

force readings as follows: 

(1) For dynamometer testing of 

vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds 

GVWR, the dynamometer forcemeasurement system must be capable of 

indicating force readings during a test to 

a resolution of ±0.05% of the maximum 

load-cell force simulated by the 

dynamometer or ±9.8 N (±2.2 lbf), 

whichever is greater. 

(2) For dynamometers testing of 

vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR 

the force-measurement system must be 

capable of indicating force readings 

during a test to a resolution of ±0.05% 

of the maximum load-cell force 

simulated by the dynamometer or ±39.2 

N (±8.8 lbf), whichever is greater. 

(c) Test cycles. The dynamometer 

must be capable of fully simulating 

vehicle performance over applicable test 

cycles for the vehicles being tested as 

referenced in the corresponding 

standard-setting part, including 

operation at the combination of inertial 

and road-load forces corresponding to 

maximum road load conditions and 

maximum simulated inertia at the 

highest acceleration rate experienced 

during testing. 

(d) Component requirements. The 

following specifications apply: 

(1) The nominal roll diameter must be 

120 cm or greater. The dynamometer 

must have an independent drive roll for 

each drive axle as tested under 

§ 1066.410(g), except that two drive 

axles may share a single drive roll. Use 

good engineering judgment to ensure 

that the dynamometer roll diameter is 

large enough to provide sufficient tireroll contact area to avoid tire 

overheating and power losses from tireroll slippage. 

(2) Measure and record force and 

speed at 10 Hz or faster. You may 

convert measured values to 1-Hz, 2-Hz, 

or 5-Hz values before your calculations, 

using good engineering judgment. 

(3) The load applied by the 

dynamometer simulates forces acting on 

the vehicle during normal driving 

according to the following equation: 

Where: 

FR = total road-load force to be applied at the 

surface of the roll. The total force is the 

sum of the individual tractive forces 

applied at each roll surface. 

i = a counter to indicate a point in time over 

the driving schedule. For a dynamometer 

operating at 10-Hz intervals over a 600- 

second driving schedule, the maximum 

value of i should be 6,000. 

A = a vehicle-specific constant value 

representing the vehicle’s frictional load 

in lbf or newtons. See subpart D of this 

part. 

B = a vehicle-specific coefficient representing 

load from drag and rolling resistance, 

which are a function of vehicle speed, in 

lbf/mph or N·s/m. See subpart D of this 

part. 

v = linear speed at the roll surfaces as 

measured by the dynamometer, in mph 

or m/s. Let vi-1 = 0 for i = 0. 

C = a vehicle-specific coefficient representing 

aerodynamic effects, which are a 

function of vehicle speed squared, in lbf/ 

mph2 or N·s2/m2. See subpart D of this 

part. 

M = mass of the vehicle in lbm or kg. For 

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR, determine the vehicle’s mass 

based on equivalent test weight (ETW) as 

specified in § 1066.810 and set 

dynamometer inertia simulation as 

specified in § 1066.410(h). For vehicles 

above 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine 

the vehicle’s mass based on the test 

weight, taking into account the effect of 

rotating axles, as specified in 

§ 1066.310(b)(7) and dividing the weight 

by the acceleration due to gravity as 

specified in 40 CFR 1065.630, consistent 

with good engineering judgment. 

t = elapsed time in the driving schedule as 

measured by the dynamometer, in 

seconds. Let ti-1 = 0 for i = 0. 

(4) We recommend that a 

dynamometer capable of testing vehicles 

at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR be 

designed to apply an actual road-load 

force within ±1% or ±9.8 N (±2.2 lbf) of 

the reference value, whichever is 

greater. Dynamometers that do not fully 

meet this specification may be used 

consistent with good engineering 

judgment. For example, slightly higher 

errors may be permissible during highly 

transient operation for vehicles above 

8,500 pounds GVWR. 

(e) Dynamometer manufacturer 

instructions. This part specifies that you 

follow the dynamometer manufacturer’s 

recommended procedures for things 

such as calibrations and general 

operation. If you perform testing with a 

dynamometer that you manufactured or 

if you otherwise do not have these 

recommended procedures, use good 

engineering judgment to establish the 

additional procedures and 

specifications we specify in this part, 

unless we specify otherwise. Keep 

records to describe these recommended 

procedures and how they are consistent 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.044</GPH>
30154 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

with good engineering judgment, 

including any quantified error 

estimates. 

§ 1066.215 Summary of verification and 

calibration procedures for chassis 

dynamometers. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

the overall process for verifying and 

calibrating the performance of chassis 

dynamometers. 

(b) Scope and frequency. The 

following table summarizes the required 

and recommended calibrations and 

verifications described in this subpart 

and indicates when they must occur: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.215—SUMMARY OF REQUIRED DYNAMOMETER CALIBRATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS

Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequency a

§ 1066.220: Linearity verification ........................ Speed: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

Torque (load): Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.225: Roll runout and diameter 

verification.

Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.230: Time verification .............................. Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.235: Speed measurement verification .... Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.240: Torque (load) transducer 

verification.

Upon initial installation, within 7 days of testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.245: Response time verification .............. Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.250: Base inertia verification ................... Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.255: Parasitic loss verification ................ Upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verification in 

§ 1066.270 or § 1066.280. 

§ 1066.260: Parasitic friction compensation 

evaluation.

Upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verification in 

§ 1066.270 or § 1066.280. 

§ 1066.265: Acceleration and deceleration 

verification.

Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 

§ 1066.270: Unloaded coastdown verification .... Upon initial installation, within 7 days of testing, and after major maintenance.

§ 1066.280 Dynamometer readiness verification Upon initial installation, within 1 day before testing, and after major maintenance. 

aPerform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering 

judgment. 

(c) Automated dynamometer 

verifications and calibrations. In some 

cases, dynamometers are designed with 

internal diagnostic and control features 

to accomplish the verifications and 

calibrations specified in this subpart. 

You may use these automated functions 

instead of following the procedures we 

specify in this subpart to demonstrate 

compliance with applicable 

requirements, consistent with good 

engineering judgment. 

(d) Sequence of verifications and 

calibrations. Upon initial installation 

and after major maintenance, perform 

the verifications and calibrations in the 

same sequence as noted in Table 1 of 

this section, except that you may 

perform speed linearity verification after 

the verifications in §§ 1066.225 and 

1066.230. At other times, you may need 

to perform specific verifications or 

calibrations in a certain sequence, as 

noted in this subpart. If you perform 

major maintenance on a specific 

component, you are required to perform 

verifications and calibrations only on 

components or parameters that are 

affected by the maintenance. 

(e) Corrections. Unless the regulation 

directs otherwise, if the dynamometer 

fails to meet any specified calibration or 

verification, make any necessary 

adjustments or repairs such that the 

dynamometer meets the specification 

before running a test. Repairs required 

to meet specifications are generally 

considered major maintenance under 

this part. 

§ 1066.220 Linearity verification for 

chassis dynamometer systems. 

(a) Scope and frequency. Perform 

linearity verification for dynamometer 

speed and torque at least as frequently 

as indicated in Table 1 of § 1066.215. 

The intent of linearity verification is to 

determine that the system responds 

accurately and proportionally over the 

measurement range of interest. Linearity 

verification generally consists of 

introducing a series of at least 10 

reference values to a measurement 

system. The measurement system 

quantifies each reference value. The 

measured values are then collectively 

compared to the reference values by 

using a least-squares linear regression 

and the linearity criteria specified in 

Table 1 of this section. 

(b) Performance requirements. If a 

measurement system does not meet the 

applicable linearity criteria in Table 1 of 

this section, correct the deficiency by recalibrating, servicing, or replacing 

components as needed. Repeat the 

linearity verification after correcting the 

deficiency to ensure that the 

measurement system meets the linearity 

criteria. Before you may use a 

measurement system that does not meet 

linearity criteria, you must demonstrate 

to us that the deficiency does not 

adversely affect your ability to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable standards. 

(c) Procedure. Use the following 

linearity verification protocol, or use 

good engineering judgment to develop a 

different protocol that satisfies the 

intent of this section, as described in 

paragraph (a) of this section: 

(1) In this paragraph (c), the letter ‘‘y’’ 

denotes a generic measured quantity, 

the superscript over-bar denotes an 

arithmetic mean (such as y ̄), and the 

subscript ‘‘ref’’ denotes the known or 

reference quantity being measured. 

(2) Operate the dynamometer system 

at the specified operating conditions. 

This may include any specified 

adjustment or periodic calibration of the 

dynamometer system. 

(3) Set dynamometer speed and 

torque to zero. 

(4) Verify the dynamometer speed or 

torque signal based on the dynamometer 

manufacturer’s recommendations. 

(5) After verification, check for zero 

speed and torque. Use good engineering 

judgment to determine whether or not to 

rezero or re-verify speed and torque 

before continuing. 

(6) For both speed and torque, use the 

dynamometer manufacturer’s 

recommendations and good engineering 

judgment to select reference values, yrefi,

that cover a range of values that you 

expect would prevent extrapolation 

beyond these values during emission 

testing. We recommend selecting zero 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30155 

speed and zero torque as reference 

values for the linearity verification. 

(7) Use the dynamometer 

manufacturer’s recommendations and 

good engineering judgment to select the 

order in which you will introduce the 

series of reference values. For example, 

you may select the reference values 

randomly to avoid correlation with 

previous measurements and to avoid the 

influence of hysteresis; you may select 

reference values in ascending or 

descending order to avoid long settling 

times of reference signals; or you may 

select values to ascend and then 

descend to incorporate the effects of any 

instrument hysteresis into the linearity 

verification. 

(8) Set the dynamometer to operate at 

a reference condition. 

(9) Allow time for the dynamometer 

to stabilize while it measures the 

reference values. 

(10) At a recording frequency of at 

least 1 Hz, measure speed and torque 

values for 30 seconds and record the 

arithmetic mean of the recorded values, 

y ̄i. Refer to 40 CFR 1065.602 for an 

example of calculating an arithmetic 

mean. 

(11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(c)(8) though (10) of this section until 

you measure speeds and torques at each 

of the reference settings. 

(12) Use the arithmetic means, y ̄i, and 

reference values, yrefi, to calculate leastsquares linear regression parameters and 

statistical values to compare to the 

minimum performance criteria specified 

in Table 1 of this section. Use the 

calculations described in 40 CFR 

1065.602. Using good engineering 

judgment, you may weight the results of 

individual data pairs (i.e., (yrefi, y ̄), in the 

linear regression calculations. Table 1 

follows: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.220—DYNAMOMETER MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE LINEARITY VERIFICATIONS

Measurement system Quantity 

Linearity criteria 

⎢ymin(a1¥1)+a0 ⎢ a1 SEE r2

Speed ...................................... v <0.05% ·vmax ............................ 0.98–1.02 <2% ·vmax ............................... >0.990 

Torque (load) .......................... T <1% ·Tmax ................................. 0.99–1.01 <1% ·Tmax ............................... >0.990 

(d) Reference signals. Generate 

reference values for the linearityverification protocol in paragraph (c) of 

this section as described for speed and 

torque in 40 CFR 1065.307(d). 

§ 1066.225 Roll runout and diameter 

verification procedure. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

the verification procedure for roll 

runout and roll diameter. Roll runout is 

a measure of the variation in roll radius 

around the circumference of the roll. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform 

these verifications upon initial 

installation and after major maintenance 

that could affect roll surface finish or 

dimensions (such as resurfacing or 

polishing). 

(c) Roll runout procedure. Verify roll 

runout based on the following 

procedure, or an equivalent procedure 

based on good engineering judgment: 

(1) Perform this verification with 

laboratory and dynamometer 

temperatures stable and at equilibrium. 

Release the roll brake and shut off 

power to the dynamometer. Remove any 

dirt, rubber, rust, and debris from the 

roll surface. Mark measurement 

locations on the roll surface using a 

nominally permanent marker. Mark the 

roll at a minimum of four equally 

spaced locations across the roll width; 

we recommend taking measurements 

every 150 mm across the roll. Secure the 

marker to the deck plate adjacent to the 

roll surface and slowly rotate the roll to 

mark a clear line around the roll 

circumference. Repeat this process for 

all measurement locations. 

(2) Measure roll runout using an 

indicator with a probe that allows for 

measuring the position of the roll 

surface relative to the roll centerline as 

it turns through a complete revolution. 

The indicator must have some means of 

being securely mounted adjacent to the 

roll. The indicator must have sufficient 

range to measure roll runout at all 

points, with a minimum accuracy of 

±0.025 mm. Calibrate the indicator 

according to the instrument 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(3) Position the indicator adjacent to 

the roll surface at the desired 

measurement location. Position the 

shaft of the indicator perpendicular to 

the roll such that the point of the 

indicator is slightly touching the surface 

of the roll and can move freely through 

a full rotation of the roll. Zero the 

indicator according to the instrument 

manufacturer’s instructions. Avoid 

distortion of the runout measurement 

from the weight of a person standing on 

or near the mounted dial indicator. 

(4) Slowly turn the roll through a 

complete rotation and record the 

maximum and minimum values from 

the indicator. Calculate runout as the 

difference between these maximum and 

minimum values. 

(5) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(c)(3) and (4) of this section for all 

measurement locations. 

(6) The roll runout must be less than 

0.254 mm (0.0100 inches) at all 

measurement locations. 

(d) Diameter procedure. Verify roll 

diameter based on the following 

procedure, or an equivalent procedure 

based on good engineering judgment: 

(1) Prepare the laboratory and the 

dynamometer as specified in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section. 

(2) Measure roll diameter using a Pi 

Tape®. Orient the Pi Tape® to the 

marker line at the desired measurement 

location with the Pi Tape® hook pointed 

outward. Temporarily secure the Pi 

Tape® to the roll near the hook end with 

adhesive tape. Slowly turn the roll, 

wrapping the Pi Tape® around the roll 

surface. Ensure that the Pi Tape® is flat 

and adjacent to the marker line around 

the full circumference of the roll. Attach 

a 2.26-kg weight to the hook of the Pi 

Tape® and position the roll so that the 

weight dangles freely. Remove the 

adhesive tape without disturbing the 

orientation or alignment of the Pi 

Tape®. 

(3) Overlap the gage member and the 

vernier scale ends of the Pi Tape® to 

read the diameter measurement to the 

nearest 0.01 mm. Follow the 

manufacturer’s recommendation to 

correct the measurement to 20 °C, if 

applicable. 

(4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(d)(2) and (3) of this section for all 

measurement locations. 

(5) The measured roll diameter must 

be within ±0.254 mm of the specified 

nominal value at all measurement 

locations. You may revise the nominal 

value to meet this specification, as long 

as you use the corrected nominal value 

for all calculations in this subpart. 

§ 1066.230 Time verification procedure. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

how to verify the accuracy of the 

dynamometer’s timing device. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification upon initial installation and 

after major maintenance. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30156 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Procedure. Perform this 

verification using one of the following 

procedures: 

(1) WWV method. You may use the 

time and frequency signal broadcast by 

NIST from radio station WWV as the 

time standard if the trigger for the 

dynamometer timing circuit has a 

frequency decoder circuit, as follows: 

(i) Contact station WWV by telephone 

by dialing (303) 499–7111 and listen for 

the time announcement. Verify that the 

trigger started the dynamometer timer. 

Use good engineering judgment to 

minimize error in receiving the time and 

frequency signal. 

(ii) After at least 1000 seconds, re-dial 

station WWV and listen for the time 

announcement. Verify that the trigger 

stopped the dynamometer timer. 

(iii) Compare the measured elapsed 

time, yact, to the corresponding time 

standard, yref, to determine the time 

error, yerror, using the following 

equation: 

(2) Ramping method. You may use an 

operator-defined ramp function to serve 

as the time standard as follows: 

(i) Set up a signal generator to output 

a marker voltage at the peak of each 

ramp to trigger the dynamometer timing 

circuit. Output the designated marker 

voltage to start the verification period. 

(ii) After at least 1000 seconds, output 

the designated marker voltage to end the 

verification period. 

(iii) Compare the measured elapsed 

time between marker signals, yact, to the 

corresponding time standard, yref, to 

determine the time error, yerror, using Eq. 

1066.230–1. 

(3) Dynamometer coastdown method. 

You may use a signal generator to 

output a known speed ramp signal to 

the dynamometer controller to serve as 

the time standard as follows: 

(i) Generate upper and lower speed 

values to trigger the start and stop 

functions of the coastdown timer 

circuit. Use the signal generator to start 

the verification period. 

(ii) After at least 1000 seconds, use 

the signal generator to end the 

verification period. 

(iii) Compare the measured elapsed 

time between trigger signals, yact, to the 

corresponding time standard, yref, to 

determine the time error, yerror, using Eq. 

1066.230–1. 

(d) Performance evaluation. The time 

error determined in paragraph (c) of this 

section may not exceed ±0.001%. 

§ 1066.235 Speed verification procedure. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

how to verify the accuracy of the 

dynamometer speed determination. 

When performing this verification, you 

must also verify the dynamometer speed 

at any devices used to display or record 

vehicle speed (for example a driver’s 

aid) is representative of the speed input 

from the dynamometer speed 

determination. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification upon initial installation, 

within 370 days before testing, and after 

major maintenance. 

(c) Procedure. Use one of the 

following procedures to verify the 

accuracy and resolution of the 

dynamometer speed simulation: 

(1) Pulse method. Connect a universal 

frequency counter to the output of the 

dynamometer’s speed-sensing device in 

parallel with the signal to the 

dynamometer controller. The universal 

frequency counter must be calibrated 

according to the counter manufacturer’s 

instructions and be capable of 

measuring with enough accuracy to 

perform the procedure as specified in 

this paragraph (c)(1). Make sure the 

instrumentation does not affect the 

signal to the dynamometer control 

circuits. Determine the speed error as 

follows: 

(i) Set the dynamometer to speedcontrol mode. Set the dynamometer 

speed to a value of approximately 4.5 

m/s (10 mph); record the output of the 

frequency counter after 10 seconds. 

Determine the roll speed, vact, using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

f = frequency of the dynamometer speed 

sensing device, accurate to at least four 

significant figures. 

droll = nominal roll diameter, accurate to the 

nearest 1.0 mm, consistent with 

§ 1066.225(d). 

n = the number of pulses per revolution from 

the dynamometer roll speed sensor. 

Example: 

f = 2.9231 Hz = 2.9231 s¥1

droll = 904.40 mm = 0.90440 m 

n = 1 pulse/rev 

nact = 8.3053 m/s 

(ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph 

(c)(1)(i) of this section for the maximum 

speed expected during testing and at 

least two additional evenly spaced 

speed points between the starting speed 

and the maximum speed point. 

(iii) Compare the calculated roll 

speed, vact, to each corresponding speed 

set point, vref, to determine values for 

speed error at each set point, verror, using 

the following equation: 

Example: 

vact = 8.3053 m/s 

vref = 8.3000 m/s 

verror = 8.3053¥8.3000 = 0.0053 m/s 

(2) Frequency method. Install a piece 

of tape in the shape of an arrowhead on 

the surface of the dynamometer roll near 

the outer edge. Put a reference mark on 

the deck plate in line with the tape. 

Install a stroboscope or photo 

tachometer on the deck plate and direct 

the flash toward the tape on the roll. 

The stroboscope or photo tachometer 

must be calibrated according to the 

instrument manufacturer’s instructions 

and be capable of measuring with 

enough accuracy to perform the 

procedure as specified in this paragraph 

(c)(2). Determine the speed error as 

follows: 

(i) Set the dynamometer to speed 

control mode. Set the dynamometer 

speed to a speed value of approximately 

4.5 m/s (10 mph). Tune the stroboscope 

or photo tachometer until the signal 

matches the dynamometer roll speed. 

Record the frequency. Determine the 

roll speed, yact, using Eq. 1066.235–1, 

using the stroboscope or photo 

tachometer’s frequency for f. 

(ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section for the maximum 

speed expected during testing and at 

least two additional evenly spaced 

speed points between the starting speed 

and the maximum speed point. 

(iii) Compare the calculated roll 

speed, vact, to each corresponding speed 

set point, vref, to determine values for 

speed error at each set point, yerror, using 

Eq. 1066.235–2. 

(d) Performance evaluation. The 

speed error determined in paragraph (c) 

of this section may not exceed ±0.02 

m/s at any speed set point. 

§ 1066.240 Torque transducer verification. 

Verify torque-measurement systems 

by performing the verifications 

described in §§ 1066.270 and 1066.280. 

§ 1066.245 Response time verification. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

how to verify the dynamometer’s 

response time to a tractive effort force 

step change. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification upon initial installation, 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.144</GPH> EP21MY13.045</GPH> EP21MY13.046</GPH> EP21MY13.047</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30157 

within 370 days before testing (i.e., 

annually), and after major maintenance. 

(c) Procedure. Use the dynamometer’s 

automated process to verify response 

time. You may perform this test either 

at two different inertia settings 

corresponding approximately to the 

minimum and maximum vehicle 

weights you expect to test or using base 

inertia and two acceleration rates that 

cover the range of acceleration rates 

experienced during testing (for example 

0.5 and 8 mph/s). Use good engineering 

judgment to select road-load coefficients 

representing vehicles of the appropriate 

weight. Determine the dynamometer’s 

settling response time, ts, based on the 

point at which there are no measured 

results more than 10% above or below 

the final equilibrium value, as 

illustrated in Figure 1 of this section. 

The observed settling response time 

must be less than 100 milliseconds for 

each inertia setting. 

§ 1066.250 Base inertia verification. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

how to verify the dynamometer’s base 

inertia. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification upon initial installation and 

after major maintenance (such as 

maintenance that could affect roll 

assembly inertia). 

(c) Procedure. Verify the base inertia 

using the following procedure: 

(1) Warm up the dynamometer 

according to the dynamometer 

manufacturer’s instructions. Set the 

dynamometer’s road-load inertia to zero, 

turning off any electrical simulation of 

road load and inertia so that the base 

inertia of the dynamometer is the only 

inertia present, and motor the rolls to 5 

mph. Apply a constant force to 

accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 

1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed time to 

accelerate from 10 to 40 mph, noting the 

corresponding speed and time points to 

the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. Also 

determine average force over the 

measurement interval. 

(2) Starting from a steady roll speed 

of 45 mph, apply a constant force to the 

roll to decelerate the roll at a nominal 

rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed 

time to decelerate from 40 to 10 mph, 

noting the corresponding speed and 

time points to the nearest 0.01 mph and 

0.01 s. Also determine average force 

over the measurement interval. 

(3) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (2) of this section for a total 

of five sets of results at the nominal 

acceleration rate and the nominal 

deceleration rate. 

(4) Use good engineering judgment to 

select two additional acceleration and 

deceleration rate pairs that cover the 

middle and upper rates expected during 

testing. Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section at each 

of these additional acceleration and 

deceleration rates. 

(5) Determine the base inertia, Ib, for 

each measurement interval using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

F = average dynamometer force over the 

measurement interval as measured by 

the dynamometer. 

vfinal = roll surface speed at the end of the 

measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 

mph. 

vinitial = roll surface speed at the start of the 

measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 

mph. 

Dt≤ = elapsed time during the measurement 

interval to the nearest 0.01 s. 

Example: 

F = 1.500 lbf = 48.26 ft·lbm/s2

vfinal = 40.00 mph = 58.67 ft/s 

vinitial = 10.00 mph = 14.67 ft/s 

Dt≤ = 30.00 s 

Ib = 32.90 lbm 

(6) Calculate the base inertia error, 

Iberror, for each of the thirty measured 

base inertia values, Ib, by comparing it 

to the manufacturer’s stated base inertia, 

Ibref, using the following equation: 

Example: 

Ibref = 32.96 lbm 

Ibact = 32.90 lbm (from paragraph (c)(5) 

of this section) 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.048</GPH> EP21MY13.049</GPH> EP21MY13.050</GPH> EP21MY13.051</GPH>
30158 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Iberror = 0.18% 

(7) Determine the base inertia 

arithmetic mean value, I

 ̄

b, from the ten 

acceleration and deceleration interval 

base inertia values for each of the three 

acceleration/deceleration rates. Then 

determine the base inertia arithmetic 

mean value, I

 ̄

b, from the three 

acceleration/deceleration rate mean base 

inertia values. Calculate base inertia 

mean values as described in 40 CFR 

1065.602(b). 

(8) Calculate the inertia error for the 

final mean base inertia value from 

paragraph (c)(7) of this section. Use Eq. 

1066.250–2, substituting the final mean 

base inertia value from paragraph (c)(7) 

of this section for the individual base 

inertia. 

(d) Performance evaluation. The 

dynamometer must meet the following 

specifications to be used for testing 

under this part: 

(1) All base inertia errors determined 

under paragraph (c)(6) of this section 

may not exceed ±1.0%. 

(2) The mean base inertia error 

determined under paragraph (c)(8) of 

this section may not exceed ±0.20%. 

§ 1066.255 Parasitic loss verification. 

(a) Overview. Verify the 

dynamometer’s parasitic loss as 

described in this section, and correct as 

necessary. This procedure determines 

the dynamometer’s internal losses that it 

must overcome to simulate road load. 

Characterize these losses in a parasitic 

loss curve that the dynamometer uses to 

apply compensating forces to maintain 

the desired road-load force at the roll 

surface. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification upon initial installation, 

after major maintenance, and upon 

failure of a verification in either 

§ 1066.270 or § 1066.280. 

(c) Procedure. Perform this 

verification by following the 

dynamometer manufacturer’s 

specifications to establish a parasitic 

loss curve, taking data at fixed speed 

intervals to cover the range of vehicle 

speeds that will occur during testing. 

You may zero the load cell at a selected 

speed if that improves your ability to 

determine the parasitic loss. Parasitic 

loss forces may never be negative. Note 

that the torque transducers must be 

zeroed and spanned prior to performing 

this procedure. 

(d) Performance evaluation. Some 

dynamometers automatically updates 

the parasitic loss curve for further 

testing. If this is not the case, compare 

the new parasitic loss curve to the 

original parasitic loss curve from the 

dynamometer manufacturer or the most 

recent parasitic loss curve you 

programmed into the dynamometer. 

You may reprogram the dynamometer to 

accept the new curve in all cases, and 

you must reprogram the dynamometer if 

any point on the new curve departs 

from the earlier curve by more than 

±9.0 N for dynamometers capable of 

testing vehicles at or below 20,000 

pounds GVWR or ±36.0 N (±8.0 lbf) for 

dynamometers not capable of testing 

vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds 

GVWR. 

§ 1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation 

evaluation. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

how to verify the accuracy of the 

dynamometer’s friction compensation. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification upon initial installation, 

after major maintenance, and upon 

failure of a verification in either 

§ 1066.270 or § 1066.280. Note that this 

procedure relies on proper calibration of 

speed and torque, as described in 

§§ 1066.235 and 1066.240. You must 

also first verify the dynamometer’s 

parasitic loss curve as specified in 

§ 1066.255. 

(c) Procedure. Use the following 

procedure to verify the accuracy of the 

dynamometer’s friction compensation: 

(1) Warm up the dynamometer as 

specified by the dynamometer 

manufacturer. 

(2) Perform a torque verification as 

specified by the dynamometer 

manufacturer. For torque verifications 

relying on shunt procedures, if the 

results do not conform to specifications, 

recalibrate the dynamometer using 

NIST-traceable standards as appropriate 

until the dynamometer passes the 

torque verification. Do not change the 

dynamometer’s base inertia to pass the 

torque verification. 

(3) Set the dynamometer inertia to the 

base inertia with the road-load 

coefficients A, B, and C set to 0. Set the 

dynamometer to speed-control mode 

with a target speed of 50 mph or a 

higher speed recommended by the 

dynamometer manufacturer. Once the 

speed stabilizes at the target speed, 

switch the dynamometer from speed 

control to torque control and allow the 

roll to coast for 60 seconds. Record the 

initial and final speeds and the 

corresponding start and stop times. If 

friction compensation is executed 

perfectly, there will be no change in 

speed during the measurement interval. 

(4) Calculate the power equivalent of 

friction compensation error, FCerror,

using the following equation: 

Where: 

I = dynamometer inertia setting. 

t = duration of the measurement interval, 

accurate to at least 0.01 s. 

vinit = the roll speed corresponding to the 

start of the measurement interval, 

accurate to at least 0.05 mph. 

vfinal = the roll speed corresponding to the 

end of the measurement interval, 

accurate to at least 0.05 mph. 

Example: 

I = 2000 lbm = 62.16 lbf· s2/ft 

t = 60.0 s 

vinit = 9.2 mph = 13.5 ft/s 

vfinal = 10.0 mph = 14.7 ft/s 

FCerror = –16.5 ft·lbf/s = ¥0.031 hp 

(5) The friction compensation error 

may not exceed ±0.15 hp for 

dynamometers capable of testing 

vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds 

GVWR, or ±0.6 hp for dynamometers 

not capable of testing vehicles at or 

below 20,000 pounds GVWR. 

§ 1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration 

verification. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

how to verify the dynamometer’s ability 

to achieve targeted acceleration and 

deceleration rates. Paragraph (c) of this 

section describes how this verification 

applies when the dynamometer is 

programmed directly for a specific 

acceleration or deceleration rate. 

Paragraph (d) of this section describes 

how this verification applies when the 

dynamometer is programmed with a 

calculated force to achieve a targeted 

acceleration or deceleration rate. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification or an equivalent procedure 

upon initial installation and after major 

maintenance that could affect 

acceleration and deceleration accuracy. 

Note that this procedure relies on 

proper calibration of speed as described 

in § 1066.235. 

(c) Verification of acceleration and 

deceleration rates. Activate the 

dynamometer’s function generator for 

measuring roll revolution frequency. If 

the dynamometer has no such function 

generator, set up a properly calibrated 

external function generator consistent 

with the verification described in this 

paragraph (c). Use the function 

generator to determine actual 

acceleration and deceleration rates as 

the dynamometer traverses speeds 

between 10 and 40 mph at various 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.052</GPH> EP21MY13.053</GPH> EP21MY13.054</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30159 

nominal acceleration and deceleration 

rates. Verify the dynamometer’s 

acceleration and deceleration rates as 

follows: 

(1) Set up start and stop frequencies 

specific to your dynamometer by 

identifying the roll-revolution 

frequency, f, in revolutions per second 

(or Hz) corresponding to 10 mph and 40 

mph vehicle speeds, accurate to at least 

four significant figures, using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

v = the target roll speed, in inches per second 

(corresponding to drive speeds of 10 

mph or 40 mph). 

n = the number of pulses from the 

dynamometer’s roll-speed sensor per roll 

revolution. 

droll = roll diameter, in inches. 

(2) Program the dynamometer to 

accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 

1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. 

Measure the elapsed time to reach the 

target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. 

Repeat this measurement for a total of 

five runs. Determine the actual 

acceleration rate for each run, aact, using 

the following equation: 

Where: 

aact = acceleration rate (decelerations have 

negative values). 

vfinal = the target value for the final roll speed. 

vinit = the setpoint value for the initial roll 

speed. 

t = time to accelerate from vinit to vfinal.

Example: 

vfinal = 40 mph 

vinit = 10 mph 

t = 30.003 s 

aact = 0.999 mph/s 

(3) Program the dynamometer to 

decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 

1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. 

Measure the elapsed time to reach the 

target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. 

Repeat this measurement for a total of 

five runs. Determine the actual 

acceleration rate, aact, using Eq. 

1066.265–2 

(4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs 

(c)(2) and (3) of this section for 

additional acceleration and deceleration 

rates in 1 mph/s increments up to and 

including one increment above the 

maximum acceleration rate expected 

during testing. Average the five repeat 

runs to calculate a mean acceleration 

rate, a ̄ act, at each setting. 

(5) Compare each mean acceleration 

rate, a ̄ act, to the corresponding nominal 

acceleration rate, aref, to determine 

values for acceleration error, aerror, using 

the following equation: 

Example: 

a ̄ act> = 0.999 mph/s 

aref = 1 mph/s 

aerror = ¥0.100% 

(d) Verification of forces for 

controlling acceleration and 

deceleration. Program the dynamometer 

with a calculated force value and 

determine actual acceleration and 

deceleration rates as the dynamometer 

traverses speeds between 10 and 40 

mph at various nominal acceleration 

and deceleration rates. Verify the 

dynamometer’s ability to achieve certain 

acceleration and deceleration rates with 

a given force as follows: 

(1) Calculate the force setting, F, using 

the following equation: 

Where: 

Ib = the dynamometer manufacturer’s stated 

base inertia, in lbf·s2/ft. 

a = nominal acceleration rate, in ft/s2. 

Example: 

Ib = 2967 lbm = 92.217 lbf· s2/ft 

a = 1 mph/s = 1.4667 ft/s2

F= 92.217 · ⎢1.4667⎢ 

F = 135.25 lbf 

(2) Set the dynamometer to road-load 

mode and program it with a calculated 

force to accelerate the roll at a nominal 

rate of 1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. 

Measure the elapsed time to reach the 

target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. 

Repeat this measurement for a total of 

five runs. Determine the actual 

acceleration rate, aact, for each run using 

Eq. 1066.265–2. Repeat this step to 

determine measured ‘‘negative 

acceleration’’ rates using a calculated 

force to decelerate the roll at a nominal 

rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. 

Average the five repeat runs to calculate 

a mean acceleration rate, a ̄ act, at each 

setting. 

(3) Repeat the steps in paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section for additional 

acceleration and deceleration rates as 

specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this 

section. 

(4) Compare each mean acceleration 

rate, a ̄ act, to the corresponding nominal 

acceleration rate, aref, to determine 

values for acceleration error, aerror, using 

Eq. 1066.265–3 

(e) Performance evaluation. The 

acceleration error from paragraphs (c)(5) 

and (d)(4) of this section may not exceed 

±1.0%. 

§ 1066.270 Unloaded coastdown 

verification. 

(a) Overview. Use force measurements 

to verify the dynamometer’s settings 

based on coastdown procedures. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification upon initial installation, 

within 7 days of testing, and after major 

maintenance. 

(c) Procedure. This procedure verifies 

the dynamometer’s settings derived 

from coastdown testing. For 

dynamometers that have an automated 

process for this procedure, perform this 

evaluation by setting the initial speed, 

final speed, inertial coefficients, and 

road-load coefficients as required for 

each test, using good engineering 

judgment to ensure that these values 

properly represent in-use operation. Use 

the following procedure if your 

dynamometer does not perform this 

verification with an automated process: 

(1) Warm up the dynamometer as 

specified by the dynamometer 

manufacturer. 

(2) With the dynamometer in 

coastdown mode, set the dynamometer 

inertia for the smallest vehicle weight 

that you expect to test and set A, B, and 

C road-load coefficients to values 

typical of those used during testing. 

Program the dynamometer to coast 

down over the dynamometer 

operational speed range (typically from 

a speed of 80 mph through a minimum 

speed at or below 10 mph). Perform at 

least one coastdown over this speed 

range, collecting data over each 10 mph 

interval. 

(3) Repeat the steps in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section with the 

dynamometer inertia and road-load 

coefficients set for the largest vehicle 

weight that you expect to test. 

(4) Determine the average coastdown 

force, F, for each speed and inertia 

setting for each of the coastdowns 

performed using the following equation: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.055</GPH> EP21MY13.056</GPH> EP21MY13.057</GPH> EP21MY13.058</GPH> EP21MY13.059</GPH> EP21MY13.060</GPH>
30160 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

F = the average force measured during the 

coastdown for each speed interval and 

inertia setting, expressed in lbf· s2/ft and 

rounded to four significant figures. 

I = the dynamometer’s inertia setting, in lbf· 

s2/ft. 

vinit = the speed at the start of the coastdown, 

expressed in ft/s and rounded to four 

significant figures. 

vfinal = the speed at the end of the coastdown 

interval, rounded to four significant 

figures. 

t = coastdown time for each speed and inertia 

setting, accurate to at least 0.01 s. 

Example: 

I = 2000 lbm = 65.17 lbf · s2/ft 

vinit = 25 mph = 36.66 ft/s 

vfinal = 15 mph = 22.0 ft/s 

t = 5.00 s 

F = 191.1 lbf 

(5) Calculate the target value of 

coastdown force, Fref, based on the 

applicable dynamometer parameters for 

each speed and inertia setting. 

(6) Compare the mean value of the 

coastdown force measured for each 

speed and inertia setting, F ̄ act, to the 

corresponding Fref to determine values 

for coastdown force error, Ferror, using 

the following equation: 

Example: 

Fref = 192 lbf 

F ̄ act = 191 lbf 

Ferror = 0.5% 

(d) Performance evaluation. The 

coastdown force error determined in 

paragraph (c) of this section may not 

exceed the following: 

(1) For vehicles at or below 20,000 

pounds GVWR, calculate Ferrormax from 

the following formula: 

Example: 

Fref = 192 lbf 

Ferrormax (%) = (2.2/192)·100 = 1.14% 

(2) For vehicles above 20,000 pounds 

GVWR, the maximum allowable error, 

Ferrormax, for all speed and inertia settings 

is ±1.0% or ±39.2 N, whichever is 

greater. 

(e) If the dynamometer is not able to 

meet this requirement, diagnose and 

repair the dynamometer before 

continuing with emission testing. 

Diagnosis should include performing 

the verifications in § 1066.255 and 

§ 1066.260. 

§ 1066.280 Daily dynamometer readiness 

verification. 

(a) Overview. This section describes 

how to verify that the dynamometer is 

ready for emission testing. 

(b) Scope and frequency. Perform this 

verification upon initial installation, 

within 1 day before testing, and after 

major maintenance. 

(c) Procedure. For dynamometers that 

have an automated process for this 

verification procedure, perform this 

evaluation by setting the initial speed 

and final speed and the inertial and 

road-load coefficients as required for the 

test, using good engineering judgment to 

ensure that these values properly 

represent in-use operation. Use the 

following procedure if your 

dynamometer does not perform this 

verification with an automated process: 

(1) With the dynamometer in 

coastdown mode, set the dynamometer 

inertia to the base inertia with the roadload coefficient A set to 20 lbf (or a force 

that results in a coastdown time of less 

than 10 minutes) and coefficients B and 

C set to 0. Program the dynamometer to 

coast down for one 10 mph interval 

from 55 mph down to 45 mph. If your 

dynamometer is not capable of 

performing one discrete coastdown, 

then coast down with preset 10 mph 

intervals that include a 55 mph to 45 

mph interval. 

(2) Perform the coastdown. 

(3) Determine the coastdown force 

and coastdown force error using Eqs. 

1066.270–1 and 1066.270–2. 

(d) Performance evaluation. The 

coastdown force error determined in 

paragraph (c) of this section may not 

exceed the following: 

(1) For vehicles at or below 20,000 

pounds GVWR, ±1.0% or ±9.8 N (±2.2 

lbf), whichever is greater. 

(2) For vehicles above 20,000 pounds 

GVWR, ±1.0% or ±39.2 N (±8.8 lbf), 

whichever is greater. 

(e) If the verification results fail to 

meet the performance criteria in 

paragraph (d) of this section, perform 

the procedure up to two additional 

times. If the dynamometer is 

consistently unable to meet the 

performance criteria, diagnose and 

repair the dynamometer before 

continuing with emission testing. 

Diagnosis should include performing 

the verifications in § 1066.255 and 

§ 1066.260. 

§ 1066.290 Driver’s aid. 

Use good engineering judgment to 

provide a driver’s aid that facilitates 

compliance with the requirements of 

§ 1066.430. Verify the speed accuracy of 

the driver’s aid as described in 

§ 1066.235. 

Subpart D—Coastdown 

§ 1066.301 Overview of coastdown 

procedures. 

(a) The coastdown procedures 

described in this subpart are used to 

determine the load coefficients (A, B, 

and C) for the simulated road-load 

equation in § 1066.210(d)(3). 

(b) The general procedure for 

performing coastdown tests and 

calculating load coefficients is described 

in SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1066.1010). This subpart specifies 

certain deviations from those 

procedures for certain applications. 

(c) Use good engineering judgment for 

all aspects of coastdown testing. For 

example, minimize the effects of grade 

by performing coastdown testing on 

reasonably level surfaces and 

determining coefficients based on 

average values from vehicle operation in 

opposite directions over the course. 

§ 1066.305 Coastdown procedures for 

motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR. 

For motor vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR, develop representative 

road-load coefficients to characterize 

each test vehicle. Calculate road-load 

coefficients by performing coastdowns 

using the provisions of SAE J1263 and 

SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 1066.1010). Perform coastdowns at a 

starting speed as specified in SAE J2263, 

or at the highest speed from the range 

of applicable duty cycles. Use the same 

road-load coefficients for all duty 

cycles. However, if your test conditions 

are substantially different from the 

conditions represented by your roadload coefficients, such as coldtemperature testing, you may use good 

engineering judgment to develop 

separate road-load coefficients. 

§ 1066.310 Coastdown procedures for 

vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. 

This section describes coastdown 

procedures that are unique to vehicles 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.061</GPH> EP21MY13.062</GPH> EP21MY13.063</GPH> EP21MY13.064</GPH> EP21MY13.065</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30161 

above 14,000 pounds GVWR. These 

procedures are valid for calculating 

road-load coefficients for chassis and 

post-transmission powerpack testing 

and for calculating drag area (CDA) for 

use in the GEM simulation tool under 

40 CFR part 1037. 

(a) Determine load coefficients by 

performing a minimum of 16 valid 

coastdown runs (8 in each direction). 

(b) Follow the provisions of Sections 

1 through 9 of SAE J1263, and SAE 

J2263 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 1066.1010), except as described in this 

paragraph (b). The terms and variables 

identified in this paragraph (b) have the 

meaning given in SAE J1263 or J2263 

unless specified otherwise. 

(1) The test condition specifications of 

SAE J1263 apply except as follows for 

wind and road conditions: 

(i) We recommend that you do not 

perform coastdown testing on days for 

which winds are forecast to exceed 6.0 

mph. 

(ii) The grade of the test track or road 

must not be excessive (considering 

factors such as road safety standards 

and effects on the coastdown results). 

Road conditions should follow Section 

7.4 of SAE J1263, except that road grade 

may exceed 0.5%. If road grade is 

greater than 0.02% over the length of 

the test surface, then the road grade as 

a function of distance along the length 

of the test surface must be incorporated 

into the analysis. To calculate the force 

due to grade use Section 11.5 of SAE 

J2263. 

(2) Operate the vehicle at a top speed 

above 70 mph, or at its maximum 

achievable speed if it cannot reach 70 

mph. If a vehicle is equipped with a 

vehicle speed limiter that is set for a 

maximum speed below 70 mph, you 

must disable the vehicle speed limiter. 

Start the test at or above 70 mph or at 

the vehicle’s maximum achievable 

speed if it cannot reach 70 mph. Collect 

data through a minimum speed at or 

below 15 mph. Data analysis for valid 

coastdown runs must include a 

maximum speed as described in this 

paragraph (b)(2) and a minimum speed 

of 15 mph. 

(3) Gather data regarding wind speed 

and direction, in coordination with 

time-of-day data, using at least one 

stationary electro-mechanical 

anemometer and suitable data loggers 

meeting the specifications of SAE J1263, 

as well as the following additional 

specifications for the anemometer 

placed adjacent to the test surface: 

(i) Calibrate the equipment by running 

the zero-wind and zero-angle 

calibrations within 24 hours before 

conducting the coastdown procedures. 

If the coastdown procedures are not 

complete 24 hours after calibrating the 

equipment, repeat the calibration for 

another 24 hours of data collection. 

(ii) Record the location of the 

anemometer using a GPS measurement 

device adjacent to the test surface 

(approximately) at the midway distance 

along the test surface used for 

coastdowns. 

(iii) Position the anemometer such 

that it will be at least 2.5 but not more 

than 3.0 vehicle widths from the test 

vehicle’s centerline as the test vehicle 

passes the location of that anemometer. 

(iv) Mount the anemometer at a height 

that is within 6 inches of half the test 

vehicle’s maximum height. 

(v) Place the anemometer at least 50 

feet from the nearest tree and at least 25 

feet from the nearest bush (or equivalent 

roadside features). 

(vi) The height of the grass 

surrounding the stationary anemometer 

may not exceed 10% of the 

anemometer’s mounted height, within a 

radius equal to the anemometer’s 

mounted height. 

(4) You may split runs as per Section 

9.3.1 of SAE J2263, but we recommend 

whole runs. If you split a run, analyze 

each portion separately, but count the 

split runs as one run with respect to the 

minimum number of runs required. 

(5) You may perform consecutive runs 

in a single direction, followed by 

consecutive runs in the opposite 

direction, consistent with good 

engineering judgment. Harmonize 

starting and stopping points to the 

extent practicable to allow runs to be 

paired. 

(6) All valid coastdown run times in 

each direction must be within 2.0 

standard deviations of the mean of the 

valid coastdown run times (from 70 

mph down to 15 mph) in that direction. 

Eliminate runs outside this range. After 

eliminating these runs you must have at 

least eight valid runs in each direction. 

You may use coastdown run times that 

do not meet these standard deviation 

requirements if we approve it in 

advance. In your request, describe why 

the vehicle is not able to meet the 

specified standard deviation 

requirements and propose an alternative 

set of requirements. 

(7) Analyze data for chassis and posttransmission powerpack testing or for 

use in the GEM simulation tool as 

follows: 

(i) Follow the procedures specified in 

Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 11 

of SAE J2263 to calculate coefficients for 

chassis and post-transmission 

powerpack testing. 

(ii) Determine drag area, CDA as 

follows instead of using the procedure 

specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263: 

(A) Measure vehicle speed at fixed 

intervals over the coastdown run 

(generally at 10 Hz), including speeds at 

or above 15 mph and at or below 70 

mph. Establish the height or altitude 

corresponding to each interval as 

described in SAE J2263 if you need to 

incorporate the effects of road grade. 

(B) Calculate the vehicle’s effective 

mass, Me, in kg by adding 56.7 kg to the 

measured vehicle mass for each tire 

making road contact. This accounts for 

the rotational inertia of the wheels and 

tires. 

(C) Calculate the road-load force for 

each measurement interval, Fi, for 

values of i ≥ 1 using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

Me = the vehicle’s effective mass, expressed 

to at least the nearest 0.1 kg. 

v = vehicle speed at the beginning and end 

of the measurement interval. 

Dt = elapsed time over the measurement 

interval, in seconds. 

(D) Plot the data from all the 

coastdown runs on a single plot of Fi vs. 

vi

2 to determine the slope correlation, D, 

based on the following equation: 

Where: 

g = gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s2. 

Dh = change in height or altitude over the 

measurement interval, in m. Assume Dh 

= 0 if you are not correcting for grade. 

Ds = distance the vehicle travels down the 

road during the measurement interval, in 

m. 

Am = the calculated value of the y-intercept 

based on the curve-fit. 

(E) Calculate drag area, CDA, in m2

using the following equation: 

Where: 

r = air density at reference conditions = 1.17 

kg/m3. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.066</GPH> EP21MY13.067</GPH> EP21MY13.068</GPH>
30162 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

T ̄ b,= average ambient absolute temperature 

during testing, in K. 

P ̄ b,= average ambient pressuring during the 

test, in kPa. 

(8) Determine the A, B, and C 

coefficients identified in § 1066.210 as 

follows: 

(i) For chassis and post-transmission 

powerpack testing, follow the 

procedures specified in Section 10 of 

SAE J1263 or Section 12 of SAE J2263. 

(ii) For the GEM simulation tool, use 

the following values: 

A = Am

B = 0 

C = Dadj

§ 1066.320 Dynamometer road-load 

setting. 

Determine dynamometer road-load 

settings for chassis testing by following 

SAE J2264 (incorporated by reference in 

§ 1066.1010). 

Subpart E— Preparing Vehicles and 

Running an Exhaust Emission Test 

§ 1066.401 Overview. 

(a) Use the procedures detailed in this 

subpart to measure vehicle emissions 

over a specified drive schedule. 

Different procedures may apply for 

criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas 

emissions as described in subpart I of 

this part or the standard-setting part. 

This subpart describes how to: 

(1) Determine road-load power, test 

weight, and inertia class. 

(2) Prepare the vehicle, equipment, 

and measurement instruments for an 

emission test. 

(3) Perform pre-test procedures to 

verify proper operation of certain 

equipment and analyzers and to prepare 

them for testing. 

(4) Record pre-test data. 

(5) Sample emissions. 

(6) Record post-test data. 

(7) Perform post-test procedures to 

verify proper operation of certain 

equipment and analyzers. 

(8) Weigh PM samples. 

(b) The overall test generally consists 

of prescribed sequences of fueling, 

parking, and driving at specified test 

conditions. An exhaust emission test 

generally consists of measuring 

emissions and other parameters while a 

vehicle follows the drive schedules 

specified in the standard-setting part. 

There are two general types of test 

cycles: 

(1) Transient cycles. Transient test 

cycles are typically specified in the 

standard-setting part as a second-bysecond sequence of vehicle speed 

commands. Operate a vehicle over a 

transient cycle such that the speed 

follows the target values. Proportionally 

sample emissions and other parameters 

and use the calculations in 40 CFR part 

1065, subpart G, or subpart G of this 

part to calculate emissions. The 

standard-setting part may specify three 

types of transient testing based on the 

approach to starting the measurement, 

as follows: 

(i) A cold-start transient cycle where 

you start to measure emissions just 

before starting an engine that has not 

been warmed up. 

(ii) A hot-start transient cycle where 

you start to measure emissions just 

before starting a warmed-up engine. 

(iii) A hot running transient cycle 

where you start to measure emissions 

after an engine is started, warmed up, 

and running. 

(2) Cruise cycles. Cruise test cycles are 

typically specified in the standardsetting part as a discrete operating point 

that has a single speed command. 

(i) Start a cruise cycle as a hot running 

test, where you start to measure 

emissions after the engine is started and 

warmed up and the vehicle is running 

at the target test speed. 

(ii) Sample emissions and other 

parameters for the cruise cycle in the 

same manner as a transient cycle, with 

the exception that the reference speed 

value is constant. Record instantaneous 

and mean speed values over the cycle. 

§ 1066.407 Vehicle preparation and 

preconditioning. 

Prepare the vehicle for testing 

(including measurement of evaporative 

and refueling emissions, as required) as 

described in the standard-setting part. 

§ 1066.410 Dynamometer test procedure. 

(a) Dynamometer testing may consist 

of multiple drive cycles with both coldstart and hot-start portions, including 

prescribed soak times before each test 

interval. The standard-setting part 

identifies the driving schedules and the 

associated sample intervals, soak 

periods, engine startup and shutdown 

procedures, and operation of 

accessories, as applicable. Not every test 

interval includes all these elements. 

(b) Place the vehicle onto the 

dynamometer without starting the 

engine (for cold-start test cycles) or 

drive the vehicle onto dynamometer (for 

hot-start and hot-running cycles only) 

and position a fan that directs cooling 

air to the vehicle during dynamometer 

operation as described in this paragraph 

(b). This generally requires squarely 

positioning the fan in front of the 

vehicle and directing the airflow to the 

vehicle’s radiator. Use good engineering 

judgment to design and configure fans 

to cool the test vehicle in a way that 

properly simulates in-use operation, 

consistent with the specifications of 

§ 1066.105. Except for the following 

special cases, use a road-speed 

modulated fan meeting the requirements 

of § 1066.105(c)(2) or (d) that is placed 

within 90 cm of the front of the vehicle 

and ensure that the engine compartment 

cover is closed: 

(1) For SC03 and AC17 testing, use a 

road-speed modulated fan meeting the 

requirements of § 1066.105(c)(3). 

Position the discharge nozzle such that 

its lowest point is not more than 16 cm 

above the floor of the test cell. 

(2) For FTP, LA–92, US06, or HFET 

testing of vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR, you may use a fixedspeed fan meeting the requirements of 

§ 1066.105(c)(4) or (c)(5) as specified in 

the following table, with the engine 

compartment cover open: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.410—FIXEDSPEED FAN CAPACITY AND POSITION

SPECIFICATIONS

Test 

cycle 

Maximum fan 

capacity 

Approximate 

distance from 

the front of 

the vehicle 

FTP ... Up to 2.50 m3/s ....... 0 to 30 cm 

US06 2.50 m3/s to 7.10 

m3/s.

0 to 60 cm 

LA–92 Up to 2.50 m3/s ....... 0 to 30 cm 

HFET Up to 2.50 m3/s ....... 0 to 30 cm 

(c) Record the vehicle’s speed trace 

based on the time and speed data from 

the dynamometer. Record speed to at 

least the nearest 0.01 mph and time to 

at least the nearest 0.01 s. 

(d) You may perform practice runs for 

operating the vehicle and the 

dynamometer controls to meet the 

driving tolerances specified in 

§ 1066.430 or adjust the emission 

sampling equipment. Verify that the 

accelerator pedal allows for enough 

control to closely follow the prescribed 

driving schedule. We recommend that 

you verify your ability to meet the 

minimum dilution factor requirements 

of § 1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B) during these 

practice runs. 

(e) Inflate tires on drive wheels 

according to the vehicle manufacturer’s 

specifications. The tire pressure for 

drive wheels must be the same for 

dynamometer operation and for 

dynamometer coastdown procedures 

used for determining road-load 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.069</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30163 

coefficients. Report these tire pressure 

values with the test results. 

(f) Tie down or load the test vehicle 

as needed to provide a normal force at 

the tire and dynamometer roll interface 

to prevent wheel slip. For vehicles 

above 14,000 pounds GVWR, report this 

force with the test results. 

(g) For vehicles which provide fourwheel drive or all-wheel drive 

operation, utilize the vehicle’s normal 

(default) mode of operation. (For 

purposes of this paragraph (g), the term 

four-wheel drive includes other 

multiple drive axle configurations.) This 

may involve testing four-wheel drive or 

all-wheel drive on a dynamometer with 

a separate dynamometer roll for each 

drive axle. Alternatively, two drive 

axles may use a single roll, as described 

in § 1066.210(d)(1). You may also test 

the vehicle on a single roll by 

deactivating the second set of drive 

wheels, but only if this mode of 

operation does not decrease emissions 

or energy consumption relative to 

normal in-use operation. We may test 

such vehicles in four-wheel or all-wheel 

mode on one or more rolls to confirm 

that the alternate dynamometer 

procedures did not decrease emissions. 

(h) Determine test weight as follows: 

(1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR, determine ETW as 

described in § 1066.810. Set 

dynamometer vehicle inertia, I, based 

on dynamometer type, as follows: 

(i) For two-wheel drive 

dynamometers, set I = ETW. 

(ii) For four-wheel drive 

dynamometers, set I = 0.985·ETW. 

(2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds 

GVWR, determine the vehicle’s effective 

mass as described in 1066.310. This is 

the test weight. 

(i) Warm up the dynamometer as 

recommended by the dynamometer 

manufacturer. 

(j) Following the test, determine the 

actual driving distance by counting the 

number of dynamometer roll or shaft 

revolutions, or by integrating speed over 

the course of testing from a highresolution encoder system. 

§ 1066.420 Vehicle operation. 

This section describes how to test a 

conventionally configured vehicle 

(vehicles with transmission shifters, foot 

pedal accelerators, etc). You may ask us 

to modify these procedures for vehicles 

that do not have these control features. 

(a) Start the vehicle as follows: 

(1) At the beginning of the test cycle, 

start the vehicle according to the 

procedure described in the owners 

manual. In the case of hybrid vehicles, 

this would generally involve activating 

vehicle systems such that the engine 

will start when the vehicle’s control 

algorithms determine that the engine 

should provide power instead of or in 

addition to power from the rechargeable 

energy storage system (RESS). Unless 

we specify otherwise, engine starting 

throughout this part generally refers to 

this step of activating the system on 

hybrid vehicles, whether or not that 

causes the engine to start running. 

(2) Place the transmission in gear as 

described by the test cycle in the 

standard-setting part. During idle 

operation, apply the brakes if necessary 

to keep the drive wheels from turning. 

(b) If the vehicle does not start after 

your recommended maximum cranking 

time, wait and restart cranking 

according to your recommended 

practice. If you do not recommend such 

a cranking procedure, stop cranking 

after 10 seconds, wait for 10 seconds, 

then start cranking again for up to 10 

seconds. You may repeat this for up to 

three start attempts. If the vehicle does 

not start after three attempts, you must 

determine and record the reason for 

failure to start. Shut off sampling 

systems and either turn the CVS off or 

disconnect the exhaust tube from the 

tailpipe during the diagnostic period to 

prevent flow through the exhaust 

system. Reschedule the vehicle for 

testing. This may require performing 

vehicle preparation and preconditioning 

if the testing needs to be rerun from a 

cold start. If failure to start occurs 

during a hot-start test, you may 

reschedule the hot-start test without 

repeating the cold-start test, as long as 

you bring the vehicle to a hot-start 

condition before starting the hot-start 

test. 

(c) Repeat the recommended starting 

procedure if the engine has a false start 

(i.e., an incomplete start). 

(d) Take the following steps if the 

engine stalls: 

(1) If the engine stalls during an idle 

period, restart the engine immediately 

and continue the test. If you cannot 

restart the engine soon enough to allow 

the vehicle to follow the next 

acceleration, stop the driving schedule 

indicator and reactivate it when the 

vehicle restarts. 

(2) Void the test if the vehicle stalls 

during vehicle operation. If this 

happens, remove the vehicle from the 

dynamometer, take corrective action, 

and reschedule the vehicle for testing. 

Record the reason for the malfunction (if 

determined) and any corrective action. 

See the standard-setting part for 

instructions about reporting these 

malfunctions. 

(e) Operate vehicles during testing as 

follows: 

(1) Where we do not give specific 

instructions, operate the vehicle 

according to the recommendations in 

the owners manual, unless those 

recommendations are unrepresentative 

of what may reasonably be expected for 

in-use operation. 

(2) If vehicles have features that 

preclude dynamometer testing, you may 

modify these features as necessary to 

allow testing, consistent with good 

engineering judgment, as long as it does 

not affect your ability to show that your 

vehicles comply with standards. Send 

us written notification describing these 

changes along with supporting 

rationale. 

(3) Operate vehicles during idle as 

follows: 

(i) For vehicles with automatic 

transmission, operate at idle with the 

transmission in ‘‘Drive’’ with the wheels 

braked, except that you may shift to 

‘‘Neutral’’ for the first idle period and 

for any idle period longer than one 

minute. If you put the vehicle in 

‘‘Neutral’’ during an idle, you must shift 

the vehicle into ‘‘Drive’’ with the wheels 

braked at least 5 seconds before the end 

of the idle period. Note that this does 

not preclude vehicle designs involving 

engine operation with stop-start 

functions where the engine stops when 

the brake is applied below a certain 

threshold speed and restarts upon 

release of the brake. 

(ii) For vehicles with manual 

transmission, operate at idle with the 

transmission in gear with the clutch 

disengaged, except that you may shift to 

‘‘Neutral’’ with the clutch engaged for 

the first idle period and for any idle 

period longer than one minute. If you 

put the vehicle in ‘‘Neutral’’ during idle, 

you must shift to first gear with the 

clutch disengaged at least 5 seconds 

before the end of the idle period. Note 

that this does not preclude vehicle 

designs involving engine operation with 

stop-start functions where the engine 

stops when the clutch is disengaged 

below a certain threshold speed and 

restarts upon reengagement of the 

clutch. 

(4) Operate the vehicle with the 

appropriate accelerator pedal movement 

necessary to achieve the speed versus 

time relationship prescribed by the 

driving schedule. Avoid smoothing 

speed variations and excessive 

accelerator pedal perturbations. 

(5) Operate the vehicle smoothly, 

following representative shift speeds 

and procedures. For manual 

transmissions, the operator shall release 

the accelerator pedal during each shift 

and accomplish the shift with minimum 

time. If the vehicle cannot accelerate at 

the specified rate, operate it at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30164 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

maximum available power until the 

vehicle speed reaches the value 

prescribed for that time in the driving 

schedule. 

(6) Decelerate as follows: 

(i) For vehicles with automatic 

transmission, use the brakes or 

accelerator pedal as necessary, without 

manually changing gears, to maintain 

the desired speed. 

(ii) For vehicles with manual 

transmission, shift gears in a way that 

represents reasonable shift patterns for 

in-use operation, considering vehicle 

speed, engine speed, and any other 

relevant variables. Disengage the clutch 

when the speed drops below 15 mph, 

when engine roughness is evident, or 

when good engineering judgment 

indicates the engine is likely to stall. 

Manufacturers may recommend shift 

guidance in the owners manual that 

differs from the shift schedule during 

testing as long as both shift schedules 

are included in the application for 

certification. In this case, we may use 

the shift schedule based on the shift 

pattern described in the owners manual. 

§ 1066.425 Test preparation. 

(a) Follow the procedures for PM 

sample preconditioning and tare 

weighing as described in 40 CFR 

1065.590 if you need to measure PM 

emissions. 

(b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds 

GVWR with compression-ignition 

engines, verify the amount of 

nonmethane hydrocarbon 

contamination as described in 40 CFR 

1065.520(g). 

(c) Unless the standard-setting part 

specifies different tolerances, verify at 

some point before the test that ambient 

conditions are within the tolerances 

specified in this paragraph (c). For 

purposes of this paragraph (c), ‘‘before 

the test’’ means any time from a point 

just prior to engine starting (excluding 

engine restarts) to the point at which 

emission sampling begins. 

(1) Ambient temperature must be (20 

to 30) °C. See § 1066.430(i) for 

circumstances under which ambient 

temperatures must remain within this 

range during the test. 

(2) Dilution air conditions must meet 

the specifications in § 1066.110(b)(2). 

We recommend verifying dilution air 

conditions just before starting each test 

interval. 

(d) Control test cell ambient air 

humidity as follows: 

(1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR, follow the humidity 

requirements in Table 1 of this section, 

unless the standard-setting part 

specifies otherwise. When complying 

with humidity requirements in the 

table, where no tolerance is specified, 

use good engineering judgment to 

maintain the humidity level near the 

specified value within the limitations of 

your test facility. 

(2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds 

GVWR, you may test vehicles at any 

humidity. 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.425—TEST CELL HUMIDITY REQUIREMENTS

Test cycle 

Humidity 

requirement 

(grains H2O per 

pound dry air) 

Tolerance 

(grains H2O per pound dry air) 

AC17 ...................................................................................................................................... 69 ±5 average, ≤± 10 instantaneous. 

FTP1 and LA–92 .................................................................................................................... 50

HFET ...................................................................................................................................... 50 

SC03 ...................................................................................................................................... 100 ±5. 

US06 ...................................................................................................................................... 50 

1FTP humidity requirement does not apply for cold (¥7 °C), intermediate (10 °C), and hot (35 °C) temperature testing. 

(e) You may perform a final 

calibration of proportional-flow control 

systems, which may include performing 

practice runs. 

(f) You may perform the following 

procedure to precondition sampling 

systems: 

(1) Operate the vehicle over the test 

cycle. 

(2) Operate any dilution systems at 

their expected flow rates. Prevent 

aqueous condensation in the dilution 

systems as described in 40 CFR 

1065.140(c)(6), taking into account 

allowances given in § 1066.110(b)(2)(iv). 

(3) Operate any PM sampling systems 

at their expected flow rates. 

(4) Sample PM using any sample 

media. You may change sample media 

during preconditioning. You must 

discard preconditioning samples 

without weighing them. 

(5) You may purge any gaseous 

sampling systems during 

preconditioning. 

(6) You may conduct calibrations or 

verifications on any idle equipment or 

analyzers during preconditioning. 

(g) Take the following steps before 

emission sampling begins: 

(1) For batch sampling, connect clean 

storage media, such as evacuated bags or 

tare-weighed filters. 

(2) Start all measurement instruments 

according to the instrument 

manufacturer’s instructions and using 

good engineering judgment. 

(3) Start dilution systems, sample 

pumps, and the data-collection system. 

(4) Pre-heat or pre-cool heat 

exchangers in the sampling system to 

within their operating temperature 

tolerances for a test. 

(5) Allow heated or cooled 

components such as sample lines, 

filters, chillers, and pumps to stabilize 

at their operating temperatures. 

(6) Adjust the sample flow rates to 

desired levels using bypass flow, if 

desired. 

(7) Zero or re-zero any electronic 

integrating devices before the start of 

any test interval. 

(8) Select gas analyzer ranges. You 

may not switch the gain of an analyzer’s 

analog operational amplifier(s) during a 

test. However, you may switch 

(automatically or manually) gas analyzer 

ranges during a test if such switching 

changes only the range over which the 

digital resolution of the instrument is 

applied. 

(9) Zero and span all continuous gas 

analyzers using gases that meet the 

specifications of 40 CFR 1065.750. For 

FID analyzers, you may account for the 

carbon number of your span gas either 

during the calibration process or when 

calculating your final emission value. 

For example, if you use a C3H8 span gas 

of concentration 200 ppm (mmol/mol), 

you may span the FID to respond with 

a value of 600 ppm (mmol/mol) of 

carbon or 200 ppm of propane. 

However, if your FID response is 

equivalent to propane, include a factor 

of three to make the final calculated 

hydrocarbon mass consistent with a 

molar mass of 13.875389. When 

utilizing an NMC–FID, span the FID 

analyzer consistent with the 

determination of their respective 

response factors, RF, and penetration 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30165 

fractions, PF, according to 40 CFR 

1065.365. 

(10) We recommend that you verify 

gas analyzer responses after zeroing and 

spanning by sampling a calibration gas 

that has a concentration near one-half of 

the span gas concentration. Based on the 

results, use good engineering judgment 

to decide whether or not to re-zero, respan, or re-calibrate a gas analyzer 

before starting a test. 

(11) If you correct for dilution air 

background concentrations of associated 

engine exhaust constituents, start 

sampling and recording background 

concentrations at the same time you 

start sampling exhaust gases. 

(12) Turn on cooling fans immediately 

before starting the test. 

(h) Proceed with the test sequence 

described in § 1066.430. 

§ 1066.430 Performing emission tests. 

(a) See the standard-setting part for 

drive schedules. These are defined by a 

smooth fit of a specified speed vs. time 

sequence. 

(b) The driver must attempt to follow 

the target schedule as closely as 

possible, consistent with the 

specifications in paragraph (b) of this 

section. Instantaneous speeds must stay 

within the following tolerances: 

(1) The upper limit is 2.0 mph higher 

than the highest point on the trace 

within 1.0 s of the given point in time. 

(2) The lower limit is 2.0 mph lower 

than the lowest point on the trace 

within 1.0 s of the given time. 

(3) The same limits apply for vehicle 

operation without exhaust 

measurements, such as vehicle 

preconditioning and warm-up, except 

that the upper and lower limits for 

speed values are ±4.0 mph. In addition, 

up to three occurrences of speed 

variations greater than the tolerance are 

acceptable for vehicle operation without 

exhaust measurements, as long as they 

occur for less than 15 seconds on any 

occasion and are clearly documented as 

to the time and speed at that point of the 

driving schedule. 

(4) Void the test if you do not 

maintain speed values as specified in 

this paragraph (b), except as allowed by 

this paragraph (b)(4). Speed variations 

(such as may occur during gear changes 

or braking spikes) may occur as follows, 

provided that such variations are clearly 

documented, including the time and 

speed values and the reason for the 

deviation: 

(i) Speed variations greater than the 

specified limits are acceptable for up to 

2.0 seconds on any occasion. 

(ii) For vehicles that are not able to 

maintain acceleration as specified in 

§ 1066.420(e)(5), do not count the 

insufficient acceleration as being 

outside the specified limits. 

(5) We may approve an alternate test 

cycle and cycle-validation criteria for 

vehicles that do not have enough power 

to follow the specified driving trace. 

The alternate driving specifications 

must be based on making best efforts to 

maintain acceleration and speed to 

follow the specified test cycle. We must 

approve these alternate driving 

specifications before you perform this 

testing. 

(c) Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this 

section show the range of acceptable 

speed tolerances for typical points 

during testing. Figure 1 of this section 

is typical of portions of the speed curve 

that are increasing or decreasing 

throughout the 2-second time interval. 

Figure 2 of this section is typical of 

portions of the speed curve that include 

a maximum or minimum value. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30166 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(d) Start testing as follows: 

(1) If a vehicle is already running and 

warmed up, and starting is not part of 

the test cycle, operate the vehicle as 

follows: 

(i) For transient test cycles, control 

vehicle speeds to follow a drive 

schedule consisting of a series of idles, 

accelerations, cruises, and 

decelerations. 

(ii) For cruise test cycles, control the 

vehicle operation to match the speed of 

the first interval of the test cycle. Follow 

the instructions in the standard-setting 

part to determine how long to stabilize 

the vehicle during each interval, how 

long to sample emissions at each 

interval, and how to transition between 

intervals. 

(2) If engine starting is part of the test 

cycle, start recording continuous data, 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.070</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30167 

any electronic integrating devices, and 

batch sampling before starting the 

engine. Initiate the driver’s trace when 

the engine starts. 

(e) Perform the following at the end of 

each test interval, except as specified in 

subpart I of this part: 

(1) Shut down the vehicle if it is part 

of the test cycle or if testing is complete. 

(2) Continue to operate all sampling 

and dilution systems to allow the 

response times to elapse. Then stop all 

sampling and recording, including 

background sampling. Finally, stop any 

integrating devices and indicate the end 

of the duty cycle in the recorded data. 

(f) If testing involves engine shutdown 

followed by another test interval, start a 

timer for the vehicle soak when the 

engine shuts down. Turn off cooling 

fans, close the vehicle hood (if 

applicable), and turn off the CVS or 

disconnect the exhaust tube from the 

tailpipe(s) of the vehicle unless 

otherwise instructed in the standardsetting part. If testing is complete, 

disconnect the exhaust tube from the 

vehicle tailpipe(s) and drive the vehicle 

from dynamometer. 

(g) Take the following steps after 

emission sampling is complete: 

(1) For any proportional batch sample, 

such as a bag sample or PM sample, 

verify that proportional sampling was 

maintained according to 40 CFR 

1065.545. Void any samples that did not 

maintain proportional sampling 

according to those specifications. 

(2) Place any used PM samples into 

covered or sealed containers and return 

them to the PM-stabilization 

environment. Follow the PM sample 

post-conditioning and total weighing 

procedures in 40 CFR 1065.595. 

(3) As soon as practical after the 

interval or test cycle is complete, or 

optionally during the soak period if 

practical, perform the following: 

(i) Begin drift check for all continuous 

gas analyzers as described in paragraph 

(g)(6) of this section and zero and span 

all batch gas analyzers as soon as 

practical prior to any batch sample 

analysis. You may perform this batch 

analyzer zero and span prior to the end 

of the test cycle or interval. 

(ii) Analyze any conventional gaseous 

batch samples (HC, CH4, CO, NOX, and 

CO2) no later than 30 minutes after an 

interval or test cycle is complete, or 

during the soak period if practical. 

Analyze background samples no later 

than 60 minutes after the test cycle is 

complete. 

(iii) Analyze nonconventional gaseous 

batch samples (including background), 

such as NMHCE, N2O, or NMOG 

sampling with ethanol, as soon as 

practicable using good engineering 

judgment. 

(4) Range validation. If an analyzer 

operated above 100% of its range at any 

time during the test, perform the 

following steps: 

(i) For batch sampling, re-analyze the 

sample using the lowest analyzer range 

that results in a maximum instrument 

response below 100%. Report the result 

from the lowest range from which the 

analyzer operates below 100% of its 

range. 

(ii) For continuous sampling, repeat 

the entire test using the next higher 

analyzer range. If the analyzer again 

operates above 100% of its range, repeat 

the test using the next higher range. 

Continue to repeat the test until the 

analyzer consistently operates at less 

than 100% of its range. Keep records of 

any tests where the analyzer exceeds its 

range. We may consider these results to 

be failures, consistent with good 

engineering judgment. 

(5) After quantifying exhaust gases, 

verify drift as follows: 

(i) For batch and continuous gas 

analyzers, record the mean analyzer 

value after stabilizing a zero gas to the 

analyzer. Stabilization may include time 

to purge the analyzer of any sample gas, 

plus any additional time to account for 

analyzer response. 

(ii) Record the mean analyzer value 

after stabilizing the span gas to the 

analyzer. Stabilization may include time 

to purge the analyzer of any sample gas, 

plus any additional time to account for 

analyzer response. 

(iii) Use these data to validate that 

analyzer drift does not exceed 2.0% of 

the analyzer full scale. 

(h) [Reserved] 

(i) Measure and record ambient 

pressure. Measure and record ambient 

temperature continuously to verify that 

it remains within the temperature range 

specified in § 1066.425(c)(1) throughout 

the test. Also measure humidity if 

required, such as for correcting NOX

emissions, or meeting the requirements 

of § 1066.425(d). 

(j) For vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR, determine overall driver 

accuracy as follows: 

(1) Compare the following drive cycle 

metrics, based on measured vehicle 

speeds, to a reference value based on the 

target cycle that would have been 

generated by driving exactly to the 

target trace as described in SAE J2951 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1066.1010). 

(i) Determine the Energy Economy 

Rating as described in Section 5.4 of 

SAE J2951. 

(ii) Determine the Absolute Speed 

Change Rating as described in Section 

6.1.2 of SAE J2951. 

(iii) Calculate the Inertia Work Rating, 

IR, using the both the sums of the 

incremental driven and the target inertia 

work as described in Eq. 1066.430–1. 

Where: 

FIDi = the driven inertial force over an 

interval i, as described by Equation 18 of 

SAE J2951. 

FIDj = the target inertial force over an interval 

j, as described by Equation 19 of SAE 

J2951. 

DDi = the incremental driven distance over an 

interval i, as described by Equation 12 of 

SAE J2951. 

DDj = the incremental target distance over an 

interval j, as described by Equation 13 of 

SAE J2951. 

(2) The standard-setting part may 

require you to provide to us 10 Hz data 

to characterize both target and actual 

values for cycle energy. Calculate target 

values based on the vehicles speeds 

from the specified test cycle. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.072</GPH>
30168 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart F—Hybrids and Electric 

Vehicles 

§ 1066.501 Overview. 

For HEV, PHEV, and pure electric 

vehicle (EV), use the following 

procedures: 

(a) Correct the results for Net Energy 

Change of the RESS as follows: 

(1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR, follow SAE J1711 

(incorporated by reference in 

§ 1066.1010) except as noted in this 

paragraph (a). Use ±1% of reading or 

±0.3% of full scale, whichever is greater, 

in place of the current measurement 

accuracy in Section 4.2a of SAE J1711. 

(2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds 

GVWR, follow SAE J2711 (incorporated 

by reference in § 1066.1010) for 

requirements related to chargesustaining operation. 

(3) For pure EVs, irrespective of 

GVWR, follow SAE J1634 (incorporated 

by reference in § 1066.1010). 

(b) This paragraph (b) applies for 

vehicles that include an engine-powered 

generator or other auxiliary power unit 

that provides motive power. For 

example, this would include a vehicle 

that has a small gasoline engine that 

generates electricity to charge batteries. 

Unless we approve otherwise, measure 

emissions for all test cycles when such 

an engine is operating. For each test 

cycle for which emissions are not 

measured, you must validate that such 

engines are not operating at any time 

during the test cycle. 

Subpart G—Calculations 

§ 1066.601 Overview. 

(a) This subpart describes calculations 

used to determine emission rates. See 

the standard setting part and the other 

provisions of this part to determine 

which equations apply for your testing. 

This subpart describes how to— 

(1) Use the signals recorded before, 

during, and after an emission test to 

calculate distance-specific emissions of 

each regulated pollutant. 

(2) Perform calculations for 

calibrations and performance checks. 

(3) Determine statistical values. 

(b) You may use data from multiple 

systems to calculate test results for a 

single emission test, consistent with 

good engineering judgment. You may 

also make multiple measurements from 

a single batch sample, such as multiple 

weighing of a PM filter or multiple 

readings from a bag sample. Although 

you may use an average of multiple 

measurements from a single test, you 

may not use test results from multiple 

emission tests to report emissions. We 

allow weighted means where 

appropriate, such as for sampling onto 

a PM filter over the FTP. You may 

discard statistical outliers, but you must 

report all results. 

§ 1066.610 Mass-based and molar-based 

exhaust emission calculations. 

(a) Calculate your total mass of 

emissions over a test cycle as specified 

in paragraph (c) of this section or in 40 

CFR part 1065, subpart G, as applicable. 

(b) For composite emission 

calculations over multiple test intervals 

and corresponding weighting factors, 

see the standard-setting part. 

(c) To calculate total mass emissions, 

multiply a concentration by its 

respective flow and density as specified 

in Eq. 1066.610–1. Before calculating 

mass emissions as specified in 

paragraph (d) and (e) of this section, 

perform the following sequence of 

preliminary calculations to correct 

recorded concentration measurements: 

(1) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds 

GVWR, correct all THC and CH4

concentrations for initial contamination 

as described in 40 CFR 1065.660(a), 

including continuous readings, sample 

bag readings, and dilution air 

background readings. This correction is 

optional for vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR. 

(2) Correct all concentrations 

measured on a ‘‘dry’’ basis to a ‘‘wet’’ 

basis, including dilution air background 

concentrations. 

(3) Calculate all NMHC and CH4

concentrations, including dilution air 

background concentrations, as described 

in 40 CFR 1065.660. 

(4) For vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR, calculate HC 

concentrations, including dilution air 

background concentrations, as described 

in this section and § 1066.665 for 

NMOG. For emission testing of vehicles 

above 14,000 pounds GVWR, with fuels 

that contain 25% or more oxygenated 

compounds by volume, calculate HC 

concentrations, including dilution air 

background concentrations, as described 

in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, for THCE 

and NMHCE. 

(5) Correct all NOX emission values 

for test cell ambient air humidity as 

described in § 1066.630. 

(6) Correct all gaseous concentrations 

for dilution air background as described 

in § 1066.620. 

(7) Correct all PM filter masses for 

sample media buoyancy as described in 

40 CFR 1065.690. 

(d) Calculate the emission mass of 

each gaseous pollutant using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

m[emission] = emission mass over the test 

interval. 

Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the 

test interval at standard reference 

conditions, corrected for any volume 

removed for emission sampling and the 

addition of secondary dilution air (if 

applicable). 

r[emission] = density of the appropriate 

chemical species as given in 

§ 1066.1005(f). 

c[emission] = measured emission concentration 

in the sample, after dry-to-wet and 

background corrections. 

c = 10¥2 for emission concentrations % and 

10 6 for emission concentrations in 

ppm. 

Example: 

Vmix = 170.878 m3 (from paragraph (f) of 

this section) 

rNOx = 1913 g/m3

cNOx = 0.9721 ppm 

c = 10¥6

mNOx = 170.878·1913·0.9721·10¥6 = 

0.3177 g 

(e) The calculation of PM is 

dependent on how many PM filters are 

used (for example as described in 

§ 1066.822(b)), as follows: 

(1) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(e)(2) and (3) of this section, calculate 

mPM using the following equation: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.073</GPH> EP21MY13.074</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30169 

Where: 

mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions 

over the test interval, as described in 

§ 1066.820(b)(1), (2), and (3). 

Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the 

test interval at standard reference 

conditions, corrected for any volume 

removed for emissions sampling and the 

addition of secondary dilution air (if 

applicable). 

Vsdastd = total volume of secondary dilution 

air flow sampled through the filter over 

the test phase at standard temperature 

and pressure. 

mPMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions 

on the filter over the test interval. 

mPMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the 

background filter. 

Example: 

Vmix = 170.878 m3 (from paragraph (f) of 

this section) 

VPMstd = 0.925 m3 (from paragraph (f) of 

this section) 

Vsdastd = 0.527 m3 (from paragraph (f) of 

this section) 

mPMfil = 0.0000045 g 

mPMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

(2) If you sample PM onto a single 

filter as described in § 1066.820(b)(4), 

calculate mPM using the following 

equation: 

Eq. 1066.610–3 

Where: 

mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions 

over the entire FTP as sampled according 

to § 1066.820(b)(4). 

Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the 

test interval at standard reference 

conditions, corrected for any volume 

removed for emissions sampling and the 

addition of secondary dilution air (if 

applicable). 

V[interval]-PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust 

sampled through the filter over the test 

interval (ct = cold transient, s = 

stabilized, ht = hot transient) at standard 

reference conditions. 

V[interval]-sdastd = total volume of secondary 

dilution air sampled through the filter 

over the test interval (ct = cold transient, 

s = stabilized, ht = hot transient) at 

standard reference conditions. 

mPMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions 

on the filter over the test interval. 

mPMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the 

background filter. 

Example: 

Vmix = 633.691 m3

Vct-PMstd = 0.925 m3

Vct-sdastd = 0.527 m3

Vs-PMstd = 1.967 m3

Vs-sdastd = 1.121 m3

Vht-PMstd = 1.122 m3

Vht-sdastd = 0.639 m3

mPMfil = 0.0000106 g 

mPMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

mpm = 0.00222 g 

(3) If you sample PM onto a single 

filter as described in § 1066.820(b)(5), 

calculate mPM using the following 

equation: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.075</GPH> EP21MY13.076</GPH> EP21MY13.077</GPH> EP21MY13.078</GPH>
30170 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions 

over the entire FTP as sampled according 

to § 1066.820(b)(5). 

Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the 

test interval at standard reference 

conditions, corrected for any volume 

removed for emissions sampling and the 

addition of secondary dilution air (if 

applicable). 

V[interval]-PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust 

sampled through the filter over the test 

interval (ct = cold transient, cs = cold 

stabilized, ht = hot transient, hs = hot 

stabilized) at standard reference 

conditions. 

V[interval]-sdastd = total volume of secondary 

dilution air sampled through the filter 

over the test interval (ct = cold transient, 

cs = cold stabilized, ht = hot transient, 

hs = hot stabilized) at standard reference 

conditions. 

mPMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions 

on the filter over the test interval. 

mPMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the 

background filter. 

Example: 

Vmix = 972.121 m3

Vct-PMstd = 0.925 m3

Vct-sdastd = 0.529 m3

Vcs-PMstd = 1.968 m3

Vcs-sdastd = 1.123 m3

Vht-PMstd = 1.122 m3

Vht-sdastd = 0.641 m3

Vhs-PMstd = 1.967 m3

Vhs-sdastd = 1.121 m3

mPMfil = 0.0000229 g 

mPMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

MPM = 0.00155 g 

(f) This paragraph (f) describes how to 

correct flow and flow rates to standard 

reference conditions and provides an 

example for determining Vmix based on 

CVS total flow and the removal of 

sample flow from the dilute exhaust gas. 

(1) Correct flow and flow rates to 

standard reference conditions as needed 

using the following equation: 

Where: 

V[flow]std = total volume of flow at the flow 

meter at standard reference conditions. 

V[flow]act = total volume of flow at the flow 

meter at test conditions. 

pin = absolute static pressure at the flow 

meter inlet, measured directly or 

calculated as the sum of atmospheric 

pressure plus a differential pressure 

referenced to atmospheric pressure. 

Tstd = standard temperature. 

pstd = standard pressure. 

Tin = average temperature of the dilute 

exhaust sample at the flow meter inlet. 

Example: 

VPMact = 1.071 m3

pin = 101.7 kPa 

Tstd = 293.15 K 

pstd = 101.325 kPa 

Tin = 340.5 K 

(2) The following example provides a 

determination of Vmix based on CVS 

total flow and the removal of sample 

flow from one dilute exhaust gas 

analyzer and one PM sampling system 

that is utilizing secondary dilution. Note 

that your Vmix determination may vary 

from Eq. 1066.610–6 based on the 

number of flows that are removed from 

your dilute exhaust gas and whether 

your PM sampling system is using 

secondary dilution. For this example, 

Vmix is governed by the following 

equation: 

Where: 

VCVSstd = total dilute exhaust volume over the 

test interval at the flow meter at standard 

reference conditions. 

Vgasstd = total volume of sample flow through 

the gaseous emission bench over the test 

interval at standard reference conditions. 

VPMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust 

sampled through the filter over the test 

interval at standard reference conditions. 

Vsdastd = total volume of secondary dilution 

air flow sampled through the filter over 

the test interval at standard reference 

conditions. 

Example: 

Using Eq. 1066.610–5 

VCVSstd = 170.451 m3, where VCVSact

= 170.721 m3, pin = 101.7 kPa, and 

Tin = 294.7 K 

Using Eq. 1066.610–5 

Vgasstd = 0.028 m3, where Vgasact

= 0.033 m3, pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin

= 340.5 K 

Using Eq. 1066.610–5 

VPMstd = 0.925 m3, where VPMact

= 1.071 m3, pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin

= 340.5 K 

Using Eq. 1066.610–5 

Vsdastd = 0.527 m3, where Vsdaact

= 0.531 m3, pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin

= 296.3 K 

Vmix = 170.451 + 0.028 + 0.925 ¥ 0.527 

= 170.878 m3

(g) Total sample volume over a test 

interval. Calculate total flow, V[flow], for 

a CVS or exhaust gas sampler as follows: 

(1) Varying versus constant flow rates. 

The calculation methods depend on 

differentiating varying and constant 

flow, as follows: 

(i) We consider the following to be 

examples of varying flows that require 

a continuous multiplication of 

concentration times volumetric flow 

rate: raw exhaust, exhaust diluted with 

a constant flow rate of dilution air, and 

CVS dilution with a CVS flow meter 

that does not have an upstream heat 

exchanger or electronic flow control. 

(ii) We consider the following to be 

examples of constant exhaust flows: 

CVS diluted exhaust with a CVS flow 

meter that has an upstream heat 

exchanger, an electronic flow control, or 

both. 

(2) Continuous sampling. For 

continuous sampling, you must 

frequently record a continuously 

updated flow signal. This recording 

requirement applies for both varying 

and constant flow rates. 

(i) Varying flow rate. If you 

continuously sample from a varying 

exhaust flow rate, calculate V[flow] using 

the following equation: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.079</GPH> EP21MY13.080</GPH> EP21MY13.081</GPH> EP21MY13.082</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30171 

Where: 

Example: 

N = 505 

Q ̇ CVS1 = 0.276 m3/s 

Q ̇ CVS2 = 0.294 m3/s 

ƒrecord = 1 Hz 

Using Eq. 1066.610–8, 

Dt = 1/1 = 1 s 

VCVS = (0.276+0.294+...+Q ̇ QCVS505) · 1 

VCVS = 170.721 m3

(ii) Constant flow rate. If you 

continuously sample from a constant 

exhaust flow rate, use the same 

calculation described in paragraph 

(g)(2)(i) of this section or calculate the 

mean flow recorded over the test 

interval and treat the mean as a batch 

sample, as described in paragraph 

(g)(3)(ii) of this section. 

(3) Batch sampling. For batch 

sampling, calculate total flow by 

integrating a varying flow rate or by 

determining the mean of a constant flow 

rate, as follows: 

(i) Varying flow rate. If you 

proportionally collect a batch sample 

from a varying exhaust flow rate, 

integrate the flow rate over the test 

interval to determine the total flow from 

which you extracted the proportional 

sample, as described in paragraph 

(g)(2)(i) of this section. 

(ii) Constant flow rate. If you batch 

sample from a constant exhaust flow 

rate, extract a sample at a proportional 

or constant flow rate and calculate 

V[flow] from the flow from which you 

extract the sample by multiplying the 

mean flow rate by the time of the test 

interval using the following equation: 

Example: 

Q

ÔCVS = 0.338 m3/s 

Dt = 505 s 

VCVS = 0.338 · 505 

VCVS = 170.69 m3

§ 1066.620 Dilution air background 

correction. 

(a) Correct the emissions in a gaseous 

sample for background using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

c[emission]dexh = measured emission 

concentration in dilute exhaust (after 

dry-to-wet correction for dry 

measurements). 

c[emission]bkgnd = measured emission 

concentration in the dilution air (after 

dry-to-wet correction for dry 

measurements). 

DF = dilution factor determined in paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

Example: 

cNOxdexh = 1.08305 ppm 

cNOxbkgnd = 0.12456 ppm 

DF = 9.14506 

(b) Determine the dilution factor, DF, 

over the test interval using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

cCO2 = amount of CO2 measured in the 

sample over the test interval. 

cNMHC = amount of C1-equivalent NMHC 

measured in the sample over the test 

interval. 

cCH4 = amount of CH4 measured in the 

sample over the test interval. 

cCO = amount of CO measured in the sample 

over the test interval. 

a = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the 

test. You may measure a or use default 

values from Table 1 of 40 CFR 1065.655. 

b = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the test 

fuel. You may measure b or use default 

values from Table 1 of 40 CFR 1065.655. 

Example: 

cCO2 = 1.456% = 0.01456 

cNMHC = 0.84 ppm = 0.00000084 

cCH4 = 0.26 ppm = 0.00000026 

cCO = 80.4 ppm = 0.0000804 

a = 1.92 

b = 0.03 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.083</GPH> EP21MY13.138</GPH> EP21MY13.084</GPH> EP21MY13.139</GPH> EP21MY13.085</GPH> EP21MY13.086</GPH>
30172 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Determine the dilution factor, DF, 

over the test interval for partial-flow 

dilution sample systems that measure 

PM using the following equation: 

Where: 

VPMstd = total dilute exhaust volume sampled 

through the filter over the test interval at 

standard reference conditions. 

Vexhstd = total exhaust volume sampled from 

the vehicle at standard reference 

conditions. 

Example: 

VPMstd = 170.9 m3

Vexhstd = 15.9 m3

(d) Determine the time-weighted 

dilution factor, DFw, over the duty cycle 

using the following equation: 

Where: 

N = number of test intervals. 

i = test interval number 

t = duration of the test interval. 

DF = dilution factor over the test interval. 

Example: 

N = 3 

DF1 = 14.40 

t1 = 505 s 

DF2 = 24.48 

t2 = 867 s 

DF3 = 17.28 

t3 = 505 s 

§ 1066.630 NOX intake-air humidity 

correction. 

See the standard-setting part to 

determine if you may correct NOX

emissions for the effects of intake-air 

humidity. Correct NOX emissions for 

intake-air humidity as described in this 

section. See § 1066.610(c)(1) for the 

proper sequence for applying the NOX

intake-air humidity correction. 

(a) For vehicles at or below 14,000 

pounds GVWR, apply a correction for 

any reciprocating engines for the 

following test cycles: 

(1) Calculate a humidity correction 

using a time-weighted mean value for 

ambient humidity over the test interval. 

Calculate absolute ambient humidity in 

grams H2O vapor per kilogram of dry air 

using the following equation: 

Where: 

MH2O = molar mass of H2O, in g/mol. 

pd = saturated vapor pressure at the ambient 

dry bulb temperature, in kPa. 

RH% = relative humidity of ambient air, in 

%. 

Mair = molar mass of air, in g/mol. 

patmos = atmospheric pressure, in kPa. 

Example: 

MH2O = 18.01528 g/mol 

pd = 2.93 kPa 

RH % = 37.5% 

Mair = 28.96559 g/mol 

patmos = 96.71 kPa 

(2) Use the following equation to 

correct measured concentrations to a 

reference condition of 10.71 grams H2O 

vapor per kilogram of dry air for the 

FTP, US06, LA–92, SC03, and HFET test 

cycles: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.087</GPH> EP21MY13.088</GPH> EP21MY13.089</GPH> EP21MY13.090</GPH> EP21MY13.091</GPH> EP21MY13.092</GPH> EP21MY13.093</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30173 

Where: 

cNOxdexh = measured dilute NOX emissions. 

Hs = humidity scale. Set = 1 for FTP, US06, 

LA–92, and HFET test cycles. Set = 

0.8825 for the SC03 test cycle. 

H = absolute humidity, from paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section. 

Example: 

H = 7.14741 g H2O vapor/kg dry air 

cNOxdexh = 1.21 ppm 

(b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds 

GVWR, apply correction factors as 

described in 40 CFR 1065.670. 

§ 1066.640 Removed water correction. 

Correct for removed water if water 

removal occurs upstream of a 

concentration measurement and 

downstream of a flow meter used to 

determine mass emissions over a test 

interval. Perform this correction based 

on the amount of water at the 

concentration measurement and on the 

amount of water at the flow meter. 

§ 1066.650 Flow meter calibration 

calculations. 

This section describes how to 

calibrate various flow meters based on 

mass flow rates. Calibrate your flow 

meter according to 40 CFR 1065.640 

instead if you calculate emissions based 

on molar flow rates. 

(a) PDP calibration calculations. 

Perform the following steps to calibrate 

a PDP flow meter: 

(1) Calculate PDP volume pumped per 

revolution, Vrev, for each restrictor 

position from the mean values 

determined in § 1066.140: 

Where: 

Q

Ôref = mean flow rate of the reference flow 

meter. 

Tin = mean temperature at the PDP inlet. 

Pstd = standard pressure = 101.325 kPa. 

f

 ̄

nPDP = mean PDP speed. 

p ̄ in = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP 

inlet. 

Tstd = standard temperature = 293.15 K. 

Example: 

Q

Ôref = 0.1651 m3/s 

T ̄ in = 299.5 K 

pstd = 101.325 kPa 

f

 ̄

nPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s 

p ̄ in = 98.290 kPa 

Tstd = 293.15 K 

Vrev = 0.00866 m3/r 

(2) Calculate a PDP slip correction 

factor, Ks for each restrictor position 

from the mean values determined in 

§ 1066.140: 

Where: 

f

 ̄

nPDP = mean PDP speed. 

p ̄ out = mean static absolute pressure at the 

PDP outlet. 

p ̄ in = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP 

inlet. 

Example: 

f

 ̄

nPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s 

p ̄ out = 100.103 kPa 

p ̄ in = 98.290 kPa 

Ks = 0.006700 s/r 

(3) Perform a least-squares regression 

of Vrev, versus PDP Ks, by calculating 

slope, a1, and intercept, a0, as described 

in 40 CFR 1065.602. 

(4) Repeat the procedure in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section for every speed that you run 

your PDP. 

(5) The following example illustrates 

a range of typical values for different 

PDP speeds: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.650—EXAMPLE OF

PDP CALIBRATION DATA

f

 ̄

nPDP (r/s) a1 (m3/s) a0 (m3/r) 

12.6 ................... 0.841 0.056 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.650—EXAMPLE OF

PDP CALIBRATION DATA—Continued 

f

 ̄

nPDP (r/s) a1 (m3/s) a0 (m3/r) 

16.5 ................... 0.831 ¥0.013 

20.9 ................... 0.809 0.028 

23.4 ................... 0.788 ¥0.061 

(6) For each speed at which you 

operate the PDP, use the appropriate 

regression equation from this paragraph 

(a) to calculate flow rate during 

emission testing as described in 

§ 1066.652. 

(b) SSV calibration. The equations 

governing SSV flow assume onedimensional isentropic inviscid flow of 

an ideal gas, except that the equations 

can account for compressible flow. 

Paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section 

describes other assumptions that may 

apply. If good engineering judgment 

dictates that you account for gas 

compressibility, you may either use an 

appropriate equation of state to 

determine values of Z as a function of 

measured pressure and temperature, or 

you may develop your own calibration 

equations based on good engineering 

judgment. Note that the equation for the 

flow coefficient, Cf, is based on the ideal 

gas assumption that the isentropic 

exponent, g, is equal to the ratio of 

specific heats, Cp/Cv. If good engineering 

judgment dictates using a real gas 

isentropic exponent, you may either use 

an appropriate equation of state to 

determine values of g as a function of 

measured pressure and temperature, or 

you may develop your own calibration 

equations based on good engineering 

judgment. 

(1) Calculate volumetric flow rate, Q ̇ , 

as follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.094</GPH> EP21MY13.095</GPH> EP21MY13.096</GPH> EP21MY13.097</GPH> EP21MY13.098</GPH> EP21MY13.099</GPH>
30174 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

Cd = discharge coefficient, as determined in 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. 

Cf = flow coefficient, as determined in 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. 

At = cross-sectional area at the venturi throat. 

R = molar gas constant. 

pin = static absolute pressure at the venturi 

inlet. 

Tstd = standard temperature. 

pstd = standard pressure. 

Z = compressibility factor. 

Mmix = molar mass of gas mixture. 

Tin = absolute temperature at the venturi 

inlet. 

(2) Perform the following steps to 

calibrate an SSV flow meter: 

(i) Using the data collected in 

§ 1066.140, calculate Cd for each flow 

rate using the following equation: 

Where: 

Q ̇ ref = measured volumetric flow rate from the 

reference flow meter. 

(ii) Use the following equation to 

calculate Cf for each flow rate: 

Where: 

g = isentropic exponent. For an ideal gas, this 

is the ratio of specific heats of the gas 

mixture, Cp/Cv.

r = pressure ratio, as determined in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of this section. 

b = ratio of venturi throat diameter to inlet 

diameter. 

(iii) Calculate r using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

Dp = differential static pressure, calculated 

as venturi inlet pressure minus venturi throat 

pressure. 

(iv) You may apply any of the 

following simplifying assumptions or 

develop other values as appropriate for 

your test configuration, consistent with 

good engineering judgment: 

(A) For raw exhaust, diluted exhaust, 

and dilution air, you may assume that 

the gas mixture is incompressible and 

therefore behaves as an ideal gas (Z = 1). 

(B) For raw exhaust, you may assume 

b = 1.385. 

(C) For diluted exhaust and dilution 

air, you may assume b = 1.399. 

(D) For diluted exhaust and dilution 

air, you may assume Mmix is a function 

only of the amount of water in the 

dilution air or calibration air, xH2O, as 

follows: 

Where: 

Mair = 28.964 g/mol 

xH2O = amount of H2O in the dilution air, 

determined as described in 40 CFR 

1065.645. 

MH20 = 18.015 g/mol 

Example: 

xH2O = 0.0169 mol/mol 

Mmix =28.964·(1 ¥ 0169) + 

18.015·0.0169 

Mmix = 28.7789 g/mol 

(E) For diluted exhaust and dilution 

air, you may assume a constant molar 

mass of the mixture, Mmix, for all 

calibration and all testing if you control 

the amount of water in calibration air 

and in dilution air, as shown in the 

following table: 

TABLE 2 OF § 1066.650—EXAMPLES OF DILUTION AIR AND CALIBRATION AIR DEWPOINTS AT WHICH YOU MAY ASSUME A

CONSTANT Mmix.

If calibration Tdew (°C) is . . . 

assume the 

following constant Mmix (g/ 

mol) . . . 

for the following ranges 

of Tdew (°C) 

during emission testsa

≤ 0 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 28.96559 ≤ 18 

0 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 28.89263 ≤ 21 

5 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 28.86148 ≤ 22 

10 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28.81911 ≤ 24 

15 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28.76224 ≤ 26 

20 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28.68685 ¥8 to 28 

25 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28.58806 12 to 31 

30 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28.46005 23 to 34 

aThe specified ranges are valid for all calibration and emission testing over the atmospheric pressure range (80.000 to 103.325) kPa. 

(v) The following example illustrates 

the use of the governing equations to 

calculate Cd of an SSV flow meter at one 

reference flow meter value: 

Example: 

Q ̇ = 2.395 m3/s 

Z = 1 

Mmix = 28.7789 g/mol = 0.0287789 kg/ 

mol 

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) = 8.314472 

(m2·kg)/(s2·mol·K) 

Tin = 298.15 K 

At = 0.01824 m2

pin = 99.132 kPa = 99132 Pa = 99132 kg/ 

(m·s2) 

g = 1.399 

b = 0.8 

Dp = 2.312 kPa 

Dp = 2.312 kPa 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.100</GPH> EP21MY13.101</GPH> EP21MY13.102</GPH> EP21MY13.103</GPH> EP21MY13.104</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30175 

Cf = 0.274 

Cd = 1.695 

(vi) Calculate the Reynolds number, 

Re#, for each reference volumetric flow 

rate ̇Q ref, using the throat diameter of 

the venturi, dt, and the uncorrected air 

density, r. Because the dynamic 

viscosity, m, is needed to compute Re#, 

you may use your own fluid viscosity 

model to determine m for your 

calibration gas (usually air), using good 

engineering judgment. Alternatively, 

you may use the Sutherland threecoefficient viscosity model to 

approximate m, as shown in the 

following sample calculation for Re #: 

Where, using the Sutherland threecoefficient viscosity model: 

Where: 

m0 = Sutherland reference viscosity. 

T0 = Sutherland reference temperature. 

S = Sutherland constant. 

TABLE 3 OF § 1065.640—SUTHERLAND THREE-COEFFICIENT VISCOSITY MODEL PARAMETERS

Gasa μ0 T0 S 

Temp range 

within ±2% 

error b

Pressure 

limit b

kg/(m·s) K K K kPa 

Air ......................................................................................... 1.716·10¥5 273 111 170 to 1900 ≤ 1800 

CO2 ...................................................................................... 1.370·10¥5 273 222 190 to 1700 ≤ 3600 

H2O ...................................................................................... 1.12·10¥5 350 1064 360 to 1500 ≤ 10000 

O2 ......................................................................................... 1.919·10¥5 273 139 190 to 2000 ≤ 2500 

N2 ......................................................................................... 1.663·10¥5 273 107 100 to 1500 ≤ 1600 

a Use tabulated parameters only for the pure gases, as listed. Do not combine parameters in calculations to calculate viscosities of gas mixtures. bThe model results are valid only for ambient conditions in the specified ranges. 

Example: 

m0 = 1.716·10-5 kg/(m·s) 

T0 = 273 K 

S = 111 K 

m = 1.838·10-5 kg/(m·s) 

Tin = 298.15 K 

dt = 152.4 mm = 0.1524 m 

r = 1.1508 kg/m3

Re# = 1.2531·106

(vii) Calculate r using the following 

equation: 

Example: 

r = 1.1508 kg/m3

(vii) Create an equation for Cd as a 

function of Re#, using paired values of 

the two quantitites. The equation may 

involve any mathematical expression, 

including a polynomial or a power 

series. The following equation is an 

example of a commonly used 

mathematical expression for relating Cd

and Re#: 


EP21MY13.105</GPH> EP21MY13.106</GPH> EP21MY13.107</GPH> EP21MY13.108</GPH> EP21MY13.109</GPH> EP21MY13.110</GPH> EP21MY13.111</GPH> EP21MY13.112</GPH> EP21MY13.113</GPH>mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
30176 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(viii) Perform a least-squares 

regression analysis to determine the 

best-fit coefficients for the equation and 

calculate the equation’s regression 

statistics, SEE and r2, according to 

§ 1065.602. 

(ix) If the equation meets the criteria 

of SEE ≤ (0.5% · Q ̇ refmax) and r2 ≥ 0.995, 

you may use the equation to determine 

Cd for emission tests, as described in 

§ 1065.642. 

(x) If the equation does not meet the 

specified statistical criteria, you may 

use good engineering judgment to omit 

calibration data points; however, you 

must use at least seven calibration data 

points to demonstrate that you meet the 

criteria. For example, this may involve 

narrowing the range of flow rates for a 

better curve fit. 

(xi) Take corrective action if the 

equation does not meet the specified 

statistical criteria even after omitting 

calibration data points. For example, 

select another mathematical expression 

for the Cd versus Re# equation, check for 

leaks, or repeat the calibration process. 

If you must repeat the calibration 

process, we recommend applying tighter 

tolerances to measurements and 

allowing more time for flows to 

stabilize. 

(xii) Once you have an equation that 

meets the specified statistical criteria, 

you may use the equation only for the 

corresponding range of flow rates. 

(c) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow 

meters consist of a single venturi and 

some consist of multiple venturis, 

where different combinations of 

venturis are used to meter different flow 

rates. For CFV flow meters that consist 

of multiple venturis, either calibrate 

each venturi independently to 

determine a separate calibration 

coefficient, Kv, for each venturi, or 

calibrate each combination of venturis 

as one venturi by determining Kv for the 

system. 

(1) To determine Kv for a single 

venturi or a combination of venturis, 

perform the following steps: 

(i) Calculate an individual Kv for each 

calibration set point for each restrictor 

position using the following equation: 

Where: 

Q&refstd> = mean flow rate from the reference 

flow meter, at standard reference 

conditions. 

T ̄ in> = mean temperature at the venturi inlet. 

P ̄ in> = mean static absolute pressure at the 

venturi inlet. 

(ii) Calculate the mean and standard 

deviation of all the Kv values (see 40 

CFR 1065.602). Verify choked flow by 

plotting Kv as a function of P ̄ in.Kv will 

have a relatively constant value for 

choked flow; as vacuum pressure 

increases, the venturi will become 

unchoked and Kv will decrease. 

Paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) through (viii) of 

this section describe how to verify your 

range of choked flow. 

(iii) If the standard deviation of all the 

Kv values is less than or equal to 0.3% 

of the mean Kv, use the mean Kv in Eq. 

1066.652–7, and use the CFV only up to 

the highest venturi pressure ratio, r, 

measured during calibration using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

DpCFV = differential static pressure; venturi 

inlet minus venturi outlet. 

(iv) If the standard deviation of all the 

Kv values exceeds 0.3% of the mean Kv,

omit the Kv value corresponding to the 

data point collected at the highest r 

measured during calibration. 

(v) If the number of remaining data 

points is less than seven, take corrective 

action by checking your calibration data 

or repeating the calibration process. If 

you repeat the calibration process, we 

recommend checking for leaks, applying 

tighter tolerances to measurements and 

allowing more time for flows to 

stabilize. 

(vi) If the number of remaining Kv

values is seven or greater, recalculate 

the mean and standard deviation of the 

remaining Kv values. 

(vii) If the standard deviation of the 

remaining Kv values is less than or equal 

to 0.3% of the mean of the remaining Kv,

use that mean Kv in Eq 1066.652–7, and 

use the CFV values only up to the 

highest r associated with the remaining 

Kv.

(viii) If the standard deviation of the 

remaining Kv still exceeds 0.3% of the 

mean of the remaining Kv values, repeat 

the steps in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) through 

(vii) of this section. 

(2) During exhaust emission tests, 

monitor sonic flow in the CFV by 

monitoring the CFV pressure ratio. 

Based on the calibration data selected to 

meet the criteria for paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) 

and (vii) of this section, in which Kv is 

constant, select the data values 

associated with the calibration point 

with the lowest absolute venturi inlet 

pressure to determine the r limit. 

Calculate r during the exhaust emission 

test using Eq. 1066.650–8 to 

demonstrate that the value of r during 

all emission tests is less than or equal 

to the r limit derived from the CFV 

calibration data. 

§ 1066.652 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate 

calculations. 

This section describes the equations 

for calculating flow rates from various 

flow meters. After you calibrate a flow 

meter according to § 1066.650, use the 

calculations described in this section to 

calculate flow during an emission test. 

Calculate flow according to 40 CFR 

1065.642 instead if you calculate 

emissions based on molar flow rates. 

(a) PDP volumetric flow rate. Based 

upon the speed at which you operate 

the PDP for a test interval, select the 

corresponding slope, a1, and intercept, 

a0, as calculated in § 1066.650(a), to 

calculate volumetric flow rate, Q ̇ as 

follows: 

Where: 

fnPDP = pump speed. 

Vrev = PDP volume pumped per revolution. 

Tstd = standard temperature = 293.15 K. 

pin = static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet. 

Tin = pump inlet absolute temperature. 

pstd = standard pressure = 101.325 kPa. 

Pout = static absolute pressure at the PDP 

outlet. 

Example: 

a1 = 50.43 m3/min = 0.8405 m3/s 

ƒnPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s 

pout = 99.950 kPa 

pin = 98.575 kPa 

a0 = 0.056 m3/r 

Tin = 323.5 K 

Vrev = 0.063 m3/r 

Q ̇ = 0.7079 m3/s 

(b) SSV volumetric flow rate. 

Calculate SSV volumetric flow rate 

during an emission test, Q ̇ , as follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.114</GPH> EP21MY13.115</GPH> EP21MY13.116</GPH> EP21MY13.117</GPH> EP21MY13.118</GPH> EP21MY13.119</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30177 

Where: 

Cd = discharge coefficient, as determined 

based on the Cd versus Re# equation in 

§ 1066.650(b)(2)(viii). 

Cf = flow coefficient, as determined in 

§ 1066.650 (b)(2)(ii). 

At = venturi throat cross-sectional area. 

R = molar gas constant. 

pin = static absolute pressure at the venturi 

inlet. 

Tstd = standard temperature. 

pstd = standard pressure. 

Z = compressibility factor. 

Mmix = molar mass of gas mixture. 

Tin = absolute temperature at the venturi 

inlet. 

Example: 

Cd = 0.890 

Cf = 0.274 

At = 0.01824 m2

R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) = 8.314472 

(m2·kg)/(s2·mol·K) 

pin = 98.496 kPa 

Tstd = 293.15 K 

pstd = 101.325 kPa 

Z = 1 

Mmix = 28.7789 g/mol = 0.0287789 kg/ 

mol 

Tin = 296.85 K 

Q ̇ = 1.252 m3/s 

(c) CFV volumetric flow rate. Some 

CFV flow meters consist of a single 

venturi and some consist of multiple 

venturis, where different combinations 

of venturis are used to meter different 

flow rates. If you use multiple venturis 

and you calibrated each venturi 

independently to determine a separate 

calibration coefficient, Kv, for each 

venturi, calculate the individual 

volumetric flow rates through each 

venturi and sum all their flow rates to 

determine Q ̇ . If you use multiple 

venturis and you calibrated each 

combination of venturis, calculate Q ̇

using the Kv that was determined for 

that combination of venturis. 

(1) To calculate volumetric flow rate 

through one venturi or a combination of 

venturis, use the mean Kv you 

determined according to § 1066.650(c) 

and calculate the appropriate 

volumetric flow rate, Q ̇ , during an 

emission test as follows: 

Where: 

Q ̇ = air flow rate of flow meter, in m3/s. 

Kv = flow meter calibration coefficient, in 

m3·K1/2/(kPa·s). 

Tin = temperature at the venturi inlet, in K. 

pin = absolute static pressure at the venturi 

inlet, in kPa. 

Example: 

Kv = 0.074954 m3·K1/2/(kPa·s) 

pin = 99.654 kPa 

Tin = 353.15 K 

Q ̇ = 0.39748 m3/s 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 1066.665 NMOG determination. 

For vehicles subject to an NMOG 

standard, determine NMOG as described 

in paragraph (a) of this section. Except 

as specified in the standard-setting part, 

you may alternatively calculate NMOG 

results based on measured NMHC 

emissions as described in paragraphs (c) 

through (f) of this section. 

(a) Determine NMOG by 

independently measuring alcohols and 

carbonyls as described in 40 CFR 

1065.805 and 1065.845. Use good 

engineering judgment to determine 

which alcohols and carbonyls you need 

to measure. This would typically 

require you to measure all alcohols and 

carbonyls that you expect to contribute 

1% or more of total NMOG emissions. 

Calculate NMOG with the following 

equation, using density values specified 

in § 1066.1005(f): 

Where: 

mNMOG = the sum of the mass of NMOG in 

the exhaust. 

mNMHC = the mass of NMHC and all 

oxygenated hydrocarbons (OHCs) in the 

exhaust, as determined using Eq. 

1066.610–1. Calculate NMHC mass based 

on rNMHC.

rNMHC = the effective C1-equivalent density of 

NMHC as specified in § 1066.1005(f):. 

mOHCi = the mass of oxygenated species i in 

the exhaust calculated using Eq. 

1066.610–1. 

rOCHi = the C1-equivalent density of 

oxygenated species i. 

RFOHCi[THC–FID] = The response factor of a 

THC–FID to oxygenated species i relative 

to propane on a C1-equivalent basis as 

determined in 40 CFR 1065.665. 

(b) The following example shows how 

to determine NMOG emissions as 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section for (OHC) compounds including 

ethanol (C2H5OH), methanol (CH3OH), 

acetaldehyde (C2H4O), and 

formaldehyde (C2HO) as C1-equivalent 

concentrations: 

mNMHC = 0.0125 g 

mCH3OH = 0.0002 g 

mC2H5OH = 0.0009 g 

mHCHO = 0.0001 g 

mC2H4O = 0.00005 g 

RFCH3OH[THC–FID] = 0.63 

RFC2H5OH[THC–FID] = 0.75 

RFHCHO[THC–FID] = 0.00 

RFC2H4O[THC–FID] = 0.50 

rNMHC-liq = 576.816 g/m3

rCH3OH = 1332.02 g/m3

rC2H5OH = 957.559 g/m3

rHCHO = 1248.21 g/m3

rC2H4O = 915.658 g/m3


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.120</GPH> EP21MY13.121</GPH> EP21MY13.122</GPH> EP21MY13.123</GPH> EP21MY13.124</GPH>
30178 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

0.0002 + 0.0009 + 0.0001 + 0.00005 

mNMOG = 0.013273 

(c) For ethanol-gasoline blends less 

than 25% ethanol by volume, you may 

calculate NMOG emissions from 

measured NMHC emissions as follows: 

(1) For hot-start and hot running test 

cycles or intervals other than the FTP, 

you may determine NMOG based on the 

test cycle NMHC emission rate using the 

following equation: 

Where: 

eNMOGhot = mass emission rate of NMOG 

over the hot running test cycle. 

eNMHChot = mass emission rate of NMHC 

over the hot running test cycle, 

calculated using rNMHC-liq. 

Example: 

eNMHChot = 0.025 g/mi 

eNMOGhot = 0.025 · 1.03 = 0.026 g/mi 

(2) You may determine weighted 

composite NMOG for FTP testing based 

on the weighted composite NMHC 

emission rate and the volume percent of 

ethanol in the fuel using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

eNMOGcomp = weighted composite mass 

emission rate of NMOG. 

eNMHCcomp = weighted composite mass 

emission rate of NMHC, calculated using 

rNMHC-liq. 

VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the 

test fuel. Use good engineering judgment 

to determine this value either as 

specified in 40 CFR 1065.710 or based on 

blending volumes, taking into account 

any denaturant. 

Example: 

eNMHCcomp = 0.025 g/mi 

eNMOGcomp = 0.025 · (1.0302 + 0.0071 · 

15.1) = 0.0284 g/mi 

VPEtOH = 15.1% 

(3) You may determine NMOG for the 

complete FTP cold-start test interval for 

use in fuel economy and CREE 

calculations based on the NMHC 

emission rate for the test interval and 

the volume percent of ethanol in the 

fuel using the following equation: 

Where: 

eNMOG-FTPct = mass emission rate of NMOG 

over the FTP cold start test interval. 

eNMHC-FTPct = mass emission rate of NMHC 

over the FTP cold-start test interval, 

calculated using rNMHC-liq. 

VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the 

test fuel. 

Example: 

eNMHC-FTPct = 0.052 g/mi 

VPEtOH = 15.1% 

eNMOG-FTPct = 0.052·1.0246 + 

0.0079·15.1) = 0.0595 g/mi 

(4) You may determine NMOG for the 

FTP stabilized test interval for either the 

cold-start or hot-start test for use in fuel 

economy and CREE calculations based 

on the NMHC emission rate for the test 

interval and the volume percent of 

ethanol in the fuel using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

eNMOG-FTPcs-hs = mass emission rate of NMOG 

over the FTP stabilized test interval. 

eNMHC-FTPcs-hs = mass emission rate of NMHC 

over the FTP stabilized test interval, 

calculated using rNMHC-liq. 

VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the 

test fuel. 

(5) You may determine NMOG for the 

complete FTP hot-start test interval for 

use in fuel economy and CREE 

calculations based on the NMHC 

emission rate for the test interval and 

the volume percent of ethanol in the 

fuel using the following equation: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.125</GPH> EP21MY13.126</GPH> EP21MY13.127</GPH> EP21MY13.128</GPH> EP21MY13.129</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30179 

Where: 

eNMOG-FTPht = mass emission rate of NMOG 

over the FTP hot-start test interval. 

eNMHC-FTPht = mass emission rate of NMHC 

over the FTP hot-start test interval, 

calculated using rNMHC-liq. 

VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the 

test fuel. 

(d) You may take the following 

additional steps when determining fuel 

economy and CREE under 40 CFR part 

600: 

(1) Calculate NMOG by interval using 

Eq. 1066.665–3 for individual bag 

measurements from the FTP. 

(2) Calculate NMOG for two-bag FTPs 

using Eq. 1066.665–3 for hybrid-electric 

vehicles as described in 40 CFR 

600.114. 

(e) We consider NMOG emission 

values for diesel-fueled vehicles, CNGfueled vehicles, and LPG-fueled 

vehicles to be equivalent to NMHC 

emission values for all test cycles. 

(f) For all fuels not covered by 

paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, 

manufacturers may propose a 

methodology to calculate NMOG results 

from measured NMHC emissions. We 

will approve adjustments based on 

comparative testing that demonstrates 

how to properly represent NMOG based 

on measured NMHC emissions. 

§ 1066.695 Data requirements. 

Record the following information for 

each test: 

(a) Test number. 

(b) A brief description of the test 

vehicle (or other system/device tested). 

(c) Date and time of day for each part 

of the test sequence. 

(d) Test results. Also include a 

validation of driver accuracy as 

described in § 1066.430(j). 

(e) Driver and equipment operators. 

(f) Vehicle information as applicable, 

including identification number, model 

year, applicable emission standards, 

vehicle model, vehicle class, carline, 

test group, durability group, engine 

family, evaporative/refueling emission 

family, basic engine description 

(including displacement, number of 

cylinders, turbocharger/supercharger 

used, and catalyst type), fuel system 

(type of fuel injection and fuel tank 

capacity and location), engine code, 

gross vehicle weight rating, equivalent 

test weight, inertia weight class, actual 

curb weight at zero miles, actual road 

load at 50 mph, transmission class and 

configuration, axle ratio, odometer 

reading, idle rpm, and drive wheel tire 

pressure. 

(g) Dynamometer identification, 

inertia weight setting, indicated power 

absorption setting, and records to verify 

compliance with the driving distance 

and cycle-validation criteria as 

calculated from measured roll or shaft 

revolutions. 

(h) Analyzer bench identification, 

analyzer ranges, recordings of analyzer 

output during zero, span, and sample 

readings. 

(i) Associate the following 

information with the test record: Test 

number, date, vehicle identification, 

vehicle and equipment operators, and 

identification of the measurements 

recorded. 

(j) Test cell barometric pressure and 

humidity. You may use a central 

laboratory barometer if the barometric 

pressure in each test cell is shown to be 

within ±0.1% of the barometric pressure 

at the central barometer location. 

(k) Records to verify compliance with 

the ambient temperature requirements 

throughout the test procedure and 

records of fuel temperatures during the 

running loss test. 

(l) [Reserved] 

(m) For CVS systems record, dilution 

factor for each interval of the exhaust 

test and the following additional 

information: 

(1) CFV and SSV Vmix for each interval 

of the exhaust test. 

(2) PDP. Test measurements required 

to calculate Vmix for each interval of the 

exhaust test. 

(n) The humidity of the dilution air if 

you remove H2O from an emission 

sample before measurement. 

(o) Temperature of the dilute exhaust 

mixture and secondary dilution air (in 

the case of a double-dilution system) at 

the inlet to the respective gas meter or 

flow instrumentation used for 

particulate sampling. 

(p) The maximum gas temperature 

over the course of the test within 20 cm 

upstream or downstream of the sample 

media (e.g., filter). 

(q) If applicable, the temperature of 

the heated FID, the gas in the heated 

sample line, and the heated filter. 

(r) Gas meter or flow measurement 

instrumentation readings at the start and 

end of each test interval. 

(s) The stabilized pre-test weight and 

post-test weight of each particulate 

sample media (e.g., filter). 

(t) Continuous temperature and 

humidity of the ambient air in which 

the particulate sample media (e.g., filter) 

are stabilized. 

(u) For vehicles fueled by natural gas, 

the test fuel composition, including all 

carbon-containing compounds (except 

CO); e.g. CO2, of the natural gas-fuel 

used during the test. Record C1 and C2

compounds individually. You may 

record C3 through C5 hydrocarbons 

together, and you may record C6 and 

heavier hydrocarbon compounds 

together. 

(v) Additional required records for 

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled vehicles. 

For vehicles fueled by liquefied 

petroleum gas, the test fuel composition, 

including all carbon-containing 

compounds (except CO); e.g. CO2. Each 

hydrocarbon compound present, 

through C4 compounds, shall be 

individually reported. C5 and heavier 

hydrocarbons may be reported as a 

group. Record C1 and C4 compounds 

individually. You may record C5 and 

heavier hydrocarbon compounds 

together. 

Subpart H—Cold-Temperature Test 

Procedures 

§ 1066.701 Applicability and general 

provisions. 

(a) The procedures of this part 1066 

may be used for testing at any ambient 

temperature. Section 1066.710 describes 

the provisions that apply for testing 

testing motor vehicles at a nominal 

temperature of 20 °C (68 °F); these 

procedures apply for motor vehicles as 

described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, 

and 40 CFR part 600. For other vehicles, 

see the standard-setting part to 

determine if your vehicle is required to 

meet emission standards outside the 

normal (20 to 30) °C (68 to 86 °F) 

temperature range. 

(b) Do not apply the humidity 

correction factor in § 1066.630(a) for 

cold-temperature testing. 

§ 1066.710 Cold-testing procedures for 

measuring CO and NMHC emissions and 

determining fuel economy. 

This section describes procedures for 

measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and 

nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) 

emissions and determining fuel 

economy on a cold day using the FTP 

driving schedule (see § 1066.801). 

(a) Follow the exhaust emission 

measurement procedures specified in 

§§ 1066.410 through 1066.430 and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.130</GPH>
30180 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1066.820(d), subject to the following 

exceptions and additional provisions: 

(1) Measure and control ambient 

conditions as specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(2) Precondition and stabilize the 

vehicle as specified in paragraphs (c) 

and (d) of this section. Ensure that there 

is no precipitation or dew on the vehicle 

before the emission test. 

(3) For dynamometers that have 

independently heated bearings, start the 

emission test within 20 minutes after 

the end of dynamometer warm up; for 

other dynamometers, start the emission 

test within 10 minutes after the end of 

dynamometer warm up. 

(4) Analyze samples for NMHC, CO, 

and CO2. You do not need to analyze 

samples for other pollutants. 

(b) Maintain ambient conditions as 

follows instead of following the 

specifications in subpart E of this part: 

(1) Ambient temperature for emission 

tests. Measure and record ambient 

temperature in the test cell at least once 

every 60 seconds during the sampling 

period. The average temperature during 

the sampling period must be 

(¥7.0 ±1.7) °C. Instantaneous 

temperature values may be above ¥4.0 

°C or below ¥9.0 °C, but not for more 

than 3 minutes at a time. 

(2) Ambient temperature for 

preconditioning. Ambient temperatures 

must be between (¥14.0 and ¥1.0) °C 

throughout the preconditioning period. 

The average ambient temperature during 

preconditioning must be (¥7.0 ±2.8) °C. 

You may precondition vehicles at 

temperatures above ¥7.0 °C or with a 

temperature tolerance greater than that 

described in this section (or both) if you 

determine that this will not cause 

NMHC, CO, or CO2 emissions to 

decrease; if you modify the temperature 

specifications for vehicle 

preconditioning, adjust the procedures 

described in this section appropriately 

for your testing. Use good engineering 

judgment to demonstrate that you meet 

the specified temperature tolerances 

specified in this paragraph (b)(2). 

(3) Ambient humidity. Maintain 

humidity low enough to prevent 

condensation on the dynamometer rolls 

during testing. 

(c) Take the following steps to prepare 

and precondition vehicles for testing 

under this section: 

(1) Prepare the vehicle as described in 

§ 1066.814(a). 

(2) Fill the fuel tank to approximately 

40% of the manufacturer’s nominal fuel 

tank capacity with the appropriate test 

fuel for low-temperature testing 

specified 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H. 

If the leftover fuel in the fuel tank before 

the refueling event does not meet these 

specifications, drain the fuel tank before 

refueling. The temperature of the 

dispensed test fuel must be at or below 

15.5 °C. 

(3) You may start the preconditioning 

drive once the fuel in the fuel tank 

reaches (¥7.0 °C ±5.6) °C. Precondition 

the vehicle as follows: 

(i) Push or drive the vehicle onto the 

dynamometer. 

(ii) Operate the vehicle over one 

UDDS. You may perform additional 

vehicle preconditioning with repeated 

driving over the UDDS, subject to our 

advance approval. 

(iii) Turn off the test vehicle and any 

cooling fans within 5 minutes after 

completing the preconditioning drive. 

Ambient temperature must be between 

(¥12.0 to ¥1.0) °C in the 5 minutes 

following the preconditioning drive. 

(iv) Do not manually purge or load the 

evaporative canister. 

(d) Soak the vehicle for (12 to 36) 

hours to stabilize it at test temperatures 

before starting the emission test as 

described in this paragraph (d). If you 

move a stabilized vehicle through a 

warm area when transporting it to the 

dynamometer for testing, you must 

restabilize the vehicle by holding it at 

an ambient temperature within the 

range specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section for at least six times as long 

as the vehicle was exposed to warmer 

temperatures. Use one of the following 

methods to reach a stabilized condition: 

(1) Cold storage. Measure and record 

ambient temperature in the test cell at 

least once every 60 seconds during the 

soak period; use these measured values 

to calculate an hourly average 

temperature. Each hourly average 

temperature must be (¥7.0 °C ±2.8) °C. 

Instantaneous ambient temperatures 

during the soak period may be above 

¥1.0 °C or below ¥12.0, but not for 

more than 3 minutes at a time. 

(2) Forced-cooling or warming. 

Position fans to blow temperaturecontrolled air onto the vehicle to 

stabilize the vehicle at the specified 

temperatures for emission testing. 

Position fans to target the vehicle’s drive 

train, engine block, and radiator rather 

than the oil pan. You may not place fans 

under the vehicle. You may consider the 

vehicle to be stabilized at the test 

temperature when the bulk oil 

temperature reaches (¥7 ±1.7) °C; 

measure oil temperature at one or more 

points away from the side or bottom 

surfaces of the oil pan. Each oil 

temperature measurement must be 

within the specified range before 

stabilization is complete. Once the 

vehicle reaches this stabilized 

condition, hold the vehicle within the 

stabilized temperature range for at least 

one hour before starting the emission 

test. During this time, keep the ambient 

temperature within the range specified 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

Subpart I—Exhaust Emission Test 

Procedures for Motor Vehicles 

§ 1066.801 Applicability and general 

provisions. 

This subpart I specifies how to apply 

the test procedures of this part for motor 

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR, including light-duty vehicles, 

light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty 

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 

GVWR that are subject to chassis testing 

for exhaust emissions. For these 

vehicles, references in this part 1066 to 

the standard-setting part include this 

subpart I. 

(a) Use the procedures detailed in this 

subpart to measure vehicle emissions 

over a specified drive schedule in 

conjunction with subpart E of this part. 

Where the procedures of subpart E of 

this part differ from this subpart I, the 

provisions in this subpart I take 

precedence. 

(b) Collect samples of every pollutant 

for which an emission standard applies, 

unless specified otherwise. 

(c) This subpart covers the following 

test procedures: 

(1) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP), 

which includes the general driving 

cycle. This procedure is also used for 

measuring evaporative emissions. This 

may be called the conventional test 

since it was adopted with the earliest 

emission standards. 

(i) The FTP consists of one Urban 

Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) 

as specified in paragraph (a) of 

Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, followed 

by a 10-minute soak with the engine off 

and repeat driving through the first 505 

seconds of the UDDS. Note that the 

UDDS represents about 7.5 miles of 

driving in an urban area. Engine startup 

(with all accessories turned off), 

operation over the initial UDDS, and 

engine shutdown make a complete coldstart test. The hot-start test consists of 

the first 505 seconds of the UDDS 

following the 10-minute soak and a hotrunning portion of the UDDS after the 

first 505 seconds. The first 505 seconds 

of the UDDS is considered the transient 

portion; the remainder of the UDDS is 

considered the stabilized (or hotstabilized) portion. The hot-stabilized 

portion for the hot-start test is generally 

measured during the cold-start test; 

however, in certain cases, the hot-start 

test may involve a second full UDDS 

following the 10-minute soak, rather 

than repeating only the first 505 

seconds. See §§ 1066.820 and 1066.822. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30181 

(ii) Evaporative emission testing 

includes a preconditioning drive with 

the UDDS and a full FTP cycle, 

including exhaust measurement, 

followed by evaporative emission 

measurements. In the three-day diurnal 

test sequence, the exhaust test is 

followed by a running loss test 

consisting of a UDDS, then two New 

York City Cycles as specified in 

paragraph (f) of Appendix I of 40 CFR 

part 86, followed by another UDDS; see 

40 CFR 86.134–96. Note that the New 

York City Cycle represents about 1.7 

miles of driving in a city center. The 

running loss test is followed by a hightemperature hot soak test as described 

in 40 CFR 86.138–96 and a three-day 

diurnal emission test as described in 40 

CFR 86.133–96. In the two-day diurnal 

test sequence, the exhaust test is 

followed by a low-temperature hot soak 

test as described in 40 CFR 86.138–96(k) 

and a two-day diurnal emission test as 

described in 40 CFR 86.133–96(p). 

(iii) Refueling emission tests for 

vehicles that rely on integrated control 

of diurnal and refueling emissions 

includes vehicle operation over the full 

FTP test cycle corresponding to the 

three-day diurnal test sequence to 

precondition and purge the evaporative 

canister. For non-integrated systems, 

there is a preconditioning drive over the 

UDDS and a refueling event, followed 

by repeated UDDS driving purge the 

evaporative canister. The refueling 

emission test procedures are described 

in 40 CFR 86.150 through 86.157. 

(2) The Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedure (SFTP) measures the 

emission effects from aggressive driving 

and operation with the vehicle’s air 

conditioner. The SFTP is based on a 

composite of three different test 

elements. In addition to the FTP, 

vehicles generally operate over the 

US06 and SC03 driving schedules as 

specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of 

Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, 

respectively. In the case of heavy-duty 

vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR 

and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, 

SFTP testing involves additional driving 

over the LA–92 driving schedule 

specified in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR part 

86, Appendix I, instead of the US06 

driving schedule. Note that the US06 

driving schedule represents about 8.0 

miles of relatively aggressive driving; 

the SC03 driving schedule represents 

about 3.6 miles of urban driving with 

the air conditioner operating; and the 

LA–92 driving schedule represents 

about 9.8 miles of relatively aggressive 

driving for commercial trucks. See 

§§ 1066.820 and 1066.822. 

(3) The Highway Fuel Economy Test 

(HFET). The HFET is specified in 

Appendix I of 40 CFR part 600. Note 

that the HFET represents about 10.2 

miles of rural and freeway driving with 

an average speed of 48.6 mph and a 

maximum speed of 60.0 mph. See 

§ 1066.839. 

(4) Cold-temperature testing. Coldtemperature standards apply for CO and 

NMHC emissions when vehicles operate 

over the FTP at a nominal temperature 

of ¥7 °C. See 40 CFR part 86, subpart 

C. 

(5) Emission measurement to 

determine air conditioning credits for 

greenhouse gas standards. In this 

optional procedure, manufacturers 

operate vehicles over repeat runs of the 

AC17 test sequence to allow for 

calculating credits as part of 

demonstrating compliance with CO2

emission standards. The AC17 test 

sequence consists of a UDDS 

preconditioning drive, followed by 

emission measurements over the SC03 

and HFET driving schedules. See 

§ 1066.835. 

(d) The following provisions apply for 

all testing: 

(1) Ambient temperatures 

encountered by the test vehicle must be 

(20 to 30) °C, unless otherwise specified. 

Where ambient temperature 

specifications apply before or between 

test measurements, the vehicle may be 

exposed to temperatures outside of the 

specified range for up to 10 minutes to 

account for vehicle transport or other 

actions to prepare for testing. The 

temperatures monitored during testing 

must be representative of those 

experienced by the test vehicle. For 

example, do not measure ambient 

temperatures near a heat source. 

(2) Do not operate or store the vehicle 

at an incline if good engineering 

judgment indicates that it would affect 

emissions. 

(3) If a test is void after collecting 

emission data from previous test 

segments, the test may be repeated to 

collect only those data points needed to 

complete emission measurements. You 

may combine emission measurements 

from different test runs to demonstrate 

compliance with emission standards. 

(4) Prepare vehicles for testing as 

described in § 1066.814. 

(e) The following figure illustrates the 

FTP test sequence for measuring 

exhaust and evaporative emissions: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30182 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1066.810 Road load power, test weight, 

and inertia weight class determination. 

(a) Simulate a vehicle’s test weight on 

the dynamometer using the appropriate 

equivalent test weight shown in Table 1 

of this section. Equivalent test weights 

are established according to each 

vehicle’s test weight basis, as described 

in paragraph (b) of this section. Table 1 

also specifies the inertia weight class 

corresponding to each equivalent test 

weight; the inertia weight class allows 

for grouping vehicles with a range of 

equivalent test weights. Table 1 follows: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.810—EQUIVALENT

TEST WEIGHTS

[pounds] 

Test weight 

basis 

Equivalent 

test weight 

Inertia 

weight class 

Up to 1062 ........ 1000 1000 

1063 to 1187 .... 1125 1000 

1188 to 1312 .... 1250 1250 

1313 to 1437 .... 1375 1250 

1438 to 1562 .... 1500 1500 

1563 to 1687 .... 1625 1500 

1688 to 1812 .... 1750 1750 

1813 to 1937 .... 1875 1750 

1938 to 2062 .... 2000 2000 

2063 to 2187 .... 2125 2000 

2188 to 2312 .... 2250 2250 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.810—EQUIVALENT

TEST WEIGHTS—Continued 

[pounds] 

Test weight 

basis 

Equivalent 

test weight 

Inertia 

weight class 

2313 to 2437 .... 2375 2250 

2438 to 2562 .... 2500 2500 

2563 to 2687 .... 2625 2500 

2688 to 2812 .... 2750 2750 

2813 to 2937 .... 2875 2750 

2938 to 3062 .... 3000 3000 

3063 to 3187 .... 3125 3000 

3188 to 3312 .... 3250 3000 

3313 to 3437 .... 3375 3500 

3438 to 3562 .... 3500 3500 

3563 to 3687 .... 3625 3500 

3688 to 3812 .... 3750 3500 

3813 to 3937 .... 3875 4000 

3938 to 4125 .... 4000 4000 

4126 to 4375 .... 4250 4000 

4376 to 4625 .... 4500 4500 

4626 to 4875 .... 4750 4500 

4876 to 5125 .... 5000 5000 

5126 to 5375 .... 5250 5000 

5376 to 5750 .... 5500 5500 

5751 to 6250 .... 6000 6000 

6251 to 6750 .... 6500 6500 

6751 to 7250 .... 7000 7000 

7251 to 7750 .... 7500 7500 

7751 to 8250 .... 8000 8000 

8251 to 8750 .... 8500 8500 

8751 to 9250 .... 9000 9000 

9251 to 9750 .... 9500 9500 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.810—EQUIVALENT

TEST WEIGHTS—Continued 

[pounds] 

Test weight 

basis 

Equivalent 

test weight 

Inertia 

weight class 

9751 to 10250 .. 10000 10000 

10251 to 10750 10500 10500 

10751 to 11250 11000 11000 

11251 to 11750 11500 11500 

11751 to 12250 12000 12000 

12251 to 12750 12500 12500 

12751 to 13250 13000 13000 

13251 to 13750 13500 13500 

13751 to 14000 14000 14000 

(b) The test weight basis for nonMDPV heavy-duty vehicles is ‘‘adjusted 

loaded vehicle weight’’. For all other 

vehicles, the test weight basis for 

establishing equivalent test weight is 

‘‘loaded vehicle weight’’. These load 

terms are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803. 

(c) For FTP and SFTP testing, 

determine road load forces for each test 

vehicle at speeds between 10 and 70 

miles per hour. The road load force 

must represent vehicle operation on a 

smooth, level road with no wind or 

calm winds, no precipitation, an 

ambient temperature of approximately 

20 °C, and atmospheric pressure of 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.131</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30183 

98.21 kPa. You may extrapolate road 

load force for speeds below 10 mph. 

§ 1066.814 Vehicle preparation. 

(a) Include additional fittings and 

adapters, as required, to accommodate a 

fuel drain at the lowest point possible 

in the tank(s) as installed on the vehicle. 

(b) For preconditioning that involves 

loading an evaporative emission 

canister with butane, provide valving or 

other means as necessary to allow 

purging and loading of the canister. 

(c) For vehicles to be tested for 

running loss emissions (40 CFR 86.134), 

prepare the fuel tank for measuring 

temperature and pressure as specified in 

40 CFR 86.107–98(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 

86.134. Vapor temperature measurement 

is optional during the running loss test. 

(d) For vehicles to be tested for 

running loss emissions, prepare the 

exhaust system by sealing or plugging 

all detectable sources of exhaust gas 

leaks. Inspect or test the exhaust system 

to ensure that there are no leaks that 

would cause exhaust hydrocarbon 

emissions to be detected as running 

losses. 

(e) The following provisions apply for 

preconditioning steps to reduce nonfuel 

emissions to normal vehicle background 

levels for vehicles subject to Tier 3 

evaporative emission standards under 

40 CFR 86.1813: 

(1) You must notify us in advance if 

you plan to perform such 

preconditioning. This notice must 

include a detailed description of the 

intended procedures and any 

measurements or thresholds for 

determining when stabilization is 

complete. You need not repeat this 

notification for additional vehicle 

testing in the same or later model years 

as long as your preconditioning practice 

conforms to these procedures. 

(2) You may precondition a vehicle as 

described in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section only within 12 months after the 

vehicle’s original date of manufacture, 

except that you may remove the spare 

tire for any testing. 

§ 1066.820 Exhaust emission test 

procedures for FTP testing. 

(a) General. The FTP exhaust 

emission test sequence consists of a 

cold-start test and a hot-start test as 

described in § 1066.801. 

(b) PM sampling options. Collect PM 

using any of the procedures specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section and use the corresponding 

equation in § 1066.822 to calculate FTP 

composite emissions. Testing must meet 

the requirements related to filter face 

velocity as described in 40 CFR 

1065.170(c)(1)(vi), except as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section. 

For procedures involving flow 

weighting, set the filter face velocity to 

a weighting target of 1.0 to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

1065.170(c)(1)(vi). Allow filter face 

velocity to decrease as a percentage of 

the weighting factor if the weighting 

factor is less than 1.0. Use the 

appropriate equations in § 1066.620 to 

show that you meet the dilution factor 

requirements of § 1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B). 

(1) You may collect a separate PM 

sample for transient and stabilized 

portions of the cold-start UDDS and the 

hot-start UDDS. This may either be done 

by sampling with 3 bags or 4 bags. You 

may omit the stabilized portion of the 

hot-start test (bag 4) and use the 

stabilized portion of the cold-start test 

(bag 2) in its place. 

(2) You may collect PM on one filter 

over the cold-start UDDS and on a 

separate filter over the hot-start UDDS. 

(3) You may collect PM on one filter 

over the cold-start UDDS (bag 1 and bag 

2) and on a separate filter over the 867 

seconds of the stabilized portion of the 

cold-start UDDS and the first 505 

seconds of the hot-start UDDS (bag 2 

and bag 3). Note that this option 

involves duplicate measurements 

during the stabilized portion of the coldstart UDDS. 

(4) You may collect PM on a single 

filter over the cold-start UDDS and the 

first 505 seconds of the hot-start UDDS. 

If you use this method, adjust your 

sampling system flow rate to weight the 

filter face velocity over the three 

intervals of the FTP based on weighting 

targets of 0.43 for bag 1, 1.0 for bag 2, 

and 0.57 for bag 3. 

(5) You may collect PM on a single 

filter over the cold-start UDDS and the 

full hot-start UDDS. If you use this 

method, adjust your sampling system 

flow rate to weight the filter face 

velocity based on weighting targets of 

0.75 for the cold-start UDDS and 1.0 for 

the hot-start UDDS. 

(c) Gaseous sampling options. Collect 

gaseous samples using any of the 

following procedures: 

(1) You may collect a single sample 

for a full UDDS (cold-start or hot-start). 

(2) You may sample emissions 

separately for transient and stabilized 

portions of any UDDS. 

(3) You may omit the stabilized 

portion of the hot-start test (bag 4) and 

use the stabilized portion of the coldstart test (bag 2) in its place. 

(4) You may apply the provisions of 

paragraph (b) of this section for any 

gaseous batch measurement, consistent 

with good engineering judgment. 

(d) Test sequence. Follow the exhaust 

emission measurement procedures 

specified in §§ 1066.410 through 

1066.430, subject to the following 

exceptions and additional provisions: 

(1) Take the following steps for the 

cold-start test: 

(i) Precondition the vehicle as 

described in 40 CFR 86.132. Initiate the 

cold-start test following the 12 to 36 

hour soak period. 

(ii) Start sampling and recording 

simultaneously with starting the 

vehicle. Fifteen seconds after the engine 

starts, place the transmission in gear. 

Twenty seconds after the engine starts, 

begin the initial vehicle acceleration of 

the driving schedule. 

(iii) At the end of the deceleration 

scheduled to occur 505 seconds into the 

cold-start UDDS, simultaneously switch 

all the sample flows from the cold-start 

transient interval to the stabilized 

interval, stopping all cold-start transient 

interval sampling and recording, 

including background sampling. Reset 

integrating devices for the stabilized 

interval and indicate the end of the 

cold-start interval in the recorded data. 

Operate the vehicle over the remainder 

of the UDDS. Turn the engine off 2 

seconds after the end of the last 

deceleration in the stabilized interval 

(1,369 seconds after the start of the 

driving schedule). 

(iv) Five seconds after the engine 

stops running, stop all stabilized 

interval sampling and recording, 

including background sampling. Stop 

any integrating devices for the stabilized 

interval and indicate the end of the 

stabilized interval in the recorded data. 

Note that the 5 second delay is intended 

to account for sampling system 

transport. 

(2) Take the following steps for the 

hot-start test: 

(i) Initiate the hot-start test (9 to 11) 

minutes after the end of the sample 

period for the cold-start UDDS. 

(ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section. Operate the 

vehicle over the first 505 seconds of the 

UDDS. At the end of the deceleration 

scheduled to occur 505 seconds into the 

hot-start UDDS, turn off the engine and 

simultaneously stop all hot-start 

sampling and recording, including 

background sampling, and any 

integrating devices. 

(iii) For tests that do not include bag 

4 operation, turn the engine off. To 

include bag 4 measurement, operate the 

vehicles over the remainder of the 

UDDS and conclude the testing as 

described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and 

(iv) of this section. 

(3) This completes the procedure for 

measuring FTP exhaust emissions. See 

40 CFR part 86, subpart B, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30184 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1066.801 for continuing to evaporative 

or refueling tests. 

§ 1066.822 Composite calculations for FTP 

exhaust emissions. 

(a) Determine the mass of exhaust 

emissions of each pollutant for each 

FTP test interval as described in 

§ 1066.610. 

(b) Calculate the final composite 

gaseous test results as a mass-weighted 

value, e[emission]-FTPcomp, in grams per mile 

using the following equation: 

Where: 

mc = the combined mass emissions 

determined from the cold-start UDDS 

test interval (generally known as bag 1 

and bag 2), in grams. 

Dct = the measured driving distance from the 

transient portion of the cold-start test 

(bag 1), in miles. 

Dcs = the measured driving distance from the 

stabilized portion of the cold-start test 

(bag 2), in miles. 

mh = the combined mass emissions 

determined from the hot-start UDDS test 

interval in grams. This is the hotstabilized portion from either the first or 

second UDDS (bag 2, unless you measure 

bag 4), in addition to the hot transient 

portion (bag 3). 

Dht = the measured driving distance from the 

transient portion of the hot-start test (bag 

3), in miles. 

Dhs = the measured driving distance from the 

stabilized portion of the hot-start test 

(bag 4), in miles. Set Dhs = Dcs for testing 

where the hot-stabilized portion of the 

UDDS is not run. 

(c) Calculate the final composite PM 

test results as a mass-weighted value, 

ePM-FTPcomp, in grams per mile as follows: 

(1) Use the following equation for PM 

measured as described in 

§ 1066.820(b)(1), (2), or (3): 

Where: 

mPM-cUDDS = the combined PM mass 

emissions determined from the cold-start 

UDDS test interval (bag 1 and bag 2), in 

grams, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610– 

2. 

mPM-hUDDS = the combined PM mass 

emissions determined from the hot-start 

UDDS test interval (bag 3 and bag 4), in 

grams, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610– 

2. This is the hot-stabilized portion from 

either the first or second UDDS (bag 2, 

unless you measure bag 4), in addition 

to the hot transient portion (bag 3). 

(2) Use the following equation for PM 

measured as described in 

§ 1066.820(b)(4): 

Where: 

mPM = the combined PM mass emissions 

determined from the cold-start UDDS 

test interval and the first 505 seconds of 

the hot-start UDDS test interval (bag 1, 

bag 2, and bag 3), in grams, as calculated 

using Eq. 1066.610–3. 

(3) Use the following equation for PM 

measured as described in 

§ 1066.820(b)(5): 

Where: 

mPM = the combined PM mass emissions 

determined from the cold-start UDDS 

test interval and the hot-start UDDS test 

interval (bag 1, bag 2, bag 3, and bag 4), 

in grams, as calculated using Eq. 

1066.610–4. 

§ 1066.830 Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures; overview. 

Sections 1066.831 and 1066.832 

describe the detailed procedures for the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.132</GPH> EP21MY13.133</GPH> EP21MY13.134</GPH> EP21MY13.135</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30185 

Supplemental Federal Test Procedure 

(SFTP). This testing applies for all 

vehicles subject to the SFTP standards 

in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. The SFTP 

test procedure consists of FTP testing 

and two additional test elements—a 

sequence of vehicle operation with more 

aggressive driving and a sequence of 

vehicle operation that accounts for the 

impact of the vehicle’s air conditioner. 

(a) The SFTP standard applies as a 

composite representing the three test 

elements. The emission results from the 

aggressive driving test element 

(§ 1066.831), the air conditioning test 

element (§ 1066.832), and the FTP test 

element (§ 1066. 820) are analyzed 

according to the calculation 

methodology and compared to the 

applicable SFTP emission standards as 

described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. 

(b) The test elements of the SFTP may 

be run in any sequence that includes the 

specified preconditioning steps. 

§ 1066.831 Exhaust emission test 

procedures for aggressive driving. 

(a) This section describes how to test 

using the US06 or LA–92 driving 

schedule. The US06 driving schedule 

can be divided into two test intervals— 

the US06 City cycle comprises the 

combined portions of the cycle from 1 

to 130 seconds and from 495 to 596 

seconds, and the US06 Highway cycle 

comprises the portion of the cycle 

between 130 and 495 seconds. See 

§ 1066.801 for further information on 

the driving schedules. 

(b) Take the following steps to 

precondition vehicles for testing under 

this section: 

(1) Drain and refill the vehicle’s fuel 

tank(s) in any of the following cases: 

(i) For aggressive-driving tests that do 

not follow FTP or HFET testing. 

(ii) For a test element that starts more 

than 72 hours after the most recent FTP 

or HFET measurement (with or without 

evaporative emission measurements). 

(iii) For testing in which the test 

vehicle has not remained in an area 

where ambient temperatures were 

within the range specified for testing 

since the previous FTP or HFET. 

(2) Keep ambient temperatures within 

the ranges specified for test 

measurements throughout the 

preconditioning sequence. 

(3) Warm up the vehicle to a 

stabilized condition as follows: 

(i) Push or drive the vehicle onto the 

dynamometer. 

(ii) Operate the vehicle one time over 

one of the driving schedules specified in 

this paragraph (b)(3)(ii). You may ask us 

to use a particular preconditioning 

driving schedule if that is related to fuel 

effects on adaptive memory systems. For 

our testing, we will generally operate 

the vehicle over the same 

preconditioning cycle that will be used 

for testing in this section. You may 

exercise your sampling equipment, but 

you may not determine emissions 

results during preconditioning. Choose 

from the following driving schedules: 

(A) The first 505 seconds of the UDDS 

(bag 1). 

(B) The last 866 seconds of the UDDS 

(bag 2). 

(C) The HFET driving schedule. 

(D) US06 driving schedule or, for 

heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 

pounds GVWR, just the highway portion 

of the US06 driving schedule. 

(E) The SC03 driving schedule. 

(F) The LA–92 driving schedule. 

(4) Allow the vehicle to idle for (1 to 

2) minutes. This leads directly into the 

test measurements described in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) For testing involving the full US06 

driving schedule, you may collect 

emissions from separate city and 

highway test intervals (see 40 CFR part 

600), or you may collect emissions over 

the full US06 driving schedule as a 

single test interval. Take the following 

steps for to measure emissions over 

separate city and highway test intervals: 

(1) At 130 seconds, simultaneously 

stop all US06 City, and start all US06 

Highway sampling, recording, and 

integrating (including background 

sampling). At 136 seconds (before the 

acceleration), record the measured 

dynamometer roll revolutions. 

(2) At 495 seconds, simultaneously 

stop all US06 Highway, and start all 

US06 City sampling, recording, and 

integrating (including background 

sampling). At 500 seconds (before the 

acceleration), record the measured 

dynamometer roll revolutions. 

(3) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c)(4) of this section, treat the emissions 

from the first and second portions of the 

US06 City test interval as a single 

sample. 

(4) If you collect gaseous emissions 

over separate city and highway test 

intervals, you may still collect PM over 

the full US06 driving schedule as a 

single test interval. If you do this, 

calculate a composite dilution factor 

based on city and highway emissions 

using Eq. 1066.620–4 to show that you 

meet the dilution factor requirements of 

§ 1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B). 

(d) For diesel-fueled vehicles, 

measure THC emissions on a 

continuous basis as described in 40 CFR 

part 1065. For separate measurement of 

the city and highway test intervals as 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section, perform separate calculations 

for each portion of the test cycle. 

(e) Follow the exhaust emission 

measurement procedures specified in 

§§ 1066.410 through 1066.430, subject 

to the following exceptions and 

additional provisions: 

(1) Following the preconditioning 

specified in § 1066.830, place the 

vehicle in gear and simultaneously start 

sampling and recording. Begin the first 

acceleration 5 seconds after placing the 

vehicle in gear. 

(2) Operate the vehicle over the full 

US06 driving schedule, except as 

follows: 

(i) For heavy-duty vehicles above 

10,000 pounds GVWR, operate the 

vehicle over the LA–92 driving 

schedule. 

(ii) Heavy-duty vehicles at or below 

10,000 pounds GVWR may be certified 

using only the highway portion of the 

US06 driving schedule. See 40 CFR 

86.1816. 

(3) Turn the engine off 2 seconds 

before the end of the driving schedule. 

Five seconds after the engine stops 

running, stop all sampling and 

recording, including background 

sampling. Stop any integrating devices 

and indicate the end of the test cycle in 

the recorded data. 

(4) Correct calculated NOX emissions 

as described in § 1066.630(a)(1). 

§ 1066.832 Exhaust emission test 

procedure for SC03 emissions. 

This section describes how to test 

using the SC03 driving schedule (see 

§ 1066.801). This procedure is designed 

to determine gaseous exhaust emissions 

while simulating an urban trip on a hot 

summer day. The provisions of 40 CFR 

part 86 and 40 CFR part 600 waive SC03 

testing for some vehicles; in those cases, 

calculate SFTP composite emissions by 

adjusting the weighting calculation as 

specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. 

(a) Keep the vehicle in an 

environment meeting the conditions 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section throughout the preconditioning 

sequence. 

(b) Warm up the vehicle to a 

stabilized condition as follows: 

(1) Push or drive the test vehicle onto 

the dynamometer. 

(2) Operate the test vehicle one time 

over the first 505 seconds of the UDDS 

(bag 1), the last 867 seconds of the 

UDDS (bag 2), or the SC03 driving 

schedule. If the air conditioning test 

sequence starts more than 2 hours after 

a different exhaust emission test, you 

may instead operate the vehicle one 

time over the full UDDS. 

(3) Following the preconditioning 

drive, turn off the test vehicle and the 

vehicle cooling fan(s) and allow the 

vehicle to soak for (9 to 11) minutes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30186 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Follow the exhaust emission 

measurement procedures specified in 

§§ 1066.410 through 1066.430, subject 

to the following exceptions and 

additional provisions: 

(1) Close the vehicle’s windows before 

testing. 

(2) The test cell and equipment must 

meet the specifications in paragraph (d) 

of this section. Measure and control 

ambient conditions as specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

(3) Set the vehicle’s air conditioning 

controls by selecting A/C mode and 

‘‘maximum’’, setting airflow to 

‘‘recirculate’’ (if so equipped), selecting 

the highest fan setting, and turning the 

A/C temperature to full cool (or 72 °F 

for automatic systems). Turn the control 

to the ‘‘on’’ position before testing so the 

air conditioning system is active 

whenever the engine is running. 

(4) Place the vehicle in gear 15 

seconds after engine starting. Follow the 

SC03 driving schedule. 

(5) Turn the engine off 2 seconds 

before the end of the driving schedule. 

Five seconds after the engine stops 

running, stop all sampling and 

recording, including background 

sampling. Stop any integrating devices 

any indicate the end of the test cycle in 

the recorded data. Note that the 5 

second delay is intended to account for 

sampling system transport. 

(6) Correct calculated NOX emissions 

as described in § 1066.630(a)(2). 

(d) The following requirement apply 

for the test cell and cooling fan 

configuration: 

(1) Minimum test cell size. The test 

cell must be at least 20 feet wide, 40 feet 

long, and 10 feet high, unless we 

approve the use of a smaller test cell. 

We will approve this only if you 

demonstrate that the smaller test cell is 

capable of meeting all the requirements 

of this section. 

(2) Vehicle frontal air flow. Verify that 

the fan configuration meets the 

requirements of § 1066.105(c)(3) before 

each test. 

(e) Maintain ambient conditions as 

follows: 

(1) Ambient temperature. Measure 

and record ambient temperature in the 

test cell at least once every 30 seconds 

during the sampling period. Control 

ambient temperature during emission 

sampling to 35.0 ±3.0 °C throughout the 

test and (33.6 to 36.4) °C on average. 

(2) Ambient humidity. Measure and 

record ambient humidity in the test cell 

at least once every 30 seconds during 

the sampling period. Control ambient 

humidity during emission sampling as 

described in § 1066.425(d). 

(3) Conditions before and after testing. 

Use good engineering judgment to 

demonstrate that you meet the specified 

instantaneous temperature and 

humidity tolerances in paragraphs (e)(1) 

and (2) of this section at all times before 

and between emission measurements. 

(4) Solar heat load. Simulate solar 

heating as follows: 

(i) You may use a metal halide lamp, 

a sodium lamp, or a quartz halogen 

lamp with dichroic mirrors as a radiant 

energy emitter. We may also approve 

the use of a different type of radiant 

energy emitter if you demonstrate that it 

meets the requirements of this section. 

(ii) We recommend achieving radiant 

heating with spectral distribution 

characteristics as described in the 

following table: 

TABLE 1 OF § 1066.832—RECOMMENDED SPECTRAL DISTRIBUTION

Band width 

(nm) 

Percent of total spectrum 

Lower limit 

(%) 

Upper limit 

(%) 

<320 a ................ .................... 0 

320–400 ............ 0 7 

400–780 ............ 45 55 

>780 .................. 35 53 

a Note that you may need to filter the UV region between 280 and 320 nm. 

(iii) Determine radiant energy 

intensity experienced by the vehicle as 

the average value between two 

measurements along the vehicle’s 

centerline, one at the base of the 

windshield and the other at the bottom 

of the rear window (or equivalent 

location for vehicles without a rear 

window). This value must be 850 ±45 

W/m 2. Instruments for measuring 

radiant energy intensity must meet the 

following minimum specifications: 

(A) Sensitivity of 9 microvolts per W/ 

m2. 

(B) Response time of 5 seconds. For 

purposes of this requirement, ‘‘response 

time’’ means the time for the instrument 

to reach 95 percent of its equilibrium 

response after a step change in radiant 

intensity. 

(C) Linearity of ±0.5%. 

(D) Cosine response error of no more 

than ±1% for 0–70 degree zenith angles. 

The cosine response error is the 

percentage difference between the 

intensity measured at a given angle and 

the intensity predicted from the zerodegree intensity and the cosine of the 

incident angle. 

(iv) Check the uniformity of radiant 

energy intensity at least every 500 hours 

of emitter usage or every 6 months, 

whichever is sooner, and after any major 

modifications affecting the solar 

simulation. Determine uniformity by 

measuring radiant energy intensity as 

described in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this 

section at each point of a 0.5 m grid over 

the vehicle’s full footprint, including 

the edges of the footprint, at an 

elevation 1 m above the floor. Measured 

values of radiant energy intensity must 

be between (722 and 978) W/m2 at all 

points. 

§ 1066.835 AC17 air conditioning 

efficiency test procedure. 

(a) Overview. This section describes a 

voluntary procedure for measuring the 

net impact of air conditioner operation 

on CO2 emissions. See 40 CFR 86.1868 

for provisions describing how to use 

these procedures to calculate credits 

and otherwise comply with emission 

standards. 

(b) Test cell. Operate the vehicle in a 

test cell meeting the specifications 

described in § 86.832(d). You may add 

airflow up to at a maximum of 4 miles 

per hour during engine idling and when 

the engine is off if that is needed to meet 

ambient temperature or humidity 

requirements. 

(c) Ambient conditions. Measure and 

control ambient conditions as specified 

in § 86.832(e), except that you must 

control ambient temperature during 

emission sampling to 25.0 ±3.0 °C 

throughout the test and (23.6 to 26.4) °C 

on average. Note that solar heating is 

disabled for certain test intervals as 

described in this section. 

(d) Interior air temperature 

measurement. Measure and record the 

vehicle’s interior air temperature at least 

once every 5 seconds during the 

sampling period. Measure temperature 

at the outlet of the center-most duct on 

the dashboard and approximately 30 

mm behind the driver and passenger’s 

headrests. 

(e) Air conditioning system settings. 

For testing that requires the air 

conditioning to be operating, set the 

vehicle’s air conditioning controls as 

follows: 

(1) For automatic systems, set the 

temperature control to 72 °F. 

(2) For manual systems, select A/C 

mode and ‘‘maximum’’, set airflow to 

‘‘recirculate’’ (if so equipped), and select 

the highest fan setting. During the first 

idle period of the SC03 driving schedule 

(between 186 and 204 seconds), reduce 

the fan speed to nominally 50% of 

maximum fan speed, set airflow to 

‘‘fresh air’’ (if so equipped), and adjust 

the temperature setting to target a 

temperature of 55 °F at the dashboard 

air outlet. 

(f) Test procedure. Follow the exhaust 

emission measurement procedures 

specified in §§ 1066.410 through 

1066.430, subject to the following 

exceptions and additional provisions: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30187 

(1) Prepare the vehicle for testing 

according to 40 CFR 86.132–00 (a) 

through (g). 

(2) Open the vehicle’s windows and 

operate the vehicle over a 

preconditioning UDDS with no solar 

heating and with the air conditioning 

off. At the end of the preconditioning 

drive, turn off the test vehicle and all 

cooling fans. 

(3) Turn on solar heating within one 

minute after turning off the engine. 

Once the solar energy intensity reaches 

805 W/m2, let the vehicle soak for 30 ±1 

minutes. You may alternatively rely on 

prior measurements to start the soak 

period after a defined period of warming 

up to the specified solar heat load. Close 

the vehicle’s windows at the start of the 

soak period; ensure that the windows 

are adequately closed where 

instrumentation and wiring pass 

through to the interior. 

(4) Turn the air conditioning control 

to the ‘‘on’’ position before testing so the 

air conditioning system is active 

whenever the engine is running. Follow 

the SC03 driving schedule. Place the 

vehicle in gear 15 seconds after engine 

starting. At the end of the driving 

schedule, simultaneously switch all the 

sampling, recording, and integrating 

from SC03 to HFET, including 

background sampling. Indicate the end 

of the test cycle in the recorded data. 

Record the measured dynamometer roll 

revolutions corresponding to the SC03 

driving schedule. 

(5) Directly following the SC03 

driving schedule, operate the vehicle 

over the HFET driving schedule. Turn 

the vehicle off at the end of the driving 

schedule and simultaneously stop all 

sampling, recording, and integrating, 

including background sampling. 

Indicate the end of the test cycle in the 

recorded data. Record the measured 

dynamometer roll revolutions 

corresponding to the HFET drive 

schedule. Turn off the solar heating. 

(6) Allow the vehicle to remain on the 

dynamometer for (10 to 15) minutes 

after emission sampling has concluded. 

Repeat the testing described in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this 

section, but leave the vehicle’s windows 

open and turn off the vehicle’s air 

conditioner and the solar heating 

throughout the test run. 

(g) Calculations. (1) Determine the 

mass of CO2 emissions for each of the 

two test intervals as described in 

§ 1066.610. 

(2) Calculate the composite massweighted emissions of CO2, 

e[CO2]-AC17comp, representing the average 

of the SC03 and HFET emissions, in 

grams per mile using the following 

equation: 

Where: 

mSC03 = mass emissions from the SC03 test 

interval, in grams. 

mHFET = mass emissions from the HFET test 

interval, in grams. 

DSC03 = measured driving distance during the 

SC03 test interval, in miles. 

DHFET = measured driving distance during 

the HFET test interval, in miles. 

(h) Recordkeeping. In addition to the 

information specified in § 1066.695, you 

must record the following information 

for each vehicle tested: interior volume, 

climate control system type and 

characteristics, refrigerant used, 

compressor type, and evaporator/ 

condenser characteristics. 

§ 1066.839 Highway fuel economy test 

procedure. 

This section describes the procedure 

for the highway fuel economy test 

(HFET). This test involves emission 

sampling and fuel economy 

measurement for certain vehicles as 

described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, 

and in 40 CFR part 600. See § 1066.801 

for further information on the driving 

schedules. Follow the exhaust emission 

measurement procedures specified in 

§§ 1066.410 through 1066.430, subject 

to the following exceptions and 

additional provisions: 

(a) Perform the HFET immediately 

following the FTP when this is 

practical. If the HFET procedure starts 

more than 3 hours after an FTP 

(including evaporative emission 

measurements, if applicable), operate it 

over one UDDS to precondition the 

vehicle. We may approve additional 

preconditioning in unusual 

circumstances. 

(b) Operate the vehicle over the HFET 

driving schedule for preconditioning. 

Allow the vehicle to idle for 15 seconds 

(with the vehicle in gear), then start a 

repeat run of the HFET driving schedule 

and simultaneously start sampling and 

recording. 

(c) Turn the engine off at the end of 

the HFET driving schedule and stop all 

sampling and recording, including 

background. Stop any integrating 

devices and indicate the end of the test 

cycle in the recorded data. 

§ 1066.840 Fuel storage system leak test 

procedure. 

(a) Scope. Perform this test as 

required in the standard-setting part to 

verify that there are no significant leaks 

in your fuel storage system. 

(b) Measurement principles. Leaks are 

detected by measuring pressure, 

temperature, and flow to calculate an 

equivalent orifice diameter for the 

system. Use good engineering judgment 

to develop and implement leak test 

equipment. Your leak test equipment 

must meet the following requirements: 

(1) Pressure, temperature, and flow 

sensors must be calibrated with NISTtraceable standards. 

(2) Correct flow measurements to 

standard reference conditions. 

(3) Leak test equipment must have the 

ability to pressurize fuel storage systems 

to at least 4.1 kPa and have an internal 

leak rate of less than 0.20 standard liters 

per minute. 

(4) You must be able to attach the test 

equipment to the vehicle without 

permanent alteration of the fuel storage 

or evaporative emission control systems. 

(5) The point of attachment to the fuel 

storage system must allow 

pressurization to test system integrity of 

the fuel tank and of fuel lines and vapor 

lines reaching up to and including the 

gas cap and the evaporative canister. 

The evaporative system test port 

available on some vehicles is an 

example of an effective attachment 

point. 

(c) Leak test procedure. Test a 

vehicle’s fuel storage system for leaks as 

follows: 

(1) Refuel vehicle to 40% of its 

nominal fuel tank capacity. 

(2) Soak the vehicle for 6 to 24 hours 

at a temperature between (20 and 30) °C; 

record this setpoint temperature and 

maintain temperatures throughout the 

leak test at this setpoint temperature 

within a tolerance ± 2 °C. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.136</GPH>
30188 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(3) Before performing the test, purge 

the fuel storage system of any residual 

pressure, bringing the system into 

equilibrium with ambient pressure. 

(4) Seal the evaporative canister’s vent 

to atmosphere and ensure that the 

vehicle’s purge valve is closed. 

(5) Attach the leak test equipment to 

the vehicle. 

(6) Pressurize the fuel storage system 

with N2 or another inert gas to at least 

2.4 kPa. Use good engineering judgment 

to avoid overpressurizing the system. 

(7) Maintain gas flow through the 

system for at least 180 seconds, ensuring 

that the flow reading is stable for an 

effective leak diameter of ± 0.002 

inches. 

(8) Use the following equation, or a 

different equation you develop based on 

good engineering judgment, to calculate 

the effective leak diameter, Deff: 

Where: 

Deff = effective leak diameter, in inches. 

Vgas = volumetric flow of gas, in m3/s. 

p1 = inlet pressure to orifice, in kPa. 

p2 = atmospheric pressure, in kPa. 

G = specific gravity of N2 at atmospheric 

pressure and 15.5 °C 

T = temperature of flowing medium, in K. 

(9) You may perform any number of 

replicate tests, but all the tests for a 

vehicle must use the same attachment 

point. The average value of replicate 

tests is the official result for a given 

vehicle. 

(10) You may use special or 

alternative test procedures as described 

in 40 CFR 1065.10(c). 

(d) Equipment calibration. Use good 

engineering judgment to calibrate the 

leak check device. 

Subpart J—[Reserved] 

Subpart K—Definitions and Other 

Reference Material 

§ 1066.1001 Definitions. 

The definitions in this section apply 

to this part. The definitions apply to all 

subparts unless we note otherwise. 

Other terms have the meaning given in 

40 CFR part 1065. The definitions 

follow: 

Bag 1 means relating to the first 505 

s of the FTP cold-start test interval. Note 

that the term bag 1 may also apply to 

measurement of constituents that are 

not collected in a bag, such as PM and 

continuously measured THC. 

Bag 2 means relating to the last 867 

s of the FTP cold-start test interval. 

Bag 3 means relating to the first 505 

s of the FTP hot-start test interval. 

Bag 4 means relating to the last 867 

s of the FTP hot-start test interval, if 

run. Note that bag 2 is generally used in 

place of bag 4. 

Base inertia means a value expressed 

in mass units to represent the rotational 

inertia of the rotating dynamometer 

components between the vehicle driving 

tires and the dynamometer torquemeasuring device, as specified in 

§ 1066.250. 

C1-equivalent means a convention of 

expressing HC concentrations based on 

the total number of carbon atoms 

present, such that the C1-equivalent of 

an HC concentration equals the 

concentration multiplied by the mean 

number of carbon atoms in each HC 

molecule. For example, the C1- 

equivalent of 10 ppm of propane (C3H8) 

is 30 ppm. C1-equivalent concentration 

values may be denoted as ‘‘ppmC’’ in 

the standard-setting part. Densities may 

also be expressed on a C1 basis. Note 

that calculating HC masses from 

concentrations and densities is only 

valid where they are each expressed on 

the same carbon basis. 

Driving schedule means a series of 

vehicle speeds that a vehicle must 

follow during a test. Driving schedules 

are specified in the standard-setting 

part. A driving schedule may consist of 

multiple test intervals. 

Duty cycle means a set of weighting 

factors and the corresponding test 

cycles, where the weighting factors are 

used to combine the results of multiple 

test intervals into a composite result. 

FTP means one of the following: 

(1) The test cycle consisting of one 

UDDS as specified in paragraph (a) of 

Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, followed 

by a 10-minute soak with the engine off 

and repeat driving through the first 505 

seconds of the UDDS. See 

§ 1066.801(c)(1). 

(2) The entire test procedure for 

measuring exhaust and/or evaporative 

emissions as described in § 1066.801(c). 

Footprint has the meaning given in 

the standard-setting part. 

HFET means the test cycle specified 

in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 600. 

LA–92 means the test cycle specified 

in Appendix I, paragraph (c), of 40 CFR 

part 86. 

Nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) 

means the combination of organic gases 

other than methane as calculated in 

§ 1066.665. Note that for this part, the 

organic gases are summed on a mass 

basis without any adjustment for 

photochemical reactivity. 

Parts-per-million (ppm) means ppm 

on a molar basis. For hydrocarbon 

concentrations including HC, THC, 

NMHC, and NMOG, ppm means ppm on 

a C1-equivalent molar basis. 

Road-load coefficients means sets of 

A, B, and C road-load force coefficients 

that are used in the dynamometer roadload simulation, where road-load force 

at speed v equals A + B·v + C·v2. 

SC03 means the test cycle specified in 

Appendix I, paragraph (h), of 40 CFR 

part 86. 

SFTP means the collection of test 

cycles as given in 1066.801(c)(2). 

Standard reference conditions means 

the following: 

(1) Pressure at 101.325 kPa. 

(2) Temperature at 293.15 K. 

Test interval means a period over 

which a vehicle’s emission rates are 

determined separately. For many 

standards, compliance with the 

standard is based on a weighted average 

of the mass emissions from multiple test 

intervals. For example, the standardsetting part may specify a complete duty 

cycle as a cold-start test interval and a 

hot-start test interval. In cases where 

multiple test intervals occur over a duty 

cycle, the standard-setting part may 

specify additional calculations that 

weight and combine results to arrive at 

composite values for comparison against 

the applicable standards. 

Test weight has the meaning given in 

§ 1066.810. 

UDDS means the test cycle specified 

in Appendix I, paragraph (a), of 40 CFR 

part 86. 

US06 means the test cycle specified in 

Appendix I, paragraph (g), of 40 CFR 

part 86. 

Unloaded coastdown means a 

dynamometer coastdown run with the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP21MY13.137</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30189 

vehicle wheels removed from the roll 

surface. 

We (us, our) means the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency 

and any authorized representatives. 

§ 1066.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, 

acronyms, and units of measure. 

The procedures in this part generally 

follow either the International System of 

Units (SI) or the United States 

customary units, as detailed in NIST 

Special Publication 811, which we 

incorporate by reference in § 1066.1010. 

See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific 

provisions related to these conventions. 

This section summarizes the way we 

use symbols, units of measure, and 

other abbreviations. 

(a) Symbols for quantities. This part 

uses the following symbols and units of 

measure for various quantities: 

Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Unit in terms of SI 

base units 

α .................. atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio .......... mole per mole ...................................... mol/mol ...................... 1 

a .................. acceleration .......................................... feet per second squared or meters per 

second squared.

ft/s 2 or m/s 2 .............. m·s ¥2

β .................. atomic oxygen to carbon ratio ............. mole per mole ...................................... mol/mol ...................... 1 

c .................. conversion factor .................................

Cd ................ discharge coefficient ............................

d .................. diameter ............................................... meters .................................................. m ............................... m 

DF ............... dilution factor ....................................... .............................................................. .................................... 1 

e .................. mass weighted emission result ........... grams/mile ........................................... g/mi ............................

F .................. force ..................................................... pound force or newton ......................... lbf or N ...................... kg·s ¥2

ƒ .................. frequency ............................................. hertz ..................................................... Hz .............................. s ¥1

I ................... inertia ................................................... pound mass or kilogram ...................... lbm or kg ................... kg 

I ................... current .................................................. ampere ................................................. A ................................ A 

i ................... indexing variable ..................................

m ................. mass .................................................... pound mass or kilogram ...................... lbm or kg ................... kg 

N .................. total number in series ..........................

n .................. total number of pulses in a series .......

r .................. mass density ........................................ kilogram per cubic meter ..................... kg/m 3 ......................... kg·m ¥3

R .................. dynamometer roll revolutions .............. revolutions per minute ......................... rpm ............................ 2·π·60 ¥1

Re # ............. Reynolds number .................................

Q ................. flow ....................................................... cubic feet or cubic meter .....................

Q ̇ ................. flow rate ............................................... cubic feet per minute or cubic meter 

per second.

p .................. pressure ............................................... pascal ................................................... Pa .............................. m¥1·kg·s ¥2

T .................. Celsius temperature ............................. degree Celsius ..................................... °C .............................. K¥273.15 

T .................. torque (moment of force) ..................... newton meter ....................................... N·m ............................ m2·kg·s¥2

t ................... time ...................................................... second ................................................. s ................................. s 

Δt ................. time interval, period, 1/frequency ........ second ................................................. s ................................. s 

U .................. voltage ................................................. volt ....................................................... V ................................ m2·kg·s¥3·A ¥1

v .................. speed ................................................... miles per hour or meters per second .. mph or m/s ................ m·s¥1

VP ............... volume percent ....................................

x .................. mass of emission over a test interval .. kilogram ............................................... kg ............................... kg 

y .................. generic variable ...................................

(b) Symbols for chemical species. This 

part uses the following symbols for 

chemical species and exhaust 

constituents: 

Symbol Species 

CH4 ........ methane. 

CO ......... carbon monoxide. 

CO2 ........ carbon dioxide. 

NMHC .... nonmethane hydrocarbon. 

NMHCE .. nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent. 

NMOG .... nonmethane organic gas. 

NO ......... nitric oxide. 

NO2 ........ nitrogen dioxide. 

NOX ....... oxides of nitrogen. 

N2O ........ nitrous oxide. 

O2 ........... molecular oxygen. 

OHC ....... oxygenated hydrocarbon. 

PM ......... particulate matter. 

THC ....... total hydrocarbon. 

THCE ..... total hydrocarbon equivalent. 

(c) Superscripts. This part uses the 

following superscripts to define a 

quantity: 

Superscript Quantity 

overbar 

(such 

as y ̄).

arithmetic mean. 

(d) Subscripts. This part uses the 

following subscripts to define a 

quantity: 

Subscript Quantity 

abs ......... absolute quantity. 

act .......... actual or measured condition. 

actint ...... actual or measured condition over 

the speed interval. 

atmos ..... atmospheric. 

b ............. base. 

c ............. coastdown. 

comp ...... composite. 

cor .......... corrected. 

dexh ....... dilute exhaust quantity. 

dil ........... dilute. 

e ............. effective. 

emission emission specie. 

error ....... error. 

Subscript Quantity 

exh ......... raw exhaust quantity. 

exp ......... expected quantity. 

fil ............ filter. 

final ........ final. 

flow ........ flow measurement device type. 

i .............. an individual of a series. 

int ........... intake. 

init .......... initial quantity, typically before an 

emission test. 

max ........ the maximum (i.e. peak) value 

expected at the standard over 

a test interval; not the maximum of an instrument range. 

meas ...... measured quantity. 

ref ........... reference quantity. 

rev .......... revolution. 

roll .......... dynamometer roll. 

s ............. settling. 

sat .......... saturated condition. 

span ....... span quantity. 

std .......... standard conditions. 

test ......... test quantity. 

uncor ...... uncorrected quantity. 

w ............ weighted. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

30190 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Subscript Quantity 

zero ........ zero quantity. 

(e) Other acronyms and abbreviations. 

This part uses the following additional 

abbreviations and acronyms: 

A/C ......... air conditioning. 

ALVW ..... adjusted loaded vehicle weight. 

CFR ....... Code of Federal Regulations. 

CFV ........ critical-flow venturi. 

CVS ....... constant-volume sampler. 

EPA ........ Environmental Protection Agency. 

ETW ....... equivalent test weight. 

EV .......... electric vehicle. 

FID ......... flame-ionization detector. 

FTP ........ Federal test procedure. 

GC ......... gas chromatograph. 

GHG ....... greenhouse gas (including CO2, 

N2O, and CH4). 

GVWR .... gross vehicle weight rating. 

HEV ....... hybrid electric vehicle. 

HFET ..... highway fuel economy test. 

HLDT ..... heavy light-duty truck. 

HPLC ..... high pressure liquid chromatography. 

IBR ......... incorporated by reference. 

MDPV .... medium-duty passenger vehicle. 

NIST ....... National Institute for Standards 

and Technology. 

PDP ....... positive-displacement pump. 

PHEV ..... plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. 

PM ......... particulate matter. 

RESS ..... rechargeable energy storage system. 

SAE ........ Society of Automotive Engineers. 

SC03 ...... air conditioning driving schedule. 

SEA ........ selective enforcement audit. 

SFTP ...... supplemental federal test procedure. 

SSV ........ subsonic venturi. 

UDDS ..... urban dynamometer driving cycle. 

US06 ...... aggressive driving schedule. 

U.S.C. .... United States Code. 

(f) This part uses the following 

densities of chemical species: 

Symbol Quantity1 2 g/m3 g/ft3

rCH4 ................. density of methane ............................................................................................................. 666.905 18.8847 

rCH3OH ............. density of methanol ............................................................................................................ 1332.02 37.7185 

rC2H5OH ........... C1-equivalent density of ethanol ........................................................................................ 957.559 27.1151 

rC2H4O ............. C1-equivalent density of acetaldehyde ............................................................................... 915.658 25.9285 

rC3H8 ............... density of propane .............................................................................................................. 611.035 17.3026 

rC3H7OH ........... C1-equivalent density of propanol ...................................................................................... 832.74 23.5806 

rCO .................. density of carbon monoxide ............................................................................................... 1164.41 32.9725 

rCO2 ................. density of carbon dioxide ................................................................................................... 1829.53 51.8064 

rHC-gas ............. effective density of hydrocarbon—gaseous fuel 3 .............................................................. (see 3) (see 3) 

rHCHO .............. density of formaldehyde ..................................................................................................... 1248.21 35.3455 

rHC-liq .............. effective density of hydrocarbon—liquid fuel 4 ................................................................... 576.816 16.3336 

rNMHC-gas ......... effective density of nonmethane hydrocarbon—gaseous fuel 3 ......................................... (see 3) (see 3) 

rNMHC-liq .......... effective density of nonmethane hydrocarbon—liquid fuel 4 .............................................. 576.816 16.3336 

rNMHCE-gas ....... effective density of nonmethane equivalent hydrocarbon—gaseous fuel 3 ....................... (see 3) (see 3) 

rNMHCE-liq ........ effective density of nonmethane equivalent hydrocarbon—liquid fuel 4 ............................ 576.816 16.3336 

rNOx ................ effective density of oxides of nitrogen 5 ............................................................................. 1912.5 54.156 

rN2O ................ density of nitrous oxide ...................................................................................................... 1829.66 51.8103 

1 Densities are given at 20 °C and 101.325 kPa. 2 Densities for all hydrocarbon containing quantities are given in kg/m3-carbon atom and g/ft3-carbon atom. 3The effective density for natural gas fuel and liquefied petroleum gas fuel are defined by an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, of the hydrocarbon components of the test fuel. rHCgas = 0.04157·(12.011 + (a·1.008)). 4The effective density for gasoline and diesel fuel are defined by an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, a, of 1.85. 5The effective density of NOX is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO2. 

(g) Constants. (1) This part uses the 

following constants for the composition 

of dry air: 

Symbol Quantity mol/mol 

xArair .................. amount of argon in dry air ............................................................................................................................ 0.00934 

xCO2air ................ amount of carbon dioxide in dry air ............................................................................................................. 0.000375 

xN2air .................. amount of nitrogen in dry air ........................................................................................................................ 0.78084 

xO2air .................. amount of oxygen in dry air ......................................................................................................................... 0.209445 

(2) This part uses the following molar 

masses or effective molar masses of 

chemical species: 

Symbol Quantity g/mol 

(10¥3·kg·mol¥1) 

Mair .................... molar mass of dry air 1 ................................................................................................................................. 28.96559 

MH2O ................. molar mass of water ..................................................................................................................................... 18.01528 

1See paragraph (g)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 30191 

(h) Prefixes. This part uses the 

following prefixes to define a quantity: 

Symbol Quantity Value 

μ ........................ micro ................. 10¥6

m ....................... milli .................... 10¥3

c ......................... centi .................. 10¥2

k ......................... kilo ..................... 103

M ....................... mega ................. 106

§ 1066.1010 Reference materials. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. To enforce any edition 

other than that specified in this section, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

must publish a notice of the change in 

the Federal Register and the material 

must be available to the public. All 

approved material is available for 

inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Room B102, EPA West Building, 

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202–1744, 

and is available from the sources listed 

below. It is also available for inspection 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/code_of_federal_

regulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Society of Automotive Engineers, 

400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, 

PA 15096–0001, (877) 606–7323 (U.S. 

and Canada) or (724) 776–4970 (outside 

the U.S. and Canada), http:// 

www.sae.org. 

(1) SAE J1263, Road Load 

Measurement and Dynamometer 

Simulation Using Coastdown 

Techniques, Revised March 2010, IBR 

approved for §§ 1066.301(b) and 

1066.310(b). 

(2) SAE J1634, Electric Vehicle Energy 

Consumption and Range Test 

Procedure, Revised October 2012, IBR 

approved for § 1066.501. 

(3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice 

for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions 

and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric 

Vehicles, Including Plug-In Hybrid 

Vehicles, Revised June 2010, IBR 

approved for §§ 1066.122 and 1066.501. 

(4) SAE J2263, Road Load 

Measurement Using Onboard 

Anemometry and Coastdown 

Techniques, Revised December 2008, 

IBR approved for §§ 1066.301(b) and 

1066.310(b). 

(5) SAE J2264, Chassis Dynamometer 

Simulation of Road Load Using 

Coastdown Techniques, Issued April 

1995, IBR approved for § 1066.320. 

(6) SAE J2711, Recommended Practice 

for Measuring Fuel Economy and 

Emissions of Hybrid-Electric and 

Conventional Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 

Issued September 2002, IBR approved 

for § 1066.501. 

(7) SAE J2951, Drive Quality 

Evaluation for Chassis Dynamometer 

Testing, Revised November 2011, IBR 

approved for § 1066.430. 

(c) National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 

1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1070, 

(301) 975–6478, www.nist.gov, or 

inquiries@nist.gov. 

(1) NIST Special Publication 811, 

2008 Edition, Guide for the Use of the 

International System of Units (SI), 

March 2008, IBR approved for 

§§ 1066.20(a) and 1066.1005. 

(2) [Reserved] 

[FR Doc. 2013–08500 Filed 5–20–13; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2